inspector’s report · 2017. 12. 21. · irish underwater council coastguard stations residents...
TRANSCRIPT
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 237
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
PL 29N.PA0034
Development: Redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and
Berths 52 and 53 together with
associated works in Dublin Port.
Location: Dublin Port, Alexandra Road, Dublin1.
Application Type: Strategic Infrastructure, Section 37E,
Planning and Development Act 2000 (as
amended)
Planning Authority: Dublin City Council
Applicant: Dublin Port Company
Type of Application: Permission/Approval
Submissions/Observations: 23
Date of Site Inspection: 9th May 2014 and 29th May 2014
Inspector: Karla Mc Bride
Antony Cawley
(Hydro Environmental Ltd)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 237
Observers: Dublin City Council
Department of Arts, Heritage &Gaeltacht
Environmental Protection Agency
Inland Fisheries Ireland
Geological Survey of Ireland
National Roads Authority
National Transport Authority
ESB
EirGrid
An Taisce
Dublin Bay Watch
Irish Underwater Council
Coastguard Stations Residents Group
Clontarf Resident Association
Sandymount & Merrion Residents
Association
Donna Cooney (Green Party representative
for Clontarf)
Peadar Farrell
Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
Drogheda Port Company
Stena Line Limited
Irish Ferries Limited
Burke Shipping Group
Dublin Graving Docks Limited
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 237
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
THE APPLICATION 5
THE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 44
THE PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORT 50
SUBMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BODIES 52
GENERAL PUBLIC AND COMPANIES 55
FURTHER INFORMATION 64
THE ORAL HEARING 78
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 119
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 192
APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT 204
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 227
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 237
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site and location
1.1.1 The proposed development would be located within Dublin Port, the
Liffey channel and Dublin Bay. Dublin Port is bound to the W by East
Wall Road and East Link Bridge; to the S by East Wall Road; to the N
by the Tolka Estuary; and to the E by Dublin Bay. Dublin Port and the
surrounding area are mainly characterised by industrial and port related
land uses. The area to the W is dominated by commercial uses
including the 3 Arena (Point Depot), the Gibson Hotel and a LUAS
stop; the lands to the N are industrial with residential beyond at
Clontarf; and the lands to the S are mainly occupied by port related
uses and public utilities including the Poolbeg electricity generating
station and wastewater treatment plant. The Poolbeg Marina and
Coastguard Cottages are located opposite the W section of the Port.
1.1.2 The proposed development would comprise construction and dredging
works. The proposed construction works would be located in the W
section of the original historic port at Alexandra Basin and North Wall
Quay Extension, in the vicinity of Terminal 3 (P&O) and the bulk carrier
berths, and in the E section of the Port at Berths 52 and 53 in the
vicinity of Terminal 1 (Irish Ferries) and Terminal 5 (Seatruck berths).
The proposed dredging works would be located within Alexandra Basin
West, the Liffey Channel and the shipping channel as far E as the
Dublin Bay Bouy. The North Bull Island is located c.1km to the NE of
the proposed construction works and to the N of the proposed channel
dredging works.
1.1.3 There are three main vehicular access points to the Port Estate which
comprises a network of internal roads and junctions. The first access
point is located in the N section of the Port Estate along Promenade
Road in the vicinity of the Dublin Tunnel (Dublin Port Tunnel) and East
Wall Road. The second and third access points are located in the W
section of the Port Estate along East Wall Road at Alexandra Road and
the Terminal 3 entrance. The original historic entrance to Alexandra
Basin West and North Wall Quay Extension is also located off East
Wall Road in the vicinity of the Point Roundabout and the East Link
Bridge, although it is rarely used.
Photographs and maps in the attached wallet serve to describe the site
and location in some detail.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 237
1.2 Pre-Application Consultation
1.2.1 The Board’s Notice to the applicants under Section 37B (4) (a),
Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) confirmed that the
proposed development would constitute strategic infrastructure.
The records of the pre-application meetings, copied to the applicants,
also referred to the following issues as likely to be relevant to the
consideration of the application:
The treatment of legacy contaminated material.
Effects on residential amenity.
Effects on heritage and archaeology.
Implications for the future Eastern Bypass route options or any
options for the upgrading of the East Link Bridge.
The need to apply for a new dumping at sea licence from the EPA
and a Foreshore Licence.
2.0 THE APPLICATION
2.1 Documentation
2.1.1 The application documentation includes the following:
Planning Report
Community gain proposal
EIS
NIS
Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan
2.2 Development Description
2.2.1 By reference to the public notices the proposed development consists
of the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53
together with associated works in Dublin Port and the dredging of the
Liffey approach Channel.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 237
The development includes the following:
Alexandra Basin:
The infilling of Graving Dock No.2 (6,055sq.m)
The excavation and restoration of historic Graving Dock No.1.
The removal of infill material (9,000sq.m.)
The relocation of the ore concentrates loading system within
Alexandra Basin West
The relocation of double deck ramp No.4 to new river berth at
Berths Nos. 52/53
The demolition of:
o The bulk jetty (3,200sq.m.)
o A section of North Wall Quay Extension (21,700sq.m.)
o Five control rooms/buildings/oil bunds (1,715sq.m.)
o A floating ramp on the Liffey side of North wall Quay
Extension
o A lead-in jetty at Graving Dock No.2 within the Basin
The construction of:
o New quay walls at North Wall Quay Extension (937m in
length) including a rounded eastern end using salvaged
stone material from demolished sections of quay.
o Moving and reconstruction of existing light house to E end
of revised North Wall Quay Extension
o Extension of Alexandra Quay West (130m in length)
o Rebuilding of existing quay walls in the remainder of
Alexandra Basin West having an aggregate length of
1200sq.m.
o New 273m long Ro-Ro jetty and provision of three Ro-Ro
ramps
o Interpretative glazed pavilions (36sq.m.) on the W of the
reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension and the
presentation of a salvaged historic concrete block from
the demolished section of the quay
The dredging of:
o 470,000m3 of contaminated material to a depth of -10.0m
Chart Datum (CD) over an area of 194,000sq.m within the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 237
redeveloped Alexandra Basin and its subsequent
remediation.
Conservation works to the existing pump house and to retained
sections of North Wall Quay Extension
Berths 52 and 53
The demolition of:
Existing Berths 52 and 53
Jetty at Berth 52 (500sq.m.)
Concrete Dolphin at Berth 53 (500sq.m.)
The construction of :
A new river berth at Berths 52/53 (300m long)
A new 75m mooring jetty at new river berth
New 40m long mooring jetty to extend existing Berth 49 (50m
long)
The infilling of the Terminal 5 Ro-Ro basin (45,650sq.m.)
The raising of existing levels by 1.4m over an area of 95,000sq.m.
Dredging of new river berth to -10m CD
Liffey Channel
Construction of a marina protection structure to a height of +7.0m CD
and a length of 220m on the S side of the River channel.
Dredging of the shipping channel to a depth of -10m CD from a point
55m to the E of the East Link Bridge to a location in the vicinity of
Dublin Bay a total distance of 10, 320m.
2.3 Related matters
2.3.1 The proposed development traverses a designated European site in
the form of the channel deepening.
The following licences will be required:
Waste Licence from the EPA
Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 237
Foreshore consent under the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea
(Amendment Act) 2009
2.4 Planning Report
2.4.1 The Planning Report includes the following sections:
The importance of Dublin Port
Economic background and project justification
Relevant planning history
Description of the proposed development
Relevant plans and policies
Identification of the main planning issues
Community gain
2.4.2 The Report states that this is an application for a 10 year permission
given the extent of the proposed development, the restricted dredging
season and the complexities of keeping the Port fully operational during
the works; that some of the works are weather dependent; and that it is
intended to complete the works within 6 years.
2.4.3 The Report states that in order to cater for future need the applicant
needs to:
Provide for deeper berths and a deeper channel to cater for
larger vessels.
Reconfigure a number of existing quays and berths to cater for
longer vessels including the demolition of parts of the quays.
Provide for new improved quayside infrastructure.
Reconfigure for landside storage areas and provide some
additional areas to cater for increases in the volumes of unitised
cargo.
Provide for the remediation of contaminated areas.
2.4.4 The Report refers to the previous Gateway Project for a 21ha landfill
extension to the E of the Port into which was refused permission by the
Board under 29N.PA0007 in 2010. The Board was not satisfied that the
proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the
South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. The formulation of the
current proposal has been guided by this decision and the works are
confined to the established port and to the existing channel.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 237
2.4.5 The proposed development is stated to be compliant with relevant
plans and policies by reference to:
Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040
National Port Policy 2013
National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020
Transport 21
Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area
(RPG, GDA) 2004 – 2016
Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017
Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan Review 2008
The North Lotts and Grand Canal Planning Scheme
Other studies currently underway and that have a direct impact on
Dublin Port include:
Dublin Bay – “An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social
Vision for Sustainable Development” DCC.
The Dublin Port National Development Plan Study (The Indecon
Report, 2009.
The Special Task Force on Dublin Bay established by the
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban
Regeneration of City Port Heritage as a key for Sustainable
Economic, Social and Urban Development
2.4.6 Planning issues arising in the context of the proposed development are
identified as follows:
Traffic increases:
The proposal will lead to a c.2.5% increase in traffic per
annum.
It includes the closure of the Alexandra Road entrance from
East Wall Road which will direct traffic (including cruise traffic)
to the Port Tunnel which has adequate capacity with no
adverse impacts on local roads and junctions.
It will promote the increased use of rail freight thought the
movement of containers and bulk solids by rail.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 237
The berthing of cruise ships at North Wall Quay facilitate the
use of public transport, taxis and Dublin Bikes.
The Eastern Bypass
Proposal will not curtail the future development of the Eastern
By-pass, however the consideration of three alternative routes
could freeze large parts of the Port from development.
The DCC Development Plan does not contain a written
objective although it does show an indicative line on Map F as
a specific objective which is not prescriptive.
Discussions have taken place between the DCC, the NRA, and
DPC, a number of alternatives have been evaluated and a
route parallel to the East Link Bridge has been agreed.
A 55m wide reservation is provided for in the design of the
North Wall Quay Extension, which will allow the proposal to
proceed.
Conservation of archaeological & industrial archaeological heritage
The heritage primarily relates to underwater archaeology, some
anomalies were revealed but no shipwrecks or significant
archaeological material has been identified.
There are several items of industrial archaeological interest in
the area but no Protected Structures.
The conservation challenge relates to North Wall Quay
Extension, and it is proposed to demolish and reconstruct
sections of the quay wall, excavate and restore Graving Dock
1, and relocate the North Wall lighthouse.
Contamination
The silt at the bottom of Alexandra Basin West is contaminated
with heavy metals which has prevented maintenance dredging
of this part of the Port and is leading to its siltation. The silt will
be removed for treatment and reused as infill material.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 237
Contamination of silt in the Liffey Channel between the East
Link Bridge and the entrance to the Basin is minor and will be
disposed of at sea along with clean silt from the channel to the
E of the Basin entrance.
European Sites
Three European sites located in close proximity to the site.
Dredging would extend into the Rockabill to Dalkey SAC, there
are no reefs located within this dredge area and noise
mitigation would protect Harbour porpoises.
Noise and Vibration
There will be direct port noise from larger more frequent ships,
cargo traffic will be directed towards the port tunnel and
mitigation measures will control construction noise, with no
impact on residential amenity.
Visual amenity
Proposal involves the reconfiguration of existing port facilities
with no adverse impact on visual amenity.
Consent
Most of the landside works will take place within lands owned
by Dublin Port as do some of the works to the foreshore. The
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government
has agreed to the making of the application in relation to other
works to quay walls and dredging.
Community gain
Under Section 37 G (7) Planning and Development Act, 2000
the Board may attach a condition to facilitate the following:
o The handover of lands on the Bull Island in perpetuity to
the public under the control of DCC to provide a unified
ownership structure for the island.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 237
o The allocation of €200,000 towards the cost of a study
for a proposed International Visitor Centre and
Masterplan for the Bull Island.
o A further sum of € 1,000,000 towards the provision of
any services or facilities identified as a consequence of
the study and Masterplan to the DCC on an agreed
basis within 10 years of any grant of permission.
2.4.7 The Report was supplemented by the following Appendices:
Socio-economic aspects of the project
Project Rationale
Description of operations in Dublin Port
Possible future Eastern Bypass
Conservation strategy and industrial heritage appraisal
Community gain proposal
2.5 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
The EIS includes the following sections:
2.5.1 Background (EIS Section 1.1)
The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project comprises three
elements related to works at Alexandra Basin West, the infilling of
Berths 52 and 53 and the deepening of the approach channel.
The Masterplan 2012-2040 recognises the need to provide capacity in
the Port to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 and the ABR
project focusses on a combination of re-developing existing
infrastructure and increasing the productivity of existing port lands.
To increase the productivity of the Port, many of the new berths have
been designed to be multipurpose to cater for the needs of large ship
and cargo types.
2.5.2 Project justification/statement of need (EIS Section 1.2)
The works are needed for the following reasons:
To make provision for anticipated growth in volumes of both
cargo and passengers.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 237
Dublin is the preferred location for shipping services having
regard to regional connectivity afforded by road and rail.
Dublin Port needs to prepare for increases in ship sizes and
the changing operational preferences as well as being able to
cater for an increase in ship arrivals each day.
Dublin Port needs to reconfigure port operations to best meet
future capacity requirements.
Existing infrastructure is approaching the end of it useful life
and needs to be renewed/replaced.
The works to Alexandra Basin West will allow for the treatment
of legacy contamination which restricts efforts to carry out
routine and essential maintenance dredging operations.
In 2007 Dublin Port handled approximately 40% of the national trade,
including 63% of national Lo-Lo trade and 80% of national Ro-Ro trade.
Overall growth is predicted to be in the region of 2.5% per annum in the
30 years to 2040 for cargo volumes and cruise passenger volumes will
continue to increase substantially to c.140 ships per annum carrying
c.340, 000 passengers.
It is predicted that the port’s unitised business (Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) will
grow at a faster rate (2.8%) than its non-unitised business, primarily
bulk liquid and bulk solid commodities (0.7%), and as a result of this
differential, unitised cargos will account for 87.3% of total cargo by
2040 compared with 78.8% in 2010. Within the unitised cargo, Ro-Ro
is expected to grow faster (3.2%) than Lo-Lo (1.7%).
The main constraint in Dublin Port is the maintained channel depth of -
7.8m Chart Datum, and the available depth varies between 2 extremes
related to the highest and lowest Astronomical Tides.
The proposed works will enable the Port to cater for a range of much
larger ships than can currently be accommodated:
Container ships with draughts of up to 12.5m with capacities in
excess of 3,500TEU.
Dry bulk ships with draughts up to 12.5m with deadweight
capacities in the region of 55,000 tonnes.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 237
Deep sea Ro-Ro ships with draughts approaching 12m and
lengths approaching 300m.
Multipurpose (freight and passenger) Ro-Ro ferries with
lengths of up to 240m
Cruise ships up to 240m long with average draughts of 9m.
2.5.3 Consideration of Alternatives (EIS Section 1.3)
Options examined:
1. Do-nothing scenario.
2. Use of other locations within the port area.
3. Creation of other additional port areas.
4. Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the
south and west coasts.
5. Other locations for new ports
The EIS concluded that the proposed development offers the only
realistic solution in terms of the Dublin region’s requirements for the
movement of unitised trade in and out of the region by sea.
2.5.4 Construction Activities (EIS Section 4.2)
The works are divided into two primary work streams which are
broken into distinct sequential phases:
o The civil engineering works to facilitate the creation of
deep berths, and to enclose Berths 52 and 53.
o Dredging of the main channel and Alexandra Basin
West
There will be 3 month break in marine based piling operations
between March and May (inclusive) to mitigate against any
potential impact on migrating smolts in the river channel.
The rate of dredging in the main channel will be determined by
the capacity of the disposal site to accommodate material and
the length of the dredging season which is c.6 months.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 237
Dredging is expected to take 6 years (up to a maximum of 10
years), given favourable conditions and the prior completion of
the works at North Wall Quay and the Marina Wall.
The dredging of Alexandra Basin West is dependent on the
closing of Berths 52/53 and the requirement to have sufficient
re-fronted quay wall established to facilitate the dredged depth.
The rate will be determined by the rate of treatment of the
dredged material but is expected to take 18 months.
The civil engineering works will mainly comprise the re-fronting
of the existing quay walls with Alexandra Basin West and the
reconfiguration of the existing berths within the Basin and in
Berths 52/53, and the rate of work will be determined by the
need to keep the Port operational during the works.
The construction programme will take a maximum of 10 years.
2.5.5 Birds (EIS Section 5.1)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on birds in Dublin Port and the
navigational channel and approaches to the port.
Bird surveys within the port area:
Several winter bird surveys, boat based surveys and desk top studies
were undertaken for:
o Brent geese
o Black Guillemots
o Common Terns and Artic Terns
o All sea birds
The EIS listed the birds recorded in the surrounding Special Protection
Areas (SPAs).
Bird populations:
Brent Geese regularly use Alexandra Basin between November
and April to feed on agricultural foodstuff, in addition to intertidal
vegetation in Dublin Bay and amenity grasslands around Dublin;
and Dublin Bay holds the largest single group in Ireland.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 237
The Tolka Estuary is the nearest intertidal area to Alexandra
Basin and the Liffey Channel where 36 waterfowl species have
been identified, the sum of peak counts for all waterfowl species
in the estuary in 2012/13 was 18, 900 birds, and the average
total number of birds wintering in Dublin Bay 31, 700.
Dublin Bay holds a sizable colony of breeding Black Guillemots
who breed throughout the Port in disused drainage pipes and
feed on fish caught in the shallow waters of the Bay. There are
an estimated 82 adult birds in the Port and 16 in Alexandra
Basin which equates to 20% of the population.
Dublin Bay has held a breeding colony of Common Terns and
Artic Terns (Annex 1 species) at two mooring structures on the S
side of the Liffey near the Poolbeg power station and a total of
449 Common Terns and 33 Artic terns have been ringed.
Several other species of bird have been recorded in Alexandra
Basin although none have been recorded as breeding here.
The shipping channel survey recorded 31species of waterfowl.
The most abundant species was the Black-headed Gull, most of
the birds roosted on and around the outfall for the Ringsend
wastewater treatment works, the area was mainly used by
Common and Artic Terns, Black Guillemots, Cormorants,
Herring Gulls, Common Guillemots and occasionally Kittiwakes.
Impacts of works within Alexandra Basis West include:
Works include the construction of new quays and jetties,
remediation of contaminated sediments (heavy metals) and
capital dredging (c.0.47 million cubic meters) within a silt curtain
with the material removed to Berths 52/53 for remediation.
Brent Geese will continue to feed off agricultural feedstuff as the
works will occur on a phased basis, the birds are already used to
high levels of shipping activity and noise, and they will not be
exposed to contaminants as do not feed on water.
Black Guillemots breed in cavities within the quay walls and
jetties which will be removed, and new nest sites will be found
elsewhere in the Port.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 237
The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins are
sufficiently remote from Alexandra Basin and they will not be
affected by the works as they rarely fly into the Basin.
None of the other species that feed of agricultural foodstuff will
be significantly affected.
Impacts of works a Berths 52/53 include:
Works include the infilling of Berth 52/53 and the construction of
a new river berth, the remediation and re-use of the dredged
material from the Basin as infill.
There are no significant intertidal areas within this basin, fill
material will be contained by new steel pile wall with no
significant impacts on wintering birds predicted.
Two pairs of Black Guillemots were recorded in cavities in the
vicinity, this represents 5% of the total breeding population in the
Port, the cavities will be removed to prevent their use during
demolition and alternative nest sites will be found.
Impacts of works associated with capital dredging include:
Works include the dredging of c.5.9 million cubic meters of
material from North Wall Quay to Dublin Bay Buoy and the
construction of a surge protection/retaining wall along the S
edge of the navigation channel adjacent to the Poolbeg Marina.
The dredging of uncontaminated material will occur over a six
year period, during winter months only (October to March) to
negate any potential impact on Salmonid migration and summer
bird feeding and breeding in the vicinity of the operations.
Sediment deposition on the Tolka estuary will be c. 0.002kg/m3
with no adverse impact on the intertidal area.
Dredging will not alter the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment
transport in the Bay outside of the channel which will have the
same stability as the existing channel, with no adverse impact on
the surrounding intertidal areas and waterfowl.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 237
Turbidity in the channel will increase marginally which could
affect fish eating birds (Black Guillemots, Cormorants and terns):
o Monitoring of the term colony in the Port indicates that it
was not adversely affected by recent dredging, and
dredging will take place in the winter months when the
terns are absent.
o Black Guillemots usually forage for food in the wider Bay
and are only present in small numbers in the winter.
Overall impacts on the SPAs in Dublin Bay include:
There are two SPAs in inner Dublin Bay and a further six on the
wider Dublin coastline that may have connectivity to the Port.
There is no overlap with the SPA boundaries and the proposal.
Most SPA bird species fly over the shipping channel and the
Basin but only Brent Geese occurs in significant numbers in the
Basin and they will quickly adapt to any new food sources.
Black headed gulls mainly feed at the outfall from the Ringsend
WWTP.
The three tern species and Kittiwake are only present in the
summer months when there will be no dredging.
There will be no significant impacts on the SPAs either during
construction or operation.
Mitigation measures include:
Redevelopment of the Basin will be phased and spillage from
agricultural ships will continue to provide food for Brent Geese.
Artificial nest boxes will be provided for Black Guillemots.
2.5.6 Marine Mammals (EIS section 5.2)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on marine mammals in Dublin
Bay as a result of the proposed works including demolition, piling,
dredging and dumping of dredge spoil.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 237
Relevant European sites include:
Lambay Island SAC (Grey seal)
Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (Harbour porpoise)
Species that regularly use Dublin Bay and Burford Bank include:
Harbour porpoise in high densities of 1.19 per sq.km, very
sensitive to vessel noise and activity, not attracted to vessels.
Bottlenose dolphins are transient visitors to the Bay, attracted to
vessel activity and vulnerable to harm from dredging.
Minke whales are common around the coast near inshore waters
and very vulnerable to noise and are occasional users of the
Bay and Burford Bank.
Common dolphins are common around the coast, attracted to
vessels, infrequent visitors to the inner Bay but occasional users
of the outer Bay and Burford Bank.
Risso’s dolphins observed around the coast, not attracted to
vessels and no recorded sightings in the Bay.
Harbour (common) seals are present in the Bay and Burford
Bank, closest haul-out site is at Lambay Island, noise
disturbance could affect mating and they are at risk to
detrimental impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.
Grey seals have breeding sites at Lambay Island, Dalkey Island,
Irelands Eye and St. Patricks Island, frequently seen in Dublin
Bay, Howth Harbour, Sandycove, and Bull Island where they
also haul-out, extensive foragers and at risk to detrimental
impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.
Impacts of works on marine mammals include:
Pile driving
Pile driving noise can induce behavioural effects within a few km
from the sound source.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 237
Pile diving is a potentially detrimental activity and sound can
propagate through the water column and sediments.
Extended exposure to pile driving noise can lead to noise related
injuries and permanent hearing loss in cetaceans and pinnipeds,
source levels can adversely impact behaviour, communication
and breeding for up to 20km.
Sound propagation is dependent on water depth, bathymetry,
sediment type, oceanographic conditions and ambient noise
levels and behavioural responses.
Dredging, infilling and disposal of dredge material:
Sound disturbance and local habitat modification by destroying
the benthos through substrate removal, smothering and plumes.
Noise from dredging could affect Minke whales and Harbour
porpoises, harbour seals and grey seals.
Dredging can reduce the feeding quality or the area for at least
one season after dredging although it won’t eliminate fish from
the site and only 20% of the channel will be dredged per year.
Dredging can affect water quality and create plumes, fine
sediments will be dispersed by N-S tidal currents; temporary
effect on marine mammal visibility in the immediate vicinity and
fish feeding following each 6 month dredging period; but no
significant adverse impacts are predicted.
Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts include:
Piling, demolition and dredging within the basin at the same time
would increase potential impacts of sound exposure to marine
mammals.
The dump site has been used for dredged material and it is not a
significant feeding area for cetaceans or seals.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 237
Assessment of impact magnitude and significance:
Impacts of piling, dredging and dumping at the dump site on
marine mammals are not considered significant although
individuals will be affected by noise in the works area.
Mitigation measures include:
A marine mammal observer (MMO) should be employed.
No marine mammals should be present in the pre-determined
exclusion zones (500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m
for piling) in the 30 minute period prior to operation.
Noise producing activities should only commence in daylight
hours and a ramp up procedures must be employed over a 20-
40 minute period.
Piling, dredging and dumping should cease if a cetacean or seal
is observed in the vicinity of the works (c.50m).
There is no requirement to halt or discontinue activity at night
time, in poor weather conditions or if marine mammal occurs
within 500m (dredging and demolition) and 1000m (piling).
Residual impacts include:
None after mitigation.
2.5.7 Terrestrial Ecology (EIS section 5.3)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on terrestrial ecology.
Methodology:
The surveys comprised a desk top study and an Extended Phase 1
Habitat Survey of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 to identify:
Plant habitats
Invasive flora and fauna
Invertebrates
Protected amphibians (smooth newt and common frog)
Protected reptiles (Common lizard)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 237
Surveys were also carried out for Badgers, Otters and Bats.
Baseline data:
Of the 57 Protected Species identified with a 1km buffer from the
Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, 15 were recorded in the works area
(mainly waterfowl and 2 species of bat) and 11 are likely to occur
(waterfowl, grey seal, otter and 1 species of bat).
The results of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey include:
No evidence of badgers, otters, Invertebrates, protected
amphibians, protected reptiles or invasive flora and fauna.
The North Quay lighthouse and a Tara mines conveyor building
have minimal Bat roost potential as the foraging potential of the
site is low, however an Automated Passive Monitoring survey
recorded two species of bat (Common pipistrelle and Leisler’s
bat) which were probably foraging but not roosting.
The results of the Impact Assessment include:
No significant loss of habitat or protected species.
No loss of typical bat associated habitats.
No mitigation measures required.
2.5.8 Benthic Ecology and Fisheries (EIS section 5.4)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on benthic ecology and
fisheries.
The Benthos Methodology included:
Baseline surveys were undertaken and 25 sub tidal grab samples were
collected from the Bay (Figure 5.4.1 of the EIS); a Particle Size
Assessment divided the material into gravel, sand and silt-clay and the
level of organic matter was estimated. A sub-tidal video was carried out
on 24 sites (Figure 5.4.2 of the EIS).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 237
The Benthos results include:
Sandy muds are present in the sheltered areas at the Basin and
Berths 52/53 and within the Liffey channel adjacent to the Port,
while fine, gravelly and muddy sands occur along the more
exposed parts of the Bay (Figure 5.4.4 of the EIS).
Two distinct faunal groupings identified in the W parts of the
inner Bay and the outer parts of the Bay, the species are
common to the Irish coast and not of conservation interest.
The Burford Bank has been used as a dump site for more than
100 years, the N-S current takes the dredged material away to
open sea and the ecological impacts are site specific.
Some 5.9 million cubic metres of sediment will be disposed of
over a 6 year period, resulting in the deposition of c.1.0 million
cubic metres of sediments per year (October to March) or c.177,
000 cubic metres per month.
The dump site is characterised by fine to medium sands with
high benthos stability and the WFD ecological rating is High.
The Fisheries Methodology included:
Desktop studies and field surveys which included trawling (18
beam trawls) and the deployment of two fyke nets on the N
edges of the channel (Figure 5.4.17 of the EIS).
The Fisheries results include:
The Liffey system supports a regionally significant population of
Atlantic salmon, a species listed under Annex II and V of the EU
Habitats Directive and the rivers Tolka and Dodder have
populations of salmon and sea trout.
The coastal and inshore habitats around Dublin Bay provide
nursery areas for commercially valuable species and recreational
sea angling takes place in Dublin Bay.
Twaite shad have been recorded in the River Liffey and they are
listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive while Lampreys are
protected in designated SAC’s.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 237
Potential Benthic impacts include:
The loss of c.1.4ha loss of sub-tidal benthic habitat.
Temporary removal of the benthos from within the Rockabill to
Dalkey Island cSAC.
No reefs were identified in or adjacent to the dredging area.
Hydrodynamic modelling indicates that will be no significant
change in the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport
regime in the Bay as result of channel deepening.
There will be a reduction in tidal velocities in the vicinity of the
Bull Wall which will give rise to deposition, and increases in
velocity along the N edge of the channel which will rise to
erosion, but only localised changes in the benthos will occur.
Sediment dumping will smoother the benthos although finer
sediments will be rapidly dispersed by tidal currents with a rapid
rate of recovery.
Small amounts of fine sediment will deposit along the inter-tidal
stretches of the North Bull Island, the S shores of the Bay, and
shallow coastal stretches to the N of the channel following each
6 month disposal event, but no adverse impacts predicted for
intertidal communities or reef habitats.
Potential Fisheries impacts include:
The quality of feeding in the dredged area for adult and juvenile
fish will be significantly reduced after dredging, there will
increased sedimentation of sand within 200-500m of the dredger
and dispersed finer sediments will give rise to smothering of the
benthos, but this will fully recover over 2-3 years and the impacts
will be minor and phased over c.6 years.
Fish species could become entrained in the dredger which could
constitute a minor to moderate impact over the 6 year period.
The generation of sediment plumes from dredging depends on
hydrodynamics, depth and type of material, concentrations are
highest within the first 50-100m of the dredger but drop of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 237
rapidly, suspended solids can cause injury, behavioural changes
and death although most fish tend to avoid plumes, a time
restriction on dredging will protect smolts from the re-suspension
of sediments in the Liffey channel.
The reduction of food as result of dumping will have a minor
temporary impact on fish and very little commercial or
recreational fishing takes place in the vicinity of the channel.
The effects of pile driving noise on fish range from non-auditory
tissue damage to death, interim US noise level criteria will be
applied to Annex II species (EIS Table 5.4.13 and 4), and piling
should not take place at certain times of the year to protect
migrating species.
Mitigation measures include:
Dredging will be confined to one of 6 separate areas per year.
No dredging March to May in the inner section of the channel to
protect out migrating smolts, and the section opposite the Basin
should be dredged in September to reduce risk to River
Lampreys migrating during October.
No overflow permitted from the dredger at the riverside face and
associated berths along North Wall Quay where recent sediment
analysis indicated pockets of elevated contaminant levels.
The pumps should be switched off while the drag head is
withdrawn from the seabed during the turning process to
minimise fish entrainment.
The depth of the overburden on the benthos should be
minimised to facilitate rapid recovery.
There should be no piling in the Liffey channel during March-
May when smolts run in their highest numbers.
Residual impacts include:
Marginal loss of habitat and temporary loss of benthic
communities but no residual impact subject to implementation of
mitigation measures.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 237
2.5.9 Landscape and Visual (EIS section 6.0)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on the landscape and visual
resources of Dublin Port and the wider Dublin Bay area.
Methodology:
The methodology comprised an assessment of landscape quality and
character (EIS Figure 6.3).
Impacts during construction and operation include:
The main area with potential views during construction and
operation stages are located to the immediate S at York Road
and Pigeon House Road where the predicted impact will be
slight to moderate negative.
A total of 13 viewpoints (EIS figure 6.2) were assessed with no
adverse visual impacts predicted, and the broader landscape
character and visual context around Dublin Port has the capacity
to absorb the works.
2.5.10 Noise and Vibration (EIS section 7.1)
This section of the EIS covers impacts of noise and vibration.
Methodology:
The noise assessment methodology had regard to relevant EPA and
the NRA noise guidelines, various British Standards for noise, WHO
Guidelines for Community Noise and the UK Department of Transport
calculation of traffic noise. The vibration assessment methodology has
regard to British Standards and NRA Guidelines.
Two different noise surveys were undertaken to record the existing
noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive receptor and to record
actual noise levels from cruise liner vessels using the port. (The
monitoring locations are identified in EIS Figure 7.1.1).
The area was modelled using CadnaA noise modelling software which
predicted cumulative noise levels at various constructional and
operational phases. Traffic noise was the dominant noise source
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 237
beginning at 05.46 and ceasing at 08.51 and cruise liner noise was
recognisable.
Potential noise and vibration impacts include:
In relation to construction noise, the main sensitive receptors
include areas in the vicinity of Pigeon House Road, the 3 Arena
and Clontarf, the main sources are from dredging, piling, plant
and traffic, and there will be no significant noise effects.
In relation to vibration, the main sources are from piling,
demolition and dredging, piling activity at North Wall Quay will be
over 70m away from the O2, and piling activity at Poolbeg
marina will be over 120m from Pigeon House Road, and there
will be no significant vibration effects.
In relation to operational noise from new and relocated
plant/equipment and changes to the locations of various ramps
and jetties will result in minor increases and decreases in
predicted noise levels with no significant increase predicted.
No significant noise impact predicted for the increase in shipping
vessels with predicted noise levels below existing ambient and
background noise levels in the area.
No significant traffic noise impact on sensitive receptors
predicted. (EIS Chapter 8 includes a detailed TIA).
In relation to increased night time port activities, most activities
occur in the container area at Ocean Pier.
Mitigation measures include:
Construction phase mitigation measures will be based on the
best practice guidelines contained in BS5228:2009.
Operational phase measures include the maintenance of a
Noise Management Plan.
Construction related vibration mitigation measures will be based
on the best practice guidelines contained in BS5228:2009.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 237
Residual Impacts:
Taking account of mitigation measures the residual noise
impacts are rated as negligible.
2.5.11 Air Quality and Climate (EIS section 7.2)
This section of the EIS covers impacts in relation to emissions from
road traffic, vessel emissions, dust, odours and greenhouse gas
emissions and an Assessment of Seveso Sites is included in Appendix
7 of the EIS.
Methodology:
Baseline air quality was determined from the EPA monitoring network
and climate data has been derived for Met Eireann 30 year averages.
Potential impacts include:
Impacts arising across all the tests range from minor negative,
through negligible negative to no impact for both the
construction and operational phases. This includes impacts in
relation to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicular
road traffic and odour emissions from the dredging operations.
In relation to the construction phase, the dredging operations
and treatment process, infilling and general site construction will
have a low risk for dust impacts, the main emission of
greenhouse gases will be from the removal of material from the
area, and the odour impact will be negligible.
In relation to the operational phase, all pollutant emissions from
road traffic and shipping are predicted to be insignificant.
Mitigation measures include:
A dust minimisation plan will be prepared as part of the
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and it
will include measures to keep roads clean.
The CEMP will include an Odour Management Plan to mitigate
the potential for odours from dredging operations.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 237
The Traffic Management Plan will contain measures to minimise
congestion and queuing to minimise greenhouse gas emissions,
and materials with a reduced environmental impact may be
incorporated into the construction phase.
Residual impacts:
Taking account of mitigation measures there are no predicted
residual impacts.
2.5.12 Material Assets: Transportation (EIS section 8.1)
This section of the EIS covers transportation impacts in relation to
pedestrian movement, cycling, public transport and private vehicles.
Methodology:
Traffic surveys at strategic points along Dublin Port frontage and
existing Port and DCC data utilised. Traffic enters and leaves the Port
along Promenade Road, Alexandra Road and the Terminal 3 access,
and Promenade Road carries 70% of daily vehicles.
Proposed works include:
The closure of two existing accesses to the port with an associated re-
distribution of existing traffic within the port:
The Alexandra Road closure to all operation traffic will result in a
reduction in traffic along East Wall Road which will be redirected
to Promenade Road and Dublin Port Tunnel (EIS Appendix 8-4),
this redistribution will only affect the immediate road network and
the main receptor road flows will remain unchanged.
Terminal 3 access on East Wall Road will result in a reduction in
traffic along East Wall Road (EIS Appendix 8-5).
Potential impacts include:
There will be a c.10% traffic increase associated with the
predicted 2.5% annual growth in port activity until 2040 (as a
percentage of base traffic) and a full TIA is not required.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 237
There will be an overall decrease in traffic along East Wall Road
to North Wall Quay due to the close of the Alexandra Road and
Terminal 3 accesses, a marginal increase along Sheriff Street,
North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road, and a significant
increase in the Port Tunnel and within the Port.
The reduction in port related traffic volumes along East Wall
Road and the removal of the need to carry out a U turn at the
roundabout the vicinity of the O2 arena will have a positive
impact in terms of safety, air quality and noise.
In relation to cruise vessel traffic, the local road network can
accommodate the coach traffic generated by 519 cruise ships
(173 days x 3 ships per day) with no impact on local traffic
volumes, the number of passengers is predicted to increase by
c.12, 500 and the number of cruise calls (from larger vessels)
will increase from 83 to 140 per year up to 2032, and the coach
and taxi trips generated by this increase equates to c.1.45% of
traffic volumes at Promenade Road and the Port Tunnel.
In relation to construction traffic, vehicles will arrive via the Port
Tunnel, c.6, 302 vehicles will arrive per month which equates to
between 26.3 to 32.8 vehicles (one way) per hour for an 8 to 10
hour day, which is c.1% of the Port Tunnels capacity.
Mitigation measures include:
There will be no significant impact on the road network and no
mitigation measures are proposed.
2.5.13 Material Assets: Services (EIS section 8.10)
No significant impact on water or electricity supply predicted and
there is no gas infrastructure in the area.
High voltage cables traverse the navigation channel at a depth
of -10m underneath the current seabed and will not be affected
by dredging an additional 2.2m.
There are underground cables along North Wall Quay Extension
and other parts of Alexandra Basin no works will be carried out
without prior consultations with the ESB.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 237
There is a cooling water intake and outfall servicing three power
stations, including Poolbeg and safeguards will be put in place to
avoid disruption from dredging activities.
A sewerage pipeline which runs across Dublin Bay from Sutton
to Ringsend treatment works at a depth of -15m CD will not be
affected, and no impacts are predicted on sewerage networks
within the Port.
Mitigation measures include:
There will be no significant impact on services and no mitigation
measures are proposed.
2.5.14 Coastal Processes (EIS section 9.0 and Appendix 9)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on coastal processes in Dublin
Bay in relation to wave climate, tidal patterns and sediment transport.
Methodology:
RPS used a suite of coastal process models based on the MIKE 21
software for the simulation of:
The impact of the channel dredging on the tidal regime and
inshore wave climate.
The stability of the channel deepening and its impact on
sediment transport regime.
The suitability of the existing offshore dredge disposal site as a
receptor for the dredged material.
The fate of the material dumped at the spoil site.
The impact of sediment plumes during dredging in the Alexandra
Basin and channel.
Data collection and site surveys:
Data collection comprised an historical review of relevant data
related to the existing fairway and approach channel to support
the assessment of channel stability.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 237
Site surveys comprises a bathymetric and geophysical surveys,
current metre surveys using acoustic Doppler current profilers
and sediment sampling including particle size analysis (Survey
locations identified in EIS figures 9.1 and 9.2).
Proposed works:
Deepen Alexandra Basin West and the fairway and approach
channel to -10mCD by dredging c.6.37million cubic meters of
sediment comprising:
o 3.2 million cubic meters of fine sand from the outer
approach channel.
o 2.7 million cubic meters of silty material from the inner
harbour channel
o 0.47 million cubic meters of silty contaminated material
from Alexandra Basin and adjoining channel.
The channel will be realigned at the entrance to the Port at the
Bull Walls to remove a slight restriction to navigation (illustrated
in EIS figures 9.3 and 9.4).
Impacts of dredging on tidal regime include:
The dredging will have no predicted impact on the tidal regime
outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.
Negligible impacts to the tidal regime in the approach channel
after realignment, no perceptible change in tidal velocity within
the channel or in its power to cause scouring of the seabed.
Impacts of dredging on wave climate include (EIS section 9.7):
The dredging will have no predicted impact on the wave climate
inside the approach channel or in the greater Dublin Bay area
outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.
Impacts of dredging on sediment transport and morphological
stability in the channel include (EIS section 9.8):
A review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns was undertaken
and the results were input to a GIS to determine changes in dredged
depth and areas of accretion.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 237
Model simulations for storm events:
No significant change predicted in the morphological response
of the seabed outside the channel area during a north-easterly,
easterly or south easterly storm event.
The proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the
existing channel and there will be:
o A tendency for the N bank of the approach channel,
seaward of the Bull Wall, to migrate S under storm
conditions.
o Siltation along the banks of the approach channel
landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for these
banks to migrate towards the channel.
No significant impact predicted on the sediment transport regime
within the River Liffey Channel, Tolka Estuary or Dublin Bay as
result of dredging.
2.5.15 Dredging and spoil disposal (EIS section 9.9 and Appendix 9)
This section of the EIS provides information on the dispersion and fate
of material lost to the water column during the dredging and disposal
operations to the W of the Burford Bank and dredging plumes.
Methodology:
A series of computational model simulations were undertaken to
assess the dispersion and fate of dredged material, the particle size
distribution analysis of the sediment samples (EIS Appendix 1).
Impacts include:
The disposal site is dispersive for the silt fractions within the
dredged spoil material and the sand fractions will remain on the
disposal site under normal tidal conditions, under storm
conditions the sand will gradually be assimilated into the overall
sediment budget regime of Dublin Bay.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 237
The existing disposal site at the Burford Bank is the preferred
disposal option as the fine sand from the navigation channel will
not be lost to the overall sediment supply to Dublin Bay.
Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and deposition of
sediment plumes have been used to inform the assessment of
the natural and water environment (NIS chapter 5 and EIS
chapter 10).
Restricting the navigation channel dredging operations to winter
months provide suitable mitigation to ensure that the dredging
will not affect the qualifying interest of the European sites.
The dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes are not
expected to impact on other users of the waters within the Liffey
channel or Dublin Bay.
Residual impacts:
The works will not have a significant detrimental impact on the
coastal processes of Dublin Bay and will be no residual impacts.
2.5.16 Water quality (EIS section 10.1)
This section of the EIS assesses the potential impact of the proposed
development on water quality in the receiving environment
Methodology and baseline data:
Regard was had to all relevant EU Directives and national policy
guidance. The available monitoring information indicates that:
The overall WFD status of the water bodies is ‘moderate’ due to
general components and morphology.
Tropic status is ‘unpolluted’.
Dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting
nearly all forms of aquatic life.
The level of oxygen demand in the water bodies is acceptable.
The designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the ABR Project are
compliant with bathing water quality standards.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 237
Impacts on water quality include:
Construction phase impacts include:
Temporary impacts include pollution from mobilised suspended
sediment in relation to increased suspended sediment levels due to
dredging and deposition of spoil, sedimentation due to settling of
suspended silt, the dispersal and fate of contaminated sediments,
and water quality impacts associated with works machinery,
infrastructure and on-land operations.
EIS Chapter 9 (Coastal Processes) concludes that there will be no
significant impact on the sediment transport regime within Dublin
Bay and estuary as a result of the capital dredging scheme and the
dredging will not have a significant impact on the existing
morphology of the Liffey Estuary Lower or Dublin Bay water bodies.
Operational phase impacts include:
Normal port operations and continued growth including discharges
from vessels using the port, discharges from cargo handling and
discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation.
These activities have the potential to impact on water quality (and
associated species and habitats) and therefore require mitigation.
Mitigation measures include:
Construction phase mitigation measures include adherence to the
EIS construction techniques and timing of works and the
preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan
which will contain a Waste Management Plan, Contamination
Strategy and Water Quality Management Plan.
Operational phase mitigation measures include compliance with the
Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan which requires that
no waste should be disposed of at sea, the correct treatment of
ballast water and tanks, and appropriate storage of hazardous
wastes, oil, chemicals and waste.
Residual impacts include:
Provided appropriate mitigations measures are fully implemented
during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the
proposed development on the water quality in the area will be
neutral to minor and there will be no residual impacts.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 237
2.5.17 Flood risk assessment (EIS section 10.5)
This section of the EIS assesses the flood risk at the work site and the
change in flood risk to the neighbouring areas as a result of the
development including Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays.
Methodology:
The FRA was undertaken in accordance with The Planning System and
Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).
Port impacts include:
Predicted coastal flooding events at Alexandra Basin West and
Berths 52/53 indicate that:
o Flood Zone A (highest probability of flooding) is limited to
areas adjacent to the existing quays.
o Flood Zone B (moderate probability of flooding) extends
further to the hard standing areas.
o Flood Zone C (lowest probability of flooding) indicates that
Port infrastructure outside the immediate working quay area
has a low flood risk.
The fluvial flood risk simulations have shown that extreme fluvial
events will not further increase the extreme flood levels predicted
during extreme tidal and storm surge events.
Mitigation measures include:
Mitigation measures include design recommendations to minimise the
risk of flooding in the present day scenario and to future proof the Port
against climate change.
Impacts on neighbouring area include:
The results of model simulations results indicate that the works are
not expected to increase the flood risk to any of surrounding areas.
2.5.18 Geology, soils and contamination (EIS chapter 11)
This section of the EIS assesses the impact on soils, geology and
hydrogeology including the treatment of contaminated marine
sediments within Alexander Basin West.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 237
Methodology
Research was undertaken by way of desk studies to identify bedrock
and hydrogeology, and sediment samples were collected from within
the Basin and along the Liffey and approach channel (illustrated in EIS
Figures 11.2 to 11.4) and subject to a particle size analysis (EIS Figure
11.5) and the full results are contained in Appendix 11 of the EIS.
Alexandra Basin west sediments:
The Basin sediments are unsuitable for disposal at sea as they
exceeded the upper level guidance parameters for heavy metals
including Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, Copper and Mercury.
The Basin sediments do not meet the acceptance criteria for inert
waste and treatment is required prior to use as fill in Berths 52/53
and Graving Dock 2, remediation will comprise the use of
stabilisation/solidification technology to reduce the mobility of
contaminants by chemically binding them (an EPA Industrial
Emissions Licence is required).
Sediments (470, 000 cubic metres) will be transported by barge to a
facility at Berths 52/53, dredging and treatment will be carried out at
a rate of c.1, 000 cubic meters per day over an 18 month period,
wastewater will be treated and held in a settlement lagoon, whilst
the mobilised sediments will batched into blocks for re-use as infill.
Navigation channel sediments:
Channel sediments (c.4.5 million cubic meters) are suitable for
disposal at sea in the Burford Bank (subject to an EPA Permit).
Channel sediments located adjacent to the Basin (c.0.5million cubic
metres) have low levels of contamination and can only be disposed
of at sea at slack tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel.
Impacts include:
Construction phase impacts include:
Pollution from mobilised suspended sediment and leaching of
contaminants from sediments used as fill material in the Basin.
Operational phase impacts include:
Long term leaching of contaminants from sediments used as fill
material in the Basin.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 237
Mitigation measures include:
Construction phase mitigation measures include:
Measures include adherence to construction techniques and timing
of works, preparation of a CEMP, compliance with relevant
guidelines, consultation with stakeholders, and the preparation of a
construction monitoring programme.
Operational phase mitigation measures include:
Measures include compliance with the Ports existing Environmental
Management Plan.
Residual impacts include:
None predicted subject to compliance with mitigation measures.
2.5.19 Cultural Heritage (EIS Section 12.0)
This section of the EIS covers impacts on the cultural heritage
(archaeology and architecture) of Dublin Port and Dublin Bay.
Methodology:
Research comprised desk top studies and site surveys, including a
cultural heritage assessment and a Level 2 industrial archaeological
heritage study. The study area extended from Alexandra Basin to the
Dublin Buoy (EIS Figure 12.1 illustrates the extent of the study area).
Baseline information:
None of the sites are included in the Record of Protected Structures.
Alexandra Basin contains 29 sites of interest.
The North Bull Wall contains 2 sites of interest.
The South Bull Wall contains 21 sites of interest including 3
Recorded Monuments.
The Approach Channel contains 4 sites of interest related to
shipwrecks.
Twelve of the 275 sites listed in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage
Record are located within the project area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 237
Impacts include:
Impacts on heritage features include:
Graving Dock 1: reopened as part of heritage centre
Alexandra Basin : to be dredged
North Wall Quay Extension: partially remove
Goods shed x 3: potential demolition
Revenue Watch House: potential demolition
North Wall Light House: to be relocated (relocated in 1937)
Poolbeg lighthouse: foundations will be reinforced
Recorded wreck feature: potential re-exposure
Shipwrecks x 4: area will be dredged
Impacts during construction include:
Alexandra Basin:
The works could uncover an historic shipwreck site (GIS162) and
the re-opening of Graving Dock 1 will be a heritage gain as it will re-
expose an important mid-19th century engineering structure.
North Wall Quay:
Partial demolition of the Quay will remove the basin side of the
active quay area and the easternmost c.150m section which
constitutes most of the 1930’s works; the quay will be retained
within a composite casing structure which will leave sections of the
quays river façade exposed; and the North Quay lighthouse will be
relocated to the terminus of the rebuilt quay.
The works represents a significant, direct negative impact on the
North Wall Quay extension which was built by Bindon Blood Stoney
and completed by Joseph Mallagh.
Approach channel:
The dredging represent a direct, permanent impact on the seabed,
4 ship wreck sites could be directly affected by being exposed.
Impacts during operational phase include:
None predicted other than routine maintenance.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 237
Mitigation measures:
Pre-construction mitigation and on-going archaeological monitoring
during construction works with preservation by record of any
discovered features of interest.
Level 2 Industrial Archaeological Heritage Study (EIS section 12.8)
This Strategy comprises an industrial archaeological inventory of
the historic docklands landscape in Alexandra Basin West.
The impact of the proposed works was not rated as significant.
The Conservation Strategy divides Basin and the North Wall Quay
extension into conservation and interpretive ones.
2.5.20 Human Beings (EIS section 13.0)
This section of the EIS deals with the socio economic, amenity,
recreation and tourism issues.
2.5.21 Interactions (EIS Section 14.0)
This section of the EIS deals with the main interactions between the
various aspects of the EIS and they are presented in Table 14.1 of the
main report.
2.6 The NIS
This report sets the nature conservation context for the proposed
development, it assesses the likely significant impacts on European
sites and it is supplemented by the following appendices:
Avian Impact Assessment
Marine mammals Impact Assessment
Coastal Processes Modelling
NPWS Natura 2000 Site Synopses
Screening Assessment (Stage 1) to identify the potential for
significant effects in the absence of mitigation to the Rockabill to
Dalkey Island cSAC.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 237
Of the 21 European sites located within a 15km radius of the proposed
works, the following 5 sites were identified as been at risk from the
potential impacts of the construction, development and operational
elements of the proposal.
North Dublin Bay cSAC: contains ten Annex 1 habitats including
one with priority status and one Annex 11 species (petalwort), the
site is internationally important for wintering birds, and several rare
or legally protected species of plants and invertebrates.
South Dublin Bay cSAC: contains one Annex 1 habitat (mudflats
and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide), site is important
for several species of wintering birds.
Rockabill to Dalkey island cSAC: contains one Annex 1 habitat
and one Annex 11 species (Reefs and harbour porpoise)
North Bull Island SPA: contains several species of wintering birds.
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: contains several
species of wintering birds.
Potential impacts include:
Channel dredging and dredge disposal works lie within the
boundary of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, the works could
have the potential for direct effects on the Harbour porpoise.
Noise levels or disturbance as a result of works and increased
shipping could affect bird species through displacement and loss of
feeding time in adjacent SPAs.
Changes in the hydrology and sediment regime as a result of the
works and dredging could cause changes in the distribution of inter-
tidal and sub-tidal habitats and an increase on future maintenance
dredging could result in habitat loss in the SACs.
There is potential for habitat severance or fragmentation in the outer
Bay as a result of dredging, impacts from noise and physical
disturbance within the SAC as a result of piling and construction
activities could affect the Harbour porpoise and water quality.
Changes in hydrology and suspended sediments have the potential
to affect the availability of prey species for birds within adjoining
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 237
SPAs as changes in turbidity, deposition and scour of sediment
could affect inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats.
There is an increased risk of pollutants during construction as a
result of accidental spillages and site run-off and increased ship
movements.
Direct and indirect impacts include:
North Dublin Bay cSAC: none predicted.
South Dublin Bay cSAC: no potential for significant impacts.
Rockabill to Dalkey island cSAC: no adverse impacts on Reef
communities; construction and piling noise could affect Harbour
porpoise and mitigation measures are required; and the temporary
loss of feeding grounds from dumping will have a minor impact.
North Bull Island SPA: no potential for significant impacts on
wintering or breeding birds in relation of loss of feeding grounds,
dredging activities and plumes or noise disturbance.
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: as for North Bull
Island SPA.
Impacts on the Conservation Objectives include:
North Dublin Bay cSAC: there are no pathways for impacts (direct,
indirect or cumulative) on the coastal and terrestrial section of this
site; any minor change to coastal processes will not have the
potential adversely affect favourable conservation condition of the
habitats.
South Dublin Bay cSAC: any minor change to coastal processes
will not have the potential adversely affect the favourable
conservation condition of the habitats.
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC: the works and dredging have
the potential to affect Harbour porpoise directly and indirectly in this
site and mitigation measures are required for the avoidance and
amelioration of impacts.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 237
North Bull Island SPA: the works and dredging would not have the
potential to affect the inter-tidal habitats in this site.
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: as for North Bull
Island SPA.
Mitigation measures include:
A series of mitigation measures are set out in Section 3.4 of the NIS
and they include the employment of a marine mammal observer in
relation to works that could affect the Harbour porpoise and other
marine mammals in the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC.
In-combination effects include:
Ten plans or projects were assessed as having possible significant
impacts (reduced by way of mitigation) and eight were assessed as
having no impact. The key projects and plans that could have a
potential in-combination effect include:
o Dollymount promenade and Flood Protection Project
o Dublin Eastern By-pass (route options)
o Sutton to Sandycove cycleway
o Maintenance dredging (ongoing)
o Dublin Array – piling noise from the offshore wind farm could
affect Harbour porpoise
Residual impacts:
There is no potential for residual effects on four of the five European
sites and some potential for residual effects one of the sites:
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC:
o No potential for residual effects on Reefs as a result of
sediment dispersal and deposition, and
o Residual effects on the Harbour porpoise will not be
significant subject to noise mitigation measures.
NIS conclusion: The proposed project will not give rise to significant
impacts, either individually or in combination with other plans and
projects, and will not adversely affect the integrity of any designated
site.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 237
3.0 THE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
3.1 EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)
The Habitats Directive deals with the Conservation of Natural Habitats
and of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout the European Union. Article
6(3) of this Directive requires that any plan or project not directly
connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to
have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination
with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment
of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation
objectives. The competent authority must be satisfied that the proposal
will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.
3.2 European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations,
2011
These Regulations consolidate the European Communities (Natural
Habitats) Regulations 1997 to 2005 and the European Communities
(Birds and Natural Habitats)(Control of Recreational Activities)
Regulations 2010, as well as addressing transposition failures identified
in judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
3.3 EC Guidance on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats
Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, with particular attention
to port development and dredging, 2011
This document provides sector specific guidance on the
implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and
coastal zones. Ports are often situated in or near estuaries which are
dynamic and highly productive ecosystems and in many cases
designated Natura 2000 sites; estuaries provide the necessary shelter
and suitable conditions for maritime access to ports; and ports fulfil a
strategic role in the development and realisation of global trade and
they periodically need to expand. This document provides a number of
recommendations and elements of good practice to enhance port
development and management in or near Natura 2000 sites. In
particular section 3.2 deals with spatial planning and the integrated
management of ports, estuaries and the coastal zone.
3.4 Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Regulations, 2014
The TEN-T network is based on a comprehensive network and a core
network and these networks comprise the highest level of infrastructure
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 237
planning within the EU. The preamble states that appropriate measures
should be taken for the development of the Core network by 2030.
Action will concentrate on those components of the TEN-T network with
the highest European added value, in particular cross-border sections,
missing links, multimodal connecting points and major bottlenecks,
serving the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
transport. Maritime ports of the Core network must be connected with
the railway and road transport network by December 2030. There is
one Core Network Corridor crossing Ireland which comprises The North
Sea – Mediterranean Corridor that stretches from Belfast, Cork and
Dublin, through the UK, Belgium, Luxembourg and France.
3.5 European Union Ports 2030 Gateways for the Trans European
Transport Network, 2014
This document states that the EU is highly dependent on seaports for
trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Ports are
the nodes from where the multimodal logistic flows of the trans-
European network can be organised, using short sea shipping, rail and
inland waterways links to minimise road congestion and energy
consumption. The 2011 White Paper on Transport and the Single
Market Act II emphasised the need for well-connected port
infrastructure, efficient and reliable port services and transparent port
funding. The availability of adequate port infrastructure, good
performance of port services and a level playing field are vital if the EU
is to remain competitive in the global markets, improve its growth
potential and create a more sustainable and inclusive transport system.
3.6 National Ports Policy, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,
2013
This document sets out Government policy in relation to the countries
ports. It states that the core objective of national policy is to facilitate a
competitive and effective market for maritime transport services. It
accepts that the long term international trend imports and shipping is
toward increased consolidation of resources in order to achieve
optimum efficiencies of scale. It acknowledges that this trend will have
knock-on effects in terms of vessel size, water depth in ports and the
type and scope of port hinterland transport connections.
Dublin Port is categorised as one of three Tier 1 Port of National
Significance which is responsible for 15-20% of overall tonnage,
with clear potential to lead the future development of port
capacity in the medium and long term.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 237
The proposed revision of the EU’s Trans European Network –
Transport (TEN-T) consists of a comprehensive transport
network which connects the major European urban areas by
means of railways, roads, inland waterways, ports, airports and
freight terminals; Dublin Port is proposed for inclusion in the
TEN-T core network and the continued development of these
ports is a key objective of National Ports Policy.
The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the
Dublin Port Masterplan (2012-2040) which seek to:
o Maximise the use of existing port lands.
o Reintegrate the port with the city.
o Develop the port to the highest environmental standards.
The continued commercial development of Dublin Port is a key
strategic objective of National Ports Policy.
3.7 Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040
Dublin Port Company has prepared this non statutory document to
guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040 and it has been framed
within the context of EU, national, regional and local development plan
policies.
Section 3 describes the rationale for the Masterplan and sets out the
key objectives which seek to:
Ensure the safe operation and sustainable development of the Port
and its approach waters.
Optimise the use of lands of Port lands.
Develop quay sides adjacent to deep water.
Extend berthage and storage area while protecting sensitive sites.
Provide adequate water depth for deep draught vessels.
Integrate with the City and enhance the aesthetics of the area.
Provide public transport, promote walking and cycling, maximise
the use of rail and enhance existing infrastructure.
Protect natural resources and European sites.
Protect against flooding.
Ensure the preservation of protected structures and heritage.
Promote recreation and amenity.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 237
Section 4 provides general overview of the economy, it anticipates
future growth, assesses potential capacity in Dublin Port to 2040,
anticipates future trends in relation to increased Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo
traffic and the corresponding need for additional berths and storage
facilities, along with a growth in demand for cruise facilities which will
require new infrastructure.
Section 5 describes the main infrastructure and engineering proposals
which will serve to deliver new capacity by reconfiguring existing
facilities and intensifying existing land use within the Port as well as
dredging the approach channel.
Sections 6 to 11 deal with property and blight; transport, connectivity
and permeability; economic, social and community impacts along with
proposals to reintegrate the port with the City; health, safety and
security issues; environmental studies; and implementation.
3.8 National Development Plan (NDP) 2007- 2013
The Ports sub-Programme includes the following: -
Ireland’s commercial sea ports are tidal transport arteries, carrying
99% by volume of the island’s external trade.
Planned investment by the commercial ports over the period of this
plan will support the strategic policy objectives in the Government’s
Ports Policy Statement 2005.
The Government proposes to undertake a comprehensive study of
the role of Dublin Port, taking account of locational considerations,
in the context of overall ports policy on the island of Ireland, wider
transport policy, urban development policy, the National Spatial
Strategy and national economic policy.
3.9 National Spatial Strategy (NSS) 2002-2020
The NSS states the following in relation to international sea
accessibility:
Dublin Port is vital to the national economy, Dublin and adjoining
regions, however the port faces a shortage of capacity, giving rise
to its need for more land to accommodate its expanding activities
and additional facilities may need to be developed.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 237
Developing such additional shipping facilities will need to be
supported by improved access so that transit times and costs are
competitive with those available from Dublin.
3.10 The Dublin Transportation Office Strategy (Platform for Change)
This document outlines an integrated transportation strategy for the
GDA for the period 2011- 2016. This is currently being reviewed as part
of the NTAs GDA Draft Transportation Strategy, 2011-2030. It is the
policy to retain a corridor for the provision of the eastern Bypass,
linking Sandyford with the Port Tunnel.
3.11 Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004 - 2016
(RPG GDA)
The Guidelines recognise Dublin Port and Dublin Airport as the premier
international access points for the country and that their continued
development is essential in the interests of underpinning Ireland’s
future international competitiveness. Landside access is identified as a
significant issue. In this regard the role of the Dublin Port Tunnel is
noted. The potential for further access improvements through the
development of a southern port access route is also noted.
3.12 Dublin City Development Plan 2011- 2017
Paragraph 4.4.1.2 : The City Council fully supports and recognises the
important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life
of the City and the region and the consequent need in economic and
competitiveness terms to facilitate port activities which may involve port
development or relocation in the longer term…..the Council recognises
the Port as a major source of employment in the area as well as the
need for ferry terminal services and linkages to the natural amenities of
Dublin Bay.
Zoning objective Z7: Provide for the protection and creation of
industrial uses, and facilitate opportunities for employment creation and
the majority of these lands are located in the Port area.
Policy SI19: Support the provision of a link between north Dublin Port
and the Southern Cross/South eastern Motorway via an eastern
bypass of the city.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 237
Policy GC23: Co-operate with the Dublin Bay Task Force to work
towards developing a framework for Coastal Zone Management Plan
for Dublin Bay, developing a detailed Masterplan, and identifying new
opportunities for enhancing Dublin Bay as a resource.
Policy GC24: Continued improvement of water quality, bathing facilities
and other recreational opportunities in the coastal, estuarine and
surface waters in the city and to protect the ecology and wildlife of
Dublin Bay.
Policy GC27: Conserve and manage all NHAs, SACs and SPAs
identified or designated, or proposed to be designated by the
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These
designations will allow for protection in the event of any approved
boundary changes by the Department.
Protected structures: North Wall Quay is a protected structure (Ref.
5835) which comprises of granite ashlar quay walls, stone setts,
mooring rings, steps, bollards, lamp standards and machinery.
Policy FC46: To protect and enhance the important civic design
character of Dublin’s Quays, Squares and historic public spaces.
Policy FC68: To implement the relevant recommendations of the
Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR).
Conservation Areas: The River Liffey is a Conservation Area.
Objective REO16: Examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the
Poolbeg area and Dublin Port, including a review of the current
disembarking point and the development of tour options for visitors
within the city and set out recommendations.
3.13 The North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme, 2014
This statutory Planning Scheme recognises the importance of cruise
tourism in section 4.9.4.6 and contains the following objectives:
Objective TL5: seeks to facilitate the cruise traffic coming into Dublin
and encourage the timing of planned events, festivals to coincide with
cruise ship calls at Dublin Port.
Objective PR12: seeks to support the provision of a suitable terminal
for cruise liners and other passenger vessels within Dublin Port.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 237
3.14 Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban
regeneration of City Port Heritage as a key for Sustainable
Economic, Social and Urban Development, 2011
This document seeks to develop a strategy for the development of
cruise traffic and the regeneration of the Port that will articulate a new
relationship between the City and the Port. It contains the following
Specific Objectives and Action.
Specific objective 1: To transform, regenerate and adapt the physical
and environmental components of the port.
Action 1.1: to provide a cruise terminal and improve connectivity
between the port and the city.
3.15 Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008
Contains several polices for port related trade, commerce, tourism and
recreation.
3.16 Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 2008 - 2012
The plan aims to promote biodiversity and it contains a programme of
actions to protect and enhance the city’s natural heritage. The plan
also selects a number of habitats and species for priority action.
3.17 A Management Plan for North Bull Island – DCC, 2009
The main objectives of this plan are to update key data, particularly
about the current status of habitats and species of conservation
importance, to identify and discuss current management issues on the
island and to make recommendations to manage these issues.
4.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORT
4.1 General planning and environmental impact:
The increase in Port capacity complies with the national and local
policy, proposal will enhance the economic life of the city, it will
allow for greater connectivity with the city, and it will minimise the
impacts on Dublin Bay.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 237
The absence of a cruise terminal building is noted and proposal
should not prejudice the future development of a terminal.
Details required for access arrangements, vehicular routes and
parking for vehicles serving cruise ships.
No adverse impacts anticipated, the removal of contaminants will
ensure the protection of European sites, and an invasive species
management system is required.
4.2 Conservation and built heritage:
Site comprises a receiving environment of considerable industrial
heritage value and an example of significant engineering works.
North Wall Quay extension is not a protected structure, Graving
Dock 1 is of heritage value and the proposed conservation works
are welcome.
The works are necessary in order to provide for a modern port to
accommodate upward trends in vessel size and scale.
4.3 Roads and traffic:
The strategic objectives of the Masterplan are consistent with DCC
policies and objectives for movement and integration with the city.
The access closures and pedestrian/cyclist arrangements require
further agreement with the Council.
The proposal is consistent with the objective of delivering the
Eastern by-pass in the medium to long term and it facilitates a
potential alignment along the western boundary of the port.
4.4 Community gain:
Welcome the community gain proposal for the North Bull Island.
4.5 Air quality monitoring and noise control:
Ongoing assessment of noise levels should be carried out and the
results should be forwarded to DCC periodically, all noise mitigation
measures in section 7.1.5 of the EIS must be undertaken.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 237
5.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BODIES
5.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht
Bats:
The 2 buildings identified as suitable as bat roosts should be re-
surveyed before development commences and a derogation
licence is required is bats are found and removed.
Marine mammals:
The mitigation measures in the NPWS 2014 Guidelines should be
adhered to including: the engagement of a Marine Mammal
Observer (MMO) during piling, dredging, dumping and demolition
operations to ensure that there are no marine mammals within a
set exclusion zone 30 minutes prior to operations (1000m for piling
and 500m for other activities); commencement of noisy operations
in daylight hours; the use of ramp-up up procedures for noisy
activities; cessation of works if a marine mammal is observed within
50m of piling and dredging; monitoring log to be kept; and the use
of hydrophones should be considered.
Underwater archaeology:
The Shipwreck Inventory lists over 600 wrecks for the harbour area
which are protected as National Monuments and all of the
mitigation measures in Section 12.7 of the EIS should be included
as conditions.
Conditions should also be attached for the Poolbeg Marina
Breakwater, Poolbeg lighthouse; secondary impacts in the River
Liffey require consideration and the Hydrographic Surveys Report
should be forwarded to the National Monuments Service for review.
Architectural heritage:
Some of the impacts on the quay will be considerable, particularly
at North Wall Quay Extension but mitigation measures are
proposed and the conservation zones are welcome.
Concerned about the underpinning of the Stoney blocks in the
North Wall Quay extension.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 237
Suggest placing the historical interpretive elements in the one
location adjacent to the Graving Dock 1 and the Pump House
which could be used as an Interpretative centre.
5.2 Environmental Protection Agency
DPC will make an application for an Industrial Emissions Licence to
the EPA for the treatment of dredge spoil from the Basin and the
deposit of the treated material as infill at Berths 52/53.
The dredging of the Basin and the transport of contaminated
material to the treatment facility may not require EPA authorisation
depending on the daily amount to be dredged.
The treatment process will need to be contained and mitigation
measures are required to ensure that that there are no uncontrolled
emissions to ground, air and water; the leaching of contaminates
from the treated material should be controlled by way of leaching
limit values contained in any licence granted by the EPA.
5.3 Inland Fisheries Ireland
Port is located within the catchments of the Rivers Liffey, Dodder
and Tolka which support Atlantic salmon and Lamprey; the
proposed works have significant potential to impact directly on
sensitive aquatic ecology; although not a designated SAC a
precautionary approach should be extended to all designated and
non-designated sensitive species in this area.
Loading and deposal of all dredged material should comply with the
EPA licence, moderately contaminated material should be capped
at the disposal site, the overall impact of dumping in the Burford
Bank should be assessed by post dumping bathymetric surveys,
and suitable conditions for fish transition should be maintained
through the redevelopment and dredging process.
All works must be completed in accordance with a Construction
Management Plan (CMP); its mitigation measures, water and
habitat quality must be closely monitored throughout the
redevelopment and dredging operation; the objectives of the WFD
must be achieved and a Construction Environmental Monitoring
Programme (CEMP) should be prepared to monitor water quality.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 237
5.4 An Taisce
Evaluation is required in relation to the environmental impact of the
project and mitigation measures including dredging spoil, deposition
and treatment of 470,000 contaminated materials from the Basin.
5.5 Geological Survey of Ireland
No issues of concern.
5.6 National Roads Authority
Extensive consultations have taken place between DPC, DCC and
the NRA in relation to the identification of a technically feasible
corridor for the Eastern By-pass that would not preclude the
proposed works, this exercise has not been concluded and the
NRA had little input to the EIS and TIA.
Seek to protect the function of Dublin Tunnel to accommodate port
traffic and traffic from the future Eastern Bypass; tunnel capacity
overestimated in the EIS, and measures should be put in place to
prevent the deposition of dirt from construction vehicles.
Seek to protect the route corridor options for the Eastern By-pass in
line with statutory policy; a study undertaken for the section of the
route that affects Dublin Port identifies a technically feasible
corridor that accommodates 3 possible route/alignment options,
and a revised Corridor Protection Study is expected by mid-July
2014 and until then the existing arrangements will remain in place.
The EIA suggests that the primary pedestrian and cycle access to
the Port will be from the Point Roundabout which conflicts with one
of the route options and this should be amended to a location just N
of the 3 Arena (Point Depot).
5.7 National Transport Authority
A route corridor for the By-pass should be protected for a future
transport scheme that would be implemented after 2030.
A Transport Plan should be prepared for the entire Port Estate to
deal with construction related movements, the function and
management of the East Wall Road/East Link Bridge; the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 237
management of HGV movements through the Port Tunnel; the
function of the proposed interconnector bridge within the port
estate; general vehicular access to the Docklands; provision for
pedestrian and cycle movements along East Wall Road; and
internal linkage arrangements for vehicles from the development to
the main port entrance at Promenade Road.
5.8 ESB and EirGrid
Confirm presence of two existing high voltage sub aqua electricity
transmission cables traversing the River Liffey from N to S in the
vicinity of the Poolbeg marina and North Wall Quay.
The proposed demolition of a section of North Wall Quay will
require the relocation of the westernmost cable prior to
development commencing as part of the enabling works.
The new alternative 220kV cables will involve running new cables
through bedrock underneath the Liffey at a location E of the Port
Operations Building in the vicinity of the Poolbeg Power Station.
In relation to the cooling water intake and outfall which services the
power stations, the ESB recommends that it is necessary that:
o Adequate safeguards are put in place to avoid disruption to
power station operations; there should be no impact on the
integrity or operation of either the intake or outfall pipes.
o Monitoring buoys and water quality trigger levels required to
safeguard ESB power station operations and to initiate the
temporary cessation of works which may cause elevated
levels of suspended solids from turbidity during dredging.
6.0 SUBMISSIONS: GENERAL PUBLIC AND COMPANIES
6.1 Dublin Bay Watch
Inevitable that reclamation will be needed in the near future as the
extensive dredging will make it easier to progress a proposal.
Environmental issues raised in the last application are still relevant.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 237
Project splitting exercise, monopoly position of Dublin Port
reinforced, future reclamation enabled, additional environmental
impact of the port by bringing in bigger ships with more emissions.
6.2 Irish Underwater Council
Turbidity:
Dublin Bay is a regular dive site and concerns raised in relation to
diver safety and wider environmental issues.
Errors and omissions in the EIS and NIS suggest that the
environmental impacts will be significantly greater than indicated.
Increased levels of suspended solids leads to decreased
underwater visibility which is a cornerstone of dive safety.
The EIS and NIS marine mammal mitigation measures impose
more restrictions on the time available for dumping.
The computer modelling of suspended solids resulting from the
dumping of spoil at the disposal site present an unrealistic uniform
distribution of material throughout the water column.
The dispersal model and distribution patterns for suspended solids
at the disposal site are significantly underestimated with greater
impacts anticipated.
Noise:
Inadequate consideration of underwater noise in EIS and section
4.2 (construction) which provides no information on underwater
noise and no information with regard to changes in underwater
noise outputs due to the use of Dublin port by larger vessels.
Pile driving noise may affect harbour porpoise and harbour seals at
distances of up to 20km and many dive sites are within 10km or
less of the Basin and insufficient data to determine whether noise
generated during pile driving will have an adverse effect on divers.
The EIS demonstrates that underwater noise generated during
construction will have an adverse impact on Harbour porpoise,
harbour seal and grey seal.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 237
6.3 Coastguard Station Residents Group
Levels of noise, particularly at night are seriously impacting on the
health and wellbeing of the community.
Dublin Port does not fulfil its obligations to protect homes from noise
levels and the proposal will add to the problems.
Two Section 5 declarations enclosed (2011 and 2014) from DCC
stating that Dublin port and their tenants MTL have carried out
unauthorised development on the S bank site since 2000, the noise
emanating from the cranes has resulted in sever sleep deprivation.
Scientific acoustic article in relation to noise levels at Dublin Port
submitted and long term noise measurements were undertaken at
the most exposed residential façade for a period of 45 days to
determine the extent of night time exposure that was above levels
recommended by the WHO (40dB(A) and the results show that
exposure is above night time guideline limits set down by the WHO.
6.4 Clontarf Resident Association
Welcome proposal to use existing lands within the port.
Concerned about future reclamation referred to in the Masterplan.
Potential environmental impact of contaminants disturbed as a
result of dredging.
Medium to long term implications of impacts of ongoing channel
dredging to maintain the new channel depth.
6.5 Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association
Adverse environmental and ecological impacts of channel dredging.
Geography and tides limit the extent of large scale works and port
should relocate but recognise the need for expansion.
Object to the deepening, extension and widening of the shipping
channel which will have adverse environmental impacts on
protected species and habitats around Dublin Bay.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 237
Harbour porpoise will be adversely affected by noise, disturbance,
reduction in foraging area and fragmentation of habitat.
Exclusion zone for Harbour porpoise around dredging activities
should be larger.
Benthic communities will take longer to recover than predicted.
The combined effects of the project should be assessed in relation
to several other proposals along with the impacts larger vessels.
Dumping at sea will increase turbidity, affect water quality and
marine fauna, benthic species will be smothered, and the protected
reef habitats will be affected.
Ongoing dredging and has already affected the European sites
along the S shores of Dublin Bay and the dredging works will
seriously affect the Zostera beds, sand eels and other species.
The surge wave effect from larger vessels will be problematic along
the shoreline and at the Great South Wall.
The effects of the dredging channel works on the sewage plant and
storm water outfalls at the Great South Wall area unclear.
6.6 Donna Cooney (Green Party representative for Clontarf)
Dumping contaminated materials would adversely affect European
sites and water quality at Dollymount Strand, covering the dumped
material with gravel is unsatisfactory and the material should be
treated and not dumped at sea.
The works could cause physical injury to Harbour porpoise as a
result of vessel collisions, exposure to pile driving noise,
consumption of contaminated prey and impaired visibility, and the
mitigation measures are unsatisfactory.
The mitigation measures for birds (especially Brent Geese and
terns) and the information related to tidal waves pattern, silt and
sedimentation are unconvincing.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 237
6.7 Peadar Farrell (local resident of Clontarf)
Disposal of dredge spoil in the cSAC would have irreversible
environmental impacts.
Contaminated sediments could leach into the water column during
and after treatment at Berths 52/53.
Not possible to ensure the locational accuracy of material dumped
in Burford Bank to cover moderately contaminated sediments.
Noise from pile driving in vicinity of Great South Wall will prohibit
public access, excavations could give rise of collapse which would
endanger public safety, a risk assessment is required.
Adverse impact on recreational use of the bay and diver safety will
put at risk through increased turbidity and reduced visibility; adverse
impact on shell fish and human health, noise pollution and impact
on marine mammals; and trans-boundary impacts.
6.8 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
Background:
Main concerns relate to berthing facility for cruise ships.
The main function of Dublin Port is to accommodate freight exports
and imports, the rationalisation of 21ha of existing port lands and
intensification of use indicates that a substantial proportion of the
traffic in cruise ships would be better accommodated in Dun
Laoghaire Harbour.
The City Plan stresses that the port zoning allows for bad neighbour
uses that are incompatible with the intended cruise ship traffic.
Proposal is premature, oversized and badly located.
ABP refused permission for ecological reasons for the reclamation
of 21ha of foreshore to provide for additional berths and storage.
The previous application was promoted on the basis that space was
constrained and this element of constraint has since heightened.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 237
There has been a material change in circumstance since the
previous decision was made in relation to the intended replacement
of the NSS which does not retain the same significance.
The lands are zoned Z7 for port use and the Seveso sites make the
site unfit for cruise vessels; the port lands will come under
increasing pressure for residential use in the future; the National
Ports Policy is more concerned with cargo than passenger traffic;
and Dun Laoghaire offers a better location for cruise ships.
Cruise ships will generate income but the associated infrastructural
costs will be shared with other agencies and the proposal could
result in demand for previously refused reclamation.
The DLR Development Plan makes provision for the continued
development of Dun Laoghaire Harbour.
The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan seeks to accommodate
cruise liner facilities and provide for a cruise ship berth which is
centrally located with direct access from the harbour mouth.
A proposed application to ABP will include a new dedicated cruise
berth at Dun Laoghaire, channel deepening and a turning circle
c.400m to the N of the harbour entrance; dredging will equate to
c.10% of Dublin Port dredging; the cruise berth will utilise existing
harbour facilities and public transport, it won’t interfere with other
activities, and it can be completed within 2 years.
Procedural Considerations:
The public notices are defective as they do not refer to the cruise
berths or the multipurpose use of North Wall Quay, the ABP
reference does not indicate the S side element of the works.
Planning considerations:
The engineering and dredging works will disrupt businesses and
damage the local economy and local amenity; the impact on port
users has not been adequately addressed; the transfer of Ro-Ro
traffic from Berths 52/53 to new berths at Crossberth Quay will
intensify vessel movements in Alexandra Basin, which will in turn
adversely affect cruise ship and cargo operators.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 237
The EIS does not contain navigation simulations, details of cruise
ships or the assumed environmental conditions for the confined
turning area; the Ocean Quay West improvements will negate the
benefits of shortening North Wall Quay, the Basin entrance is too
narrow, and large ships will have difficulty turning safely under
certain wind and tidal conditions and berthing along North Wall
Quay; Dun Laoghaire harbour does not have similar restrictions.
The EIS does not contain a firm timescale for the dredging of
contaminated material from the Basin; channel dredging could take
up to 10 years which could have implications for cruise calls.
Future operational conflicts between Ro-Ro ferries and cruise ships.
The EIS does not deal with the impact of increased traffic volumes
on safety and marine navigation in the fairway.
The EIS contains conflicting cruise ship visit statistics.
6.9 Drogheda Port Company
Question whether the proposed redevelopment will deliver the type
of port facility which Ireland required to drive forward economic
development in the mid to long term.
The proposal will not meet the requirements of the type of vessel
which the applicant considers to be optimum
The proposal has inadequate berth depth to accommodate larger
ships inadequate channel depth to provide 24/7 access.
6.10 Stena Line Limited
Potential adverse impact on traffic movement within the Port Estate
by the future closure of Alexandra Road from Breakwater Road
South to the Alexandra Road exit as per the Masterplan; the
Alexandra Road access junction carries a significant proportion of
traffic, particularly during the daytime.
Not enough information to confirm that the closure of Alexandra
Road access will not have a significant impact and that the majority
of traffic will divert from East Wall Road to the Port Tunnel.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 237
Any future closure of Alexandra Road is concern for Stena Link as it
removes the ability for the Port to absorb some of the exiting load
from the Port, leaving unnecessary pressure on the Tolka Quay
Road/ Bond Drive-Promenade Road W exit route out of the Port.
The proposed single exit route for all traffic exiting from the Port has
the potential to cause significant congestion problems particularly
following peak ferry ship arrivals.
6.11 Irish Ferries Limited
Road closure concerns are similar to those summarised above for
Stena Line Limited.
The EIS figures for the theoretical capacity of the Port Tunnel are
overestimated and the transport arrangement has the potential to
cause significant problems with a negative commercial impact.
Inadequate detail for the construction and operational phases in
relation to the infill of Berths 52/53 and the construction of the
Double Tier Linkspan, and for traffic generation during construction.
No consideration given to the potential measure to improve access
to the Terminals and easternmost Ro-Ro area by developing an
extension to the E end of Promenade Road, through land which is
controlled by DPC, to the Terminal Road N.
Any decision should be on the basis of a single Dublin Bay facility
and that Dublin Port, as a Tier 1 Port, is recognised as the most
important working port in the country; the introduction of larger and
more frequent cruise calls will increases the risk of disruption of
trade in and out of the country.
6.12 Burke Shipping Group
Concerns about the operational and technical aspects of any
decision by the Board including any conditions that might affect
operations and activities within the overall port area.
Conditions should not have an adverse impact on existing
operations within the Port and should comply with the 2007
Development Management Guidelines (relevant to planning and the
development permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 237
Request the Board to have particular regard to the existing
operators in the Port and to the significant investment and
infrastructure which has been provided by the State and by
individual companies/operators within the Port.
6.13 Dublin Graving Docks Limited
Graving Dock 2 comprises a long established port activity that has
operated since 1860 and DGDL has traded since 2002 with 26 staff.
The loss of this utility and it’s complimentary role in assisting in the
event of emergencies together with the adverse economic and
employment impacts arising have not be adequately justified.
The graving dock can be retained in Alexandra Basin within a
revised layout and arrangement as illustrated in the Masterplan.
Proposal is not plan-led and it is not in accordance with the
Masterplan which does not refer to the closure of the Graving Dock.
The AECOM report confirms that the proposal will gives rise to
more complicated and congested arrangements in terms of ship
movements and manoeuvrability when compared to the Masterplan.
Inadequate consideration of alternatives in the EIS and question the
economic viability of the project, DPC are potentially compromising
the core business of the Port for limited economic return by
facilitating seasonal cruise shipping in this part of the Port.
6.14 Ocean Trawlers Limited
Have used the Graving Dock for many years for repair and
maintenance; Dublin and Cork are the only suitable docks for
bottom painting and hull maintenance.
Welcome the proposal but infilling the existing dry dock would be a
mistake given the lack of this type of facility around the coast.
All traffic would be directed to Cork which may not be able to cope
with the extra volume which could drive business overseas.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 237
7.0 FURTHER INFORMATION
The applicant submitted significant Further Information on 18th August
2014 in relation to the following matters.
7.1 Construction noise and vibration
Provide further detailed information in relation to the proposal to
construct new quay walls and structures with regard to the anticipated
duration of overall pile installation activity and further details of the
piling techniques.
EIS worst case construction noise levels are within the thresholds
set out in the 2004 NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009.
Two piling rigs will be active simultaneously at each quay with a
short time lag between the start of the first and second rig.
Piling will run from October 2015 to January 2019 and the number
of piles active at any time will vary between 1 and 5 although up to
7 have been included in the noise model.
The number of piles will range from 18 at Berths 49/52 to 1433 at
new Berths 52/53.
Exact piling details to be finalised and piles will comprise tubular
pile combi walls (diameter 1.6m) and HZM king pile walls.
The piles will be driven by a combination of vibratory and impact
hammer techniques with ramp-up procedures.
There will be a certain degree of cross-over between construction
activities all of which will not take place at the same time.
7.2 Birds and noise
Provide further detailed information on the effects of pile installation
noise and vibration on bird populations in the vicinity.
Further studies in spring 2014 (at the start of the breeding season
for Common and Artic Terns which are located c.1.2 km and 1.5km
form Alexandra Basin) demonstrated that the tern colonies and
Black Guillemots (which regularly use the Basin) were unaffected by
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 237
pile driving activity in the area and Brent geese are already
habituated to high levels of noise.
Piling noise will not change underwater noise levels in the South
Dublin Bay and River Tolka estuary SPA and underwater noise
measurements taken in June 2014 (close to the tern colony on the
mooring dolphins) indicate that no piling noise was audible during
shipping activity.
Underwater noise propagates least at low water when wading birds
they are likely to be foraging.
International studies concluded that pile driving noise did not
adversely affect birds and that underwater noise had no effect on
fish (prey species) 200m from the noise source.
Provide further detailed information on the effects of dredging noise on
bird populations in the vicinity
Underwater noise from dredging is similar to shipping noise which
does not propagate more than 200m from source, noise cannot
propagate in water less than 1m deep so waders and other birds
will not be affected in neighbouring SPAs.
Maintenance dredging in 2012 had no significant impact on bird
populations, international studies indicate no significant correlations
between overwintering bird numbers and dredging activity.
7.3 Harbour seals, grey seals and haul out sites
Provide further detailed information on the potential effects of the
proposed works on the harbour seal and grey seal and on their ability
to continue using the Bull Island during the channel dredging works.
Around 30 seals (including pups) regularly use the Bull Island to
haul out and studies in August 2014 identified c.16 harbour seals
that are used to harbour and shipping noise.
International studies indicate that disturbance from pile driving may
be restricted to 200-300m while minor disturbance may occur up to
15km and seals are highly mobile.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 237
No adverse impacts predicted subject to mitigation including the use
of a marine observer (1000m) and ramp up procedures.
Monthly monitoring of the haul out site will be undertaken to assess
the effectiveness of the mitigation measures during and after
construction.
7.4 Harbour porpoise, marine mammals and noise
The Harbour porpoise is difficult to detect because of its small size and
erratic surfacing behaviour and further detailed information is required
to assess the potential effects of prolonged noise and disturbance from
pile installation and dredging and dumping noise, and to assess the
effectiveness of the proposed and additional mitigation measures.
Pile driving noise:
Ambient noise in Dublin Bay reflects the level of vessel traffic and
most marine mammals exhibit some tolerance to shipping noise and
some become habituated.
Piling will be fairly continuous for c.38 months when c.990 piles will
be driven and piling will be potentially simultaneous at 3 sites
(Berths 32-34, Berths 29-31 and the Marina Wall).
The potential impacts include Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) and
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and behavioural disturbance.
International studies indicate that PTS onset would occur within 5m
of pile driving for cetaceans and 20m for pinnipeds and that TTS
onset would occur within 10m and 40m, and the studies indicate
that no injury or hearing impairment should occur outside of 100m.
Harbour porpoise can experience behavioural disturbance a
significant distance from pile driving and strong avoidance
behaviour within 20km of the sound source.
Bottlenose dolphins, minke whales and pinnipeds exhibit
behavioural disturbance within 50, 40 and 14km respectively.
Harbour porpoise are very difficult to visually detect but they do
have very distinctive echolation characteristics (high frequency –
narrow bandwidth) which facilitates acoustic monitoring techniques.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 237
Propose to install a real time passive acoustic monitoring system
(PAMS) at the approaches to the Port to provide information on the
presence of marine mammals when visual mitigation is not possible,
and the data would be streamed ashore through the internet.
PAMS allows for real time monitoring of harbour porpoise and
bottlenose dolphins within a range of 250-800m and will detect mid
and low frequency seal vocalisations 24/7 in all weather conditions.
Two hydrophones will achieve monitoring on the 1000m exclusion
zone for piling, allow for the on-going detection of disturbance and
the assessment of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
The deployment of bubble curtains can result in sound reductions
from pile driving out to 10km with decreases in sound pressure
levels of up to 90%.
A recent 2014 noise trials in Dublin Bay (using smaller diameter
piles than proposed) indicate rapid attenuation of sound pressure
from piling within 500m of the sound source due to topography,
seabed substrate and the shallow water; sound pressure was
undetectable above ambient noise 3,570m from source.
The results from this trial suggest that piling will not cause TTL in
marine mammals within 500m of the site and the standard
mitigation NPWS measures will be sufficient with no need for
bubble curtains or any other additional measures.
Noise from dredging and dumping:
Around 6million m3 of sediment will be dredged from the navigation
channel and dumped at the Burford Bank on the boundary of the
SAC over a c.6 year period, 24/7 for 6 months per year.
Limited international studies indicate no evidence of ecological
changes and the greatest impact on fish and marine mammals
related to the re-suspension of contaminants.
Harbour porpoises tend to temporarily avoid extraction areas and
studies found that it takes 3 times longer for Harbour porpoise to
return to within 600m sand extraction.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 237
Dredging seems to have less effect on marine mammals than
moving sources of noise and there is little research in relation to
noise from dumping which may reflect the low impact of dumping.
Received levels of dredging noise by marine mammals can exceed
ambient levels for considerable distances depending on the type of
dredger however international studies suggest that they will be
exposed to the sound equivalent of an additional ship.
Effectiveness of mitigation measures:
The NPWS guidelines will be implemented including the use of a
marine mammal observer, exclusion zones and ramp up
procedures, acoustic harassment devices involve putting additional
unnecessary sound into energy into the marine environment.
Propose to establish a static acoustic monitoring system (SAMS)
using CPODS which will log the echolocation clicks of dolphins and
Harbour porpoise, they have detection distances of c.250m for
Harbour porpoise and 800m for bottlenose dolphins, 2 units will be
deployed at the dump site and within Dublin Bay.
Other matters:
An incorrect version of the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment
Report was inadvertently submitted with the application and it has
been replaced with the correct version.
7.5 Benthos recovery times
Further detailed information is required in relation to the impacts of
dredging and dredge disposal on various benthic communities, their
anticipated recovery times (which could take longer than c.6 months)
and the effects a prolonged recovery time might have on waterfowl
populations and marine mammals who forage for food in the area.
Dredge area:
Dredging will take place over 6 winter months per year for 6 years
and the sediment comprises muds and sands.
International studies indicate rapid recovery (months to 1 year) at
sites with high tidal energy, fine sediments, disturbed community
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 237
types, opportunistic species, with no change to remaining sediment,
which are all characteristics of Dublin Bay.
On-going maintenance dredging indicates no differences in
community structure between dredged and un-dredged areas.
Disposal area:
Around 1 million m3 of sands and muds will be dumped per year
over 6 years or c.177, 00m3 per month over 6 months which will
allow for a 6 month partial recovery period each year.
Several features of the dump sites facilitate rapid recovery of the
benthos (hydrodynamics, dumping history and nature of the spoil);
international studies at highly dispersive sites recorded minimal
impacts on biological communities.
The dump site has been used for regular dumping since 1996 and
Irish studies indicate the stable nature of the benthos over time in
the area of the dump site.
Recovery can be aided by appropriate management including the
even spread of material throughout the site to facilitate vertical
migration during winter months.
Full recovery will not occur until dredging is complete although
partial recovery will take place during the summer months.
Fisheries, waterfowl and marine mammals:
Limited international studies indicate that spoil placement had no
long term adverse impact on secondary production with rapid
recovery after 2 years.
Few studies on the effects of channel dredging on fisheries however
the likely principal impact will be on small bottom dwelling species
which will be confined to a limited area each year with no impact on
predatory waterfowl or marine mammals.
The dumpsite constitutes less than 0.5% of the SAC.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 237
7.6 Noise and turbidity
Comment on the lack of information in relation to diver safety in relation
to noise disturbance and reduced visibility.
Recent noise tests indicate that underwater noise levels at dive
sites will not be impacted by piling or dredging noise.
Disposal of spoil under normal tidal conditions will not produce a
significant plume beyond the area of the dumpsite and diving is not
permitted in the dumpsite.
Dredging will occur in the winter months and outside of the
recreational season.
7.7 Coastal processes: General
Compare previously completed Coastal Processes Studies in the
Dublin Bay and Liffey Estuary with the current ABR study for
hydrodynamic (2D and 3D modelling including thermal, water quality
and salinity studies), tidal surge, wave climate and sediment transport
(dredging and morphology) analysis.
Three relevant studies related to coastal processes within Dublin
Bay were reviewed during the preparation of the EIS (3-D hydro
model for Dublin Bay, Ringsend WWTP Long Sea Outfall and
Dublin Waste to Energy).
Further clarity is required in relation to the coastal processes models
with respect to boundary conditions, bed roughness, turbulence model
and specific boundary inputs for tides and freshwater flows for the
calibration runs.
Several well established computational models were considered by
RPS in the simulation of coastal processes and it was concluded
that the MIKE modelling system was the most suitable as it includes
both rectangular and flexible mesh models, a greater range of wave
models and a full morphological coupled model including flow,
wave, and sediment transport models with automatic feedback pf
the morphological change to bathymetry into the flow and wave
model calculations throughout the simulation.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 237
There is a high reliance on relatively poor resolution colour
contour/tonal plots to demonstrate magnitude of impact in the EIS (for
example Figure 9.7 to 9.23). Provide zoomed in plots in addition to time
series plots at relevant reference locations and also where appropriate
provide tabular comparisons.
Figures 9.7 to 9.10 have been reproduced with isolines to represent
changes in values, with a reduction in the number of arrows
representing the magnitude and direction of the current flow; figures
9.11, 9.14, and 9.21 to 9.23 have been reproduced with zoomed
inlays of relevant locations and each of the inlays also has isolines
representing changes in values to increase the clarity of the image.
7.8 Wave Climate
Clarify the accuracy of the wave climate model as it is not clear from
the EIS to what degree the wave climate modelling has been verified
against measured Wave Climate in Dublin Bay or compared with other
Wave Climate studies.
Suitable detailed wave measurements of the inshore wave climate
were not available thus the wave model simulations were
undertaken as a comparative study; the impact of the proposed
scheme was derived by transforming offshore wave data for
individual past storms events into the Dublin Bay area; this
technique has been successfully used in other studies.
Clarify whether wave-breaking and wave-current interaction has been
included and to what extent wave reflection and diffraction processes
have been modelled to predict the Wave Climate in the Liffey and Tolka
estuaries. Comment on the effectiveness of the North and South Bull
Walls in protecting the estuarine waters.
The inshore wave climate was transformed using the MIKE 21
Spectral Wave model that simulates the growth, decay and
transformation of wind generated waves and swells in offshore
coastal areas.
Wave-current interactions make little difference to inshore wave
climate.
There will be no changes to the boundary conditions with the Tolka
estuary.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 237
The Bull Walls successfully attenuate the incident offshore waves
and afford Dublin port significant protection against storm events as
the walls act as breakwaters.
Comment on the predicted increase in wave heights up along the Liffey
Channel, and clarify the magnitude of wave heights and periods in this
area and along the adjacent Liffey and Tolka Estuary Shoreline areas
with and without the proposed development. Comment on the
implications for navigation, mooring and flood risk caused by the wave
climate.
The change in wave heights at the entrance to the harbour channel
will not exceed 0.20m with a small increase in wave height at the
entrance to the Tolka estuary.
No impacts on navigation anticipated.
The maximum change to the inshore wave climate within the
channel during a storm event did not exceed +0.20m and there
would no significant impact to the mooring loads in the port.
There would be a small increase in wave height to the S of the
North Bull Bridge and the post dredging situation will increase the
height of the waves approaching the sea defences by 0.12m which
will have no perceptible impact in terms of the volume of water
breaching the sea defences from overtopping waves with no net
increase in flood risk to Clontarf.
7.9 Hydrodynamics
Comment on the effectiveness of a 3D model with 5 layers to model
salinity and the effect that salinity and temperature stratification will
have on the dredge plume dispersion from the dredging works in the
Liffey Channel.
This method has been successfully adopted in other studies within
Dublin Bay including the Bedri 3-D hydro model of Dublin Bay,
Ringsend WWTP Long Sea Outfall and Dublin Waste to Energy).
In the hydrodynamic Calibration at Station 1 the time/date scales on
horizontal axis are significantly different. Please review and overlay
these plots similar to the presentation for stations 2 and 3 in Appendix
9 Volume 2 of the EIS.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 237
The data was acquired by the Danish Hydraulic Institute in 2010
and was available only in hardcopy format.
In respect to the offshore sediment disposal site please review and
comment on why the provision of ADCP measurement data was not
carried out in the dredge disposal site. Previous hydrographic
measurements may have been carried out at this disposal site for
previous dumping at sea licences and such data should be included in
the model verification.
The model was well calibrated with 3 hydrographic stations and
hydrodynamics throughout the Bay area was accurately simulated;
given the proximity of the hydrographic sampling station H2 to the
disposal site it is valid to assume that the conditions recorded at
station H2 are representative of the disposal site.
Review and comment on the implications of the proposed development
on the Dublin Sewage Outfall discharge plume.
The dispersion envelope for the plume covers an area in which the
hydrodynamic regime remains unchanged as a result of the project
with no impact on the fate of the discharge from the outfall; the
limestone rock spoil from the proposed 9km long sea outfall from
Ringsend to be disposed of at the Burford bank has the potential for
in-combination effects, however Irish Water has confirmed that the
project has been cancelled.
7.10 Sediment Disposal Site
Clarify the accuracy of the Bathymetric surveys at the Disposal Site that
provided an estimate of 15% of the deposited waste between 2008 and
2013 to have remained within the disposal site and clarify the
conclusion that the contaminated sediments overlain / capped by
placed sand and gravel remain in-situ.
DPC’s licence requires that hydrographic surveys are conducted at
the dump site before and after maintenance dredge operations, the
data is used to generate a full digital terrain model which conducts
volume computations.
The volume of material dumped in 2012 was c.0.650 million m3, an
assessment of the 2008/13 hydrographic indicates that the change
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 237
in the sea bed level equated to an additional 0.074million m3 of
sediment at the dump site.
The models appear to indicate that the dumping is evenly distributed
across the entire disposal area, comment on how this would be
achieved and what are the implications of recurring disposal in a
localised section of the site.
Dumping is undertaken in accordance with EPA Dump at Sea
Permits and industry standards and all dredgers have GPS tack
plotters fitted to ensure that they remain on course.
7.11 Sediment Transport
Review and comment on the spillage risk from the proposed use of Silt
curtains to contain dredge sediment within the Alexandra Basin and
whether a spillage input has been included in the dredging plume
analysis.
A spillage input was not included in the dredging plume analysis as
it was not deemed necessary and the spillage risk has now been
assessed in the Draft High Level Construction Environmental
Management Plan.
Provide scientific backup for the use of 1% sediment loss rates at the
Suction Dredger head and for the overspill at the surface and comment
on the potential deviation in such rates and the resultant impact on
Liffey Channel.
Losses were assessed based on site measurements made during
the construction of the Denmark-Sweden fixed link tunnel and
bridge and by reference to data contained in “Scoping the
Assessment of Sediment Plumes from Dredging”
For dredging operations related to partially contaminated material
the total losses due to overspill will be restricted so that the loses at
the surface will be no more than 1%.
Suspended sediment measurements can be undertaken to control
dredging operations if excessive overspill becomes a problem
during dredging of the inner channel
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 237
Provide more details in respect to the dredge plume modelling (for
example how the dredging activity was specified in the model runs
including the location of the dredging activity) that gives rise to the
plume plots presented in the EIS.
Dredged material from the outer, middle and inner sections of the
harbour channel are predominantly silt and some sand which
produced no plumes.
Comment on the implications for the intake waters to the Power Plants
at Poolbeg from the proposed dredging activities.
The levels of additional suspended sediment concentrations at the
power station intakes is relatively small and is unlikely to have a
significant effect on the power station operations.
In the sediment transport study, indicate the sediment composition of
the sea bed used throughout the model domain (i.e. whether it was
variable based on sediment sampling or constant).
The composition of the seabed used through the models was based
on particle size distribution analyses and the material was mainly
fine sand.
The resolution of the morphology plots for the navigation channel and
adjacent Bay area presented in the EIS are of a very coarse scale and
consequently difficult to distinguish the sediment pattern from the
modelled storm events. Provide more zoomed in plots at the areas of
interest and explain the pattern of erosion and accretion predicted in
respect to the role of wave climate and tidal dynamics.
The proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the
existing channel.
There will be a tendency for the N bank of the approach channel,
seaward of the North Bull Wall, to migrate S under storm conditions.
There will be siltation along the banks of the approach channel
landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for the banks to migrate
in towards the channel.
A similar level of maintenance dredging will be required.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 237
7.12 Sediment sampling for contaminants
Comment on the relatively small number of sediment cores provided for
the Liffey Navigation channel and the accuracy of the contamination
classification given to sections of the channel and in particular how the
delineation of slightly/moderately contaminated sediments from
sediments suitable for disposal was arrived at and comment on the how
representative the cores are with respect to capital dredge depth.
Regard was had to several previous studies undertaken within
Dublin Port; the Marine Institute (MI) was consulted with regard to
the assessment of the suitability of sediments for disposal at sea.
Sampling and vibro-core locations for the basin, navigation channel
and fairway were agree with the MI in advance of the site
investigation works who advised on both the locations and testing
regime.
A line delineating the boundary between slightly/moderately
contaminated material and material suitable for sea was developed.
Consider alternate treatment options for moderately polluted sediments
from the section of the Liffey channel located adjacent to the Alexandra
Basin and provide details of a monitoring program that should be
carried out to identify such sediments prior to dredging.
Four alternatives were proposed including dumping at sea and
filling to lands at port, along with landfilling and export which were
considered to be too energy intensive and costly.
Provide a timescale for dredging works in the Basin, a risk assessment
and an emergency plan in the event of an accident, spillage or
containment breach.
A Dredging Risk Assessment has been carried out which discusses
the risk of spillage and this forms part of the Draft High level
Construction Management Plan which has been now submitted.
7.13 Channel dredging
Confirm that dredging and disposal operations will take place evenly
over a 6 year period 24/7 during each 6 month winter dredging
campaign, and take account of any changes to the timetable as a result
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 237
any time restrictions for the commencement of daily dredging and
dredge disposal operations as a result of the mitigation measures.
Dredging will take place 24/7 over 6 months per year and the rates
account for stoppages that may result from weather conditions.
Confirm the anticipated time period and operational hours for dredging
and dredge disposal and the coastal process models should be re-
calibrated to take account of any significant changes to the timescale.
Times confirmed and no changes to models required.
Comment on the likely potential environmental impacts arising from any
future dredging to a depth of -15mCD, including any effects this might
have on the submarine pipeline under Dublin Bay which brings
wastewater from North Dublin to Ringsend for treatment.
The project will future proof the port and the level of new quays and
berths have been designed to accommodate predicted increases in
water level as a result of climate change.
Given the cost of piling the pile lengths will accommodate potential
(but not certain) future dredging of the berthing pockets to -15mCD.
No current requirements to dredge the shipping channel beyond -
10mCD although the Masterplan refers to a possible future depth of
-12mCD up to 2040 and this would constitute a new project.
The submarine pipeline is -15.7mCD and dredging to -10 or
12mCD would have no impact;
The demolition of part of the North Quay Extension necessitates the
removal of the 220kV cable and a replacement cable is required to
maintain the connection between the Poolbeg and North Wall
Power Stations and in-combination impacts were considered with
the ESB and Eirgrid although the specific nature, extent, location
and construction has yet to be confirmed and will be subject to a
separate future proposal for statutory consent.
7.14 Responses to Further Information
The responses received from the DAH&G, EIRGRID, the Irish
Underwater Council and Peadar Farrell raised no new issues.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 237
8.0 THE ORAL HEARING
8.1 Introduction
The oral hearing opening on Wednesday 8th October 2014 and it
closed on Friday 17th October 2014. The hearing lasted for 7 days and
it took place in the Academy Plaza Hotel, Findlater Street, Dublin 1.
A digital recording of the proceedings, copies of written submissions,
where provided, and the attendance lists are attached to this report.
Dr. Anthony Cawley of Hydro Environmental Limited was appointed by
the Board to provide advice on matters relating to coastal processes,
hydrodynamics, flood risk and climate change.
8.2 Oral Hearing Proceedings
The following sections provide a brief summary only of the main
additional information that emerged at the oral hearing over and above
that contained in the application documentation, further information
response and written submissions already received and summarised in
the foregoing sections of this report.
8.3 Applicants Submissions
The applicant was requested to make a brief opening submission to the
hearing to describe the nature and extent of the proposed
development. The applicant’s expert witnesses were requested to
provide a brief summary of their main findings and conclusions, and to
then focus on the matters raised in the observations received by the
Board in relation to the following broad and overlapping issues:
Alternatives
Construction phase
Dredging and dredge disposal
Coastal processes and hydrology
Contamination
Noise
Ecology
Heritage and archaeology
Transportation, traffic and access
Jarleth Fitzsimmons (Senior Counsel) set the legislative context for
the proposed development.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 237
Eamonn O’Reilly (Chief Executive) described the nature and extent of
the proposed development and the evolution of the Masterplan; he
illustrated the historical development of the port and explained the
rational for the proposed development.
Michael Sheary (Company Secretary and Chief Financial Officer) set
the European, national and economic context for the proposed
development and summarized the community gain proposal.
Captain David Dignam (Harbour Master) described current and future
marine operations at Dublin Port in relation to the restrictions imposed
by the current channel width and alignment, the turning and
manoeuvring areas at the entrance to Alexandra Basin West, and tidal
windows; along with the need to accommodate larger and longer
vessels in the future.
Terry Durney (McCabe, Durney Barnes Planning Consultants) set the
planning policy context for the proposed development and addressed
the consideration of alternatives.
The Dublin Eastern By-pass:-
The proposed development accords with recent developments in
relation to the NRA’s corridor study for the Dublin Eastern By-pass
(2014); the line of the by-pass is annotated as being indicative only
on Map F of the DCC Development Plan, and meetings have taken
place between DPC and the NRA.
Response to Observers concerns:-
Cruise vessels do not take up substantial parts of the land bank;
the NSS remains in place; the proposal complies with the Z7
zoning objective in relation to industrial uses and employment
opportunities; and it is not an objective of the DCC Development
Plan to extend the City eastwards.
The Local Action Plan for Cruise Traffic and Urban Renewal is not
a statutory plan however the Board can have regard to it and this
plan informed the DPC Masterplan.
The cost of providing quayside facilities for cruise vessels is not a
planning consideration and the port is multi-functional; the safety of
vessels accessing the port during high winds is a matter for the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 237
Harbour Master; and the use of the quays for cruise vessels does
not constitute a separate land use.
There is no current to medium term requirement for a permanent
cruise terminal structure given the number of cruise visits per year,
although one may be required in the future if Dublin establishes
itself as a cruise departure location.
Dr. Alan Barr provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to EIS preparation, alternatives, water quality,
interactions and in-combination effects which are already detailed in
section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report. A Draft Water
Quality Management Plan (which forms part of the CEMP) was also
submitted to the hearing.
Response to Observers concerns:-
Contaminated sediments in Alexandra Basin West are not suitable
for dumping at sea and they will be treated by way of
Stabilisation/Solidification and reused as infill material in
accordance with an EPA Industrial Emissions Licence.
The sediments in the navigation channel are suitable for disposal at
sea as they have no significant eco-toxicological effect on the
marine environment.
Low levels of contaminated sediments adjacent to the Basin will be
disposed of at sea only on slack tide and immediately covered by
sand and gravel in accordance with an EPA Dumping at Sea
Permit.
There will be no increase in algae growth due to suspended silt
dredged from the inner navigation channel as the tidal flow patterns
at the Burford Bank are such that silts will be dispersed by the tidal
currents in a N-S direction.
The Basin and berthing pockets will be dredged to -10mCD and
designed to be dredged to -15mCD to future proof the operations of
Dublin Port; the level of the new quays and berths have been
designed to accommodate predicted increases in water level as a
result of climate change; the piles have a 50 year lifespan; and any
future dredging of the berths or approach channel to -12mCD will
be subject planning approval.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 237
The impact of the proposed development in-combination with
several other plans and projects in Dublin Bay were appraised and
screened out as having no cumulative impact.
An objective of the CEMP is to ensure the implementation of all
mitigation measures and standards set out in the EIS without
modification or the introduction of new measures, except where
required by ABP.
The mitigation measures are specified in the NIS and the EIS, and
implementation will be carried through to the CEMP which will form
part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the
construction phase making adherence to the mitigation measures
binding on the contractor.
Dr Michael Shaw provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to the engineering works and demolition,
construction and pile driving works over 3 main phases, which are
already detailed in section 5.2 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this
report. Dr Shaw also clarified that a maximum of 5 piling rigs will be
operating simultaneously for a short time in 2018.
A Draft Dredging Management Plan was also submitted to the hearing
which provided information in relation to:
An overview of operations.
Roles and responsibilities of interested parties.
A risk assessment.
Prevention and mitigation measures.
Response to Observers concerns:-
The exposed sections of Stoney’s quay will be supported by steel
piles installed along the full length of the new quay structure, the
top of the piles will be cut down to expose the conservation zones
and concrete will be placed behind the piles and the Stoney blocks
are supported on the sea bed.
The strengthening works at the Great South Wall involve the
placement of additional rock armour to extend the existing
underwater rock armour protection to the new channel; there will be
no piling operations at the Great South Wall; and slope stabilisation
works are proposed in the vicinity of the Wall to reinforce the
dredge slopes and prevent slippage.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 237
Adrian Bell provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions
in relation to coastal processes and coastal flooding which are already
detailed in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
The nature of the bed sediments above the East Link Bridge will
not be altered as a result of the proposed dredging downstream of
the bridge, as there is no change in the tidal regime above the
bridge, there will be no increase in sediment transport and erosion
upstream of the bridge as a result of dredging.
Several mitigation measures will ensure that the protection of
marine mammals and the requirements for a Marine Mammal
Observer can be accommodated without undue disruption to the
dredging and disposal programme.
The waters around the dump site are well mixed so the use of a
depth averaged hydraulic model is appropriate for modelling the
suspended sediment concentrations away from the immediate
area of the dump barge; under normal tidal conditions sand will
settle onto the sea bed with no significant plumes beyond the dump
site and no impact on dive operations; the silt will stay in
suspension and will be quickly dispersed away into the main body
of the Irish Sea with no significant plumes beyond the dump site
and no impact on dive operations outside the area.
Silt will dispersed away into the Irish Sea and only a minute fraction
will be deposited along the shorelines in Dublin Bay to a depth of
0.003mm while the sand will gradually assimilate back into the
bay’s sediment budget with no impacts on coastal processes or
European sites.
None of the utilities, outfalls, weirs or intakes beside the Great
South Wall will be affected by the deepening of the shipping
channel by way or structural works or excessive suspended
sediment concentrations.
The dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material
adjacent to North Wall Quay and the entrance to Alexandra Basin
will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from
the main channel and the silts will deposited in the dump site and
overlaid/capped with the dredged gravel as is previous campaigns.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 237
The dump site is located in c.20m of water so winds cannot usually
affect the sea bed at this depth and there will be no re-suspension
of dumped sediments and the disposal of dredged material will be
undertaken as a slow gradual process with no impact on fish and
marine mammals.
The winter storms of 2013/14 were severe and prolonged, large
quantities of sediment were drawn off beaches and shorelines by
severe wave action which greatly increased the suspended
sediment values along the coast and in Dublin Bay which in turn
resulted in damage to shellfish beds and poor diver visibility.
The increase in wave heights at the adjacent to the Clontarf
wooden bridge is minor and there will be no net increase to the
existing flood risk to this area of Clontarf.
Donal Doyle provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions
in relation to contaminated sediments treatment and infilling which are
already detailed in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this
report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
C.470,000m3 of dredged material to be treated by stabilisation/
solidification an reused as infill, the remainder of the dredged
material is considered suitable for disposal at sea and the works
will take place in accordance with the conditions of an EPA
industrial emissions licence.
In accordance with its current Dumping at Sea Permit DPC is
permitted to dredge contaminated sediments from the navigation
channel and dispose of these sediments subject to specific
conditions (capping of contaminated material at the dump site with
a 0.5m thick layer of clean coarse uncontaminated material yielded
from the dredging campaign).
The costs associated with landfilling and/or export would be
prohibitive given the large volume of slightly/moderately
contaminate material with associated energy costs and there is no
further spare capacity in Berths 52/53 or the Graving Dock 2.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 237
Stephen Cleary provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to noise and vibration which are already detailed
in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
The cruise ship numbers included in the Noise and Vibration
chapter of the EIS are taken from Table 15 of the Project rationale
document.
The noise mitigation measures relate to hours of operation of noise
producing activities in the marine environment and the mitigation
measures included in the EIS should be included as a condition to
any grant of permission.
Changes to plant and equipment will not result in any significant
operational phase noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive
locations and the noise associated with the increase in the relative
frequency of certain types of vessels will not exceed existing
ambient and background noise levels.
The EIS contains a detailed appraisal of worst case construction
phase activities including pile driving, although noise will be audible
along Pigeon House Road the levels will be lower than the noise
threshold limits in the 2004 NRA Guidelines and BS5228:209.
A list of addresses for the noise monitoring locations and noise
prediction locations has been submitted; Tables 7.1.14 to 16 are
revised to include current modelled noise predictions.
Any approval of permission will include conditions stipulating the
requirements for noise monitoring during the construction and
operational phase; and accept the content of the three standard
noise conditions suggested by DCC.
Predicted noise levels will be below existing ambient noise levels at
all of the nearest noise sensitive locations and below or similar to
existing background noise levels.
Eugene McKeown provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to underwater noise which are already detailed
in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 237
Response to Observers concerns:-
The NIS core mitigation measures are repeated in the EIS and form
part of the schedule of Environmental commitments.
The DAH&G conditions are in line with those set out in the EIS and
the NPWS Guidance to Manage Risk to Marine mammals from
Manmade Sound Sources in Irish Waters (2014).
The underwater noise evaluation is based on a worst case view
premised on open water propagation whilst the Basin is confined in
shallow water with significant sediment thickness.
The use of the port by larger vessels will not necessarily mean an
increase in noise levels; vessels are now designed to be quieter;
noise impacts are localised in spatial and temporal impact and
shipping noise levels in Dublin Bay are confined to narrow
channels; and noise levels 1km outside this zone are close to
background levels.
The popular dive sites in Dublin Bay are outside the are enclosed
by the North Bull and Great South Walls and at least 6km from the
nearest piling location and 3km from the nearest dredging location;
and underwater noise levels in the cSAC will not adversely affect
the conservation interests of the site.
In relation to in-combination effects, the shallow water and
absorption of the seabed are such that underwater noise levels will
be at a level that when combined with any of the other plans and
projects in the Bay the cumulative impact will be zero due to the
logarithmic addition of noise levels.
There are no known cases of injury or death of a marine mammal
due to noise from pile driving.
Gerard Morgan provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to benthic ecology and fisheries which are
already detailed in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this
report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 237
Consumption of contaminated prey and changes to prey availability
are listed as two potential impacts in the EIS as examples of how
the Harbour porpoise might be affected but neither will be
significant because:
o Porpoises are a wide ranging species which forage over a wide
area and they eat a variety of fish species.
o The level of sediment contamination is classed as slight to
moderate, it equates to less than 10% of the overall volume for
disposal and it will be capped at the dump site.
o Fish will always be present at the site and a temporary reduction
in fish density will not have a significant ecological effect on
porpoises
All matters relating to dredge spoil disposal are subject to a
Dumping at Sea licence and Foreshore licence application; the
adoption of good practice will be incorporated into the CEMP; and
water monitoring stations will be in operation throughout the full
construction period.
There will be no pile driving during the salmon smolt run from
March to May each year.
Neither fish no shellfish will be contaminated, Dublin Bay is not a
designed bivalve shellfish growing area, lobsters and crabs are
potted in parts of the bay but not at the dumpsite, flat fish and
round fish are usually not commercially caught from within the bay,
and the findings of the Marine Institute indicate that contaminant
levels in Irish sea fish and shell fish are low.
No lobsters, scallops, oysters or Norwegian lobsters were collected
or observed in the study area and the chances of a shoal of fish
being killed during dredge disposal area very remote as most
species are noise sensitive.
No permanent loss of habitat in the cSAC, only 20% of the channel
area will be dredged each year, dredge areas will take c.6 months
to recover and a certain amount of partial recovery is like between
each 6-month campaign, the effects of far field deposition silt
deposition will be so minor as not to cause an impact with no
adverse impacts on the integrity of the cSAC.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 237
Simon Berrow provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to marine mammals which are already detailed
in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.
Proposed amendment to marine mammal mitigation measures:
The Applicant requests the Board to consider the following changes to
the marine mammal mitigation measures:
Models carried out as part of the pile driving appraisal undertaken
in by Eugene McKeown indicate that the impact of noise levels
arising from piling will be confined to an area 500m upstream and
downstream of the Basin - request that the mitigation zone for piling
be reduced from 1000m to 500m in line with the results of this
model.
Noise from dredging/dumping is estimated in the NPWS Guidelines
at 177dB at peak frequency of 80-200Hz and band width of 20Hz-
80Hz; the source level for dredging is below the threshold for injury
to marine mammals (c.183-206dB at 2.5KHz for pinnipeds and
c.145dB for harbour porpoise; the recommended criteria for injury
for non-pulsed sound of 203dB SEL for pinnipeds in water and
215dB SEL for high frequency cetaceans; the potential impact for
dredging is therefore confined to disturbance only; in a general
model of 15 Log R, the disturbance distance for marine mammals,
assuming a SEL threshold of 145dB is 256m whilst a 35 Log R
model reduces the distance to 16m – as the disturbance distance is
well below that threshold for injury request that the mitigation zone
for dredging from 500m to 250m.
A mitigation measure contained in S.5.2.9 (bullet point 4) of the EIS
relates to a 50m zone around dredging is not included in the NPWS
2014 Guidelines as harbour porpoise are unlikely to enter this zone
– according to the NPWS such a measure is not necessary and its
removal is requested.
Response to Observers concerns:-
The potential risks/impacts on Harbour porpoise have very little
likelihood of causing direct impacts on this species (or any other
marine mammal) at population level and the scale of the scale of
the effects are not considered significant.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 237
Impacts of sound pressure are not considered significant as the
sound exposure levels will be at or below ambient noise levels at
the dump site for dredging and piling activity.
Mitigation measures, including real time passive acoustic
monitoring, will reduce any potential impact to individual animals
and there will be no significant impacts on the Conservation
Objectives of the cSAC and the 2014 NPWS Marine Mammal
Guidelines will be adhered.
The dump site has been used since 1996 and the mitigation
measures will ensure species protection and contaminants will not
be realised into the environment.
To ensure that any noise disturbance to harbour porpoises is
limited, a static acoustic monitoring programme will be
implemented (including monitoring stations at the dump site) to
demonstrate that porpoise activity levels are unaffected or return to
pre-construction levels.
Acknowledge that piling and dredging in the Basin at the same time
would increase the potential impacts of sound exposure to marine
mammals therefore simultaneous dredging, demolition and piling
should not occur, or should be strictly limited in the Basin to
minimise risk.
With reference to the Marine Mammal Observer protocol, once
operations are underway the visual scans are no longer required
and it is therefore possible for activity to continue at night time and
if environmental conditions deteriorate.
The full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in
s.5.2.9 of the EIS will ensure that there will be no significant
impacts on marine mammals, including Harbour porpoise within
Dublin Bay and the c.SAC and other designed sites or their
Conservation objectives.
Richard Nairn provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to birds which are already detailed in section 2.5
and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 237
Addendum to written submission
The effects of construction activity (including pile-driving) may
affect birds be two different pathways:
o Aerial noise (addressed below), and
o Underwater noise (already addressed by FI)
Effects of noise disturbance include changes in feeding behaviour,
takin flight or being more vigilant but often without any effect on
their energy budget.
Impacts of noise disturbance imply a change in body condition,
productivity or survival and at population level and the impact
depends on the availability of alternative feeding sites.
Threatening sounds include impulsive sounds; although pile driving
is impulsive it is also repetitive and not threatening to birds; this
was evidenced in studies undertaken on the effects of pile driving
noise and vibration disturbance in birds in the Humber Estuary
SPA; noise up to 50dbA had no effect, noise between 50dBA and
85dBA had some effects and noise above 85dBA resulted in flight;
ambient construction noise levels should be restricted to below
70dBA and sudden irregular noise above 50dBA should be
avoided.
The nearest construction noise will be at the S end of Berths 52/53
which is c.120m from the nearest boundary of the SPA; the worst
case predicted noise level of 51dBA is predicted at the at the
nearest point of the SPA; the entire site is of pile driving is
screened from the SPA on the E and N sides by an elevated
embankment of the seawall, stockpiles of sand and gravel and
port structures which will attenuate any aerial noise, and the
perceived noise from this source will be below the safe 55dBA.
Response to Observers concerns:-
In the case of all of the European sites, with the exception of
Rockabill SPA, the published Conservation objectives are generic
but the Qualifying Interests are site specific therefore it is not
possible to transpose detailed Conservation objectives for other
sites which have the same Qualifying Interests.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 237
There are no mitigation measures for the geese or terns as there
will be only imperceptible impacts on these species; the mitigation
measures for the Guillemots are included in the EIS; and the
dredging will be confined to the winter months and the respective
SPAs were screened out.
Niall Brady provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions
in relation to cultural heritage which are already detailed in section 2.5
of this report.
Response to Observers concerns:
The heritage initiatives are directed at re-connecting the port and its
activities with the city, and support the principles of promoting
minimal intervention by retaining as much of the original North Wall
Quay structure as possible.
Licenced archaeological work revealed no material of
archaeological significance at the Poolbeg Marina; archaeological
monitoring will take place at the Poolbeg Lighthouse during
construction phases works; no impact on sediment transport to the
W of the East Link Bridge; and a copy of the Hydrographic Surveys
Ltd report was made available.
Christopher Southgate provided a summary of the main findings and
conclusions in relation to conservation which are already detailed in
section 2.5 of this report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
Conservation zone A (55m long) adjacent to East oink Bridge will
not be dredged and in other conservation zones the piles will
continue under water level to restrain the Stoney block laterally with
a horizontal spanning pile cap tied to full height piles at the return
on each end thus providing support to the blocks.
Timber piles were not deployed in the North Wall Quay extension
and the blocks rest on the sea bed; the blocks are always under
water and are not been faced with calp limestone.
The infill of Graving Dock 2 will be reversible so as to ensure that
there is no long term loss of historic fabric and it will be recorded
using laser scanning survey so all historical information regarding
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 237
the profile is preserved by record and the original historic Graving
Dock 1 will be open to public access
Other pedestrian access points were considered unviable as an
alternative to the use of gated entrance at East Link Bridge.
The use of the Pump House as an interpretative centre would be
unworkable due to access and security reasons; the current
location of Interpretative Zone 1 was chosen because to its
proximity to pedestrian links, the quays, vehicular routes and the
heritage trail.
Celine Daly provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions
in relation to transportation which are already detailed in section 2.5 of
this report.
Response to Observers concerns:-
Accept that the Dublin Tunnel has been designated as the M50
motorway and that it’s possible future function as a section of the
Eastern By-pass must be recognised and protected.
The methodology for calculating the theoretical capacity of the
Dublin Tunnel was based on the NRA standards.
Concerns in relation construction dirt and dust in the Tunnel were
addressed in the Draft High Level CEMP which referred to a Traffic
Management Plan, Site Waste Management Plan, Dust and Odour
Management Plan and a Dust Minimisation Plan.
Welcome the confirmation of a technically feasible route corridor
that allows for the delivery of the proposal and which has been
designed to accommodate the new corridor.
The access close to the Point Roundabout will be the dedicated
route for pedestrians and cyclists associated with the liners until
such time as the Eastern By-pass is implemented; the traffic
situation at the roundabout will be alleviated by the removal of HGV
U-turns; it may be signalised by DCC in the future and willing to
accept a condition that this route cannot be used until signalisation
is complete.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 237
The absence of a vehicular access to the cruise berths has been
addressed by an Indicative Layout for Terminal 4 (Drg. No.
IBH0362/0020) which shows indicative vehicular routes and
parking facilities for buses, taxis and other vehicles (Figure 4).
The internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic
internally before the access closures; a detailed traffic appraisal
analysed the access closure timings and the impact on the internal
road network, the Tunnel and the interchange connecting the Port
(at Promenade Road) to the Tunnel; and the impact of growth on
the internal road network and junctions for the Masterplan was
examined for 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040.
A detailed road capacity analysis identifies and assesses the key
peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking of the
largest Ro-Ro vessels.
The traffic distribution between the Port and the surrounding
external road network will not be changed by the proposal; the road
changes cause only the assignment of each approach road to
change; and more traffic will not access the Port via the Tunnel due
to the access changes.
Drg. No. IBH0362/0075 Emergency Route Options show alternative
access routes if a blockage was to occur at any section of the
internal road network once the proposed access and internal road
closures are in place.
Irish Ferries objection to the closure of a section Alexandra Road is
not part of this proposal; traffic surveys were commissioned over 7
days; the NRA is satisfied with the use of PUC conversion factors;
the selection of the peak hour calculations use industry recognised
methodology; and a detailed road capacity analysis identifies and
assesses the key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous
disembarking of the largest Ro-Ro vessels.
Certain junctions will not operate within capacity by 2040 and the
internal road network will experience capacity issues towards the
end of the Masterplan period; the internal road network will operate
within capacity up to at least 2024; this analysis considered the
entire Masterplan development and not just the current proposal.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 237
Willing to liaise with DCC and NTA to provide a Transport Plan and
to provide a Road Bond by way of condition.
8.4 Observers submissions
The Observers were requested to provide a brief summary of their main
concerns, to indicate whether or not their concerns had been
addressed by the Applicant’s submission and to identify any
outstanding areas of concern. The main issues raised in the Observer’s
written submission are already detailed in sections 4, 5 and 6 of this
report.
8.4.1 Dublin City Council
Mary Conway provided a summary of the main concerns raised by the
Planning Authority in relation to the proposed development which are
already detailed in section 4 of this report and any additional concerns
raised during the hearing are summarised below.
General:
Proposal complies with the aims of the City Development Plan and
the National Development Plan and the Z7 zoning objective as it
provides for port related facilities and activities which are permitted
uses.
Proposal complies with the primary objective of the North Lotts
Planning Scheme and the CTUR LAP to grow cruise traffic with
enhanced connectivity to the City although the absence of a cruise
terminal building/facility and associated access should be
addressed.
Conservation and built heritage:
Alexandra Basin, North Wall Quay extension, the lighthouse, and
the Graving Dock are of considerable heritage value; although
North Wall Quay is a protected structure the North Wall Quay
Extension is not protected, and there are no other Protected
Structures in the area.
Acknowledge the strategic importance of Dublin Port and its need
to develop as a modern and efficient port that supports the
economy of the city, region and the country; and accept the
necessity to demolish part of the quay wall and welcome the
conservation works.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 237
Roads and traffic:
Supportive of the proposal, the Masterplan, the overall
consolidation of the Port and the movement objectives.
Aspects require further agreement with DCC including the timing of
the access closures off East Wall Road, the traffic management
measures and the capacity of the internal road network to
accommodate redistributed traffic, which could be addressed by
way of condition.
Work is progressing on plans for the signalisation of the Point
Round-about including the provision of pedestrian facilities, but not
appropriate to concentrate pedestrian/cyclist access at this location
until improved facilities are available, which could be addressed by
way of condition.
Eastern by-pass:
Consistent with the objective of delivering the By-pass in the
medium to long term, it facilitates a potential alignment along the W
boundary of the Port and accords with the indicative layout in the
City Plan.
Marine mammals:
The 500m and 1000m exclusion zones for dredging and piling
activities will necessitate the inclusion of several European site
within the exclusion area which include:
o North Bull Island SPA which is used by harbour and grey seals
for breeding and haul-out.
o South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA which is used by
seals and Harbour porpoise, and
o Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC which is designated for Harbour
Porpoise.
o Seals also use the Liffey Estuary and it tidal extent to
Islandbridge.
DCC request that:
o The potential noise impact zones should be mapped in
accordance with the distances stated in the assessment and in
relation to the European Site boundaries, so that it can be
clearly shown where the key impacts are to occur with regard to
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 237
the European sites on Dublin Bay; these zone maps should
include each species and their known usage of and range within
Dublin Bay.
To address potential issues of MMO Fatigue and as recommended
by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, DCC request that:
o Daytime hours are clearly defined in terms of when operations
can commence and cease and that all mitigation measures
should be I accordance with the 2014 Guidelines.
Since there would also be major benefit for the provision for timely
publication of MMO reports, DCC request that:
o The records of monitoring which is submitted to the NPWS be
published by the Applicant and that the Applicant shall also
submit the data to NBDC for the Marine Database, in the
national interest.
Concerned to ensure the preservation of a nationally important site
in Dublin Bay for Harbour porpoise which is sensitive to shipping
disturbance and dredging activity.
No comprehensive survey of seals has been done for Dublin Bay;
the inclusion of Irish Seal Sanctuary data for the Bull island would
have been useful in the Applicant’s assessment; regard should be
had to the City Council’s Management Plan for the North Bull Island
Special Amenity Area which states that 30-40 seals were observe
regularly using the site as a haul-out and for breeding and the use
of N Dublin Bay and beyond for breeding must be fully taken into
account.
Confirm that the regular population on the Bull island is 30 seals
but this is not the maximum number; the island is definitely a
breeding site and not just a haul-out, it has been used continuously
for breeding for the past 15 years as well as for seal rescue; the
applicant’s survey took place over 1 day which is inadequate to
assess site usage which has had consistent usage since c.1914;
and use of the island by seals is affected by recreational
disturbance as well as by tides.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 237
DCC request that:
o The monitoring of Bull Island as put forward by the consultant
marine ecologist to the Applicant be accepted and undertaken.
In order to assess the impact and effectiveness of mitigation
measures it is recommended that the Applicant undertakes
monthly monitoring of seal haul out sites at the North Bull island
and adjacent areas pre-construction, during construction and for
a minimum of 2 years post construction, in line with best
international practice; the propose monitoring methodology and
duration of the survey to be agreed with DCC and the NPWS.
o The monitoring for harbour and grey seals should be further
extended to include executing a survey of Dublin Bay within the
zones of influence as defined by the EIS.
o There should be a review by DCC and the NPWS of the
mitigation strategy following completion of the surveys at each
stage of completion.
Benthic communities:
Accept that the benthic communities in Dublin Bay can have a
quick recovery but that this may take 2-3 years where gravels
occur; this could affect fish biomass and the food supply for the
c.20, 000 wintering birds; there is no detailed survey or data for the
prey resource for Dublin Bay or its usage by protected species.
Sedimentation plumes seem to be directed toward North Bull Island
and the Tolka Estuary, which could be exacerbated during storm
events, and the coastal models indicate a rise in seabed levels -
the impact of which on the SPA feeding resource has not been
assessed.
Piling operations:
Although the piling schedule is described as phased, 3 of the
phases are potentially simultaneous (Phases2, 2a and 4) at Berths
29-31, Berths 32-43, Ocean Pier, and the Marina Wall, DCC
requests:
o Clarification of the proposed phasing of the piling schedule and
how much it will overlap, as this may intensify impacts on
protected species.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 237
The preliminary programme dates are for piling to commence in
October 2015 and continue until January 2019; the number of rigs
that will be active at any one time will vary over this period with
initially one rig being active (October 2015) reaching a maximum of
5 (Jan 2018).
Consideration should be given not just to the number but the
timing of the operations of these rigs in relation to:
o The breeding season for cetaceans (seals in October to March)
o Autumn and spring migration of lamprey (in the Liffey) and
returning salmon.
DCC also request that:
o Monitoring for lamprey at the relevant location at Alexandra
Basin be undertaken by the Applicant pre-construction and
during and after the relevant phase of dredging (one season).
Dredging operations:
Query whether the maintenance dredging requirements during the
post-construction phase should also be included in any screening for
AA and EIA.
Bats:
The Applicants bat survey was undertaken at the wrong time of
year in January when the bats are in a state of torpor and the
structures should be resurveyed, and if found, bats should be
moved, DCC requests that:
o The 4 structures proposed for demolition should be re-
surveyed prior to demolition for bats when they are active (May
to September), in accordance with best practice guideline
(2010).
Otter:
The Tolka estuary is critical for otter connectivity between the
Ballybough sections of the River Tolka through to Fingal.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 237
Bryophytes:
The NIS and EIS omitted to mention several species of Bryophyte
which are to be included in the Flora Protection Order 2014.
Invasive species:
No species were found during the site survey which is unusual for
an international port, the EU Invasive Species regulations (2014)
require the identification of pathways for invasive alien species and
this should have been considered in the EIS and a risk assessment
undertaken, DCC request that:
o The applicant should provide a risk assessment and a strategy
for a management system for invasive alien species to be used
for the duration of the propose project in accordance with EU
Regulations.
Proposed planting:
Consideration should be given to increasing the proposed planting
and softening of the Port perimeter as the current proposal is too
narrow for significant impact on ecological function.
Community gain proposal:
DCC welcomes the proposal and requests that:
o Proposal to provide for the transfer of ownership to DCC of
10.5ha of lands owned at North Bull Island by DCC is accepted,
provided that the purpose of the land transfer is to provide for
public enjoyment – subject to fulfilment of the Conservation
Management Objectives of the North Dublin Bay SAC (000206)
and the protection of the North Bull island SPA (00400) so as to
ensure compliance with European and national legislation.
The Applicant shall contribute a sum of E200, 000 towards the
cost of the Study and Masterplan within 2 years of planning
consent having been secured by the Applicant.
The Applicant shall contribute to DCC a further sum of E1, 000,
000 on an agreed basis, towards the provision of any services or
facilities to implement the feasibility study/proposed
Masterplan/SAAO management Plan within 10 years of planning
consent for the ABR Project having been secured by the
Applicant.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 99 of 237
8.4.2 National Roads Authority
Tara Spain provided a summary of the main concerns raised by in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 5 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
Dublin Tunnel:
The future function of the Dublin Tunnel as an important aspect of
both existing and future planning and transportation policy for the
entire City and region must be recognise and protected.
The assumptions and methodology for calculating the capacity of
the Dublin Tunnel are incorrect and capacity has been significantly
overestimated because:
o It is a distortion to calculate capacity over a 24 hour period.
o Conversion factors should have been applied to larger vehicles
which are also affected by road gradients.
o Tunnel capacity is not equivalent to a surface road. As it is
constrained by:
Dublin Tunnel By-laws with regard to chevrons.
Ventilation, fire safety and emergency access.
Downstream traffic capacity limitations.
The NRA request that:
o A scheme of specific demand management measures for the
DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 shall be prepared by the
Developer in consultation with the NRA prior to the
commencement of development. The final agreed scheme of
specific demand management measures including
implementation schedule shall be submitted to the PA for
approval prior to the operational phase of the development.
Reason: In the interests of managing and protecting the safety,
efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National
Road Network in the Region.
Appropriate measures should be defined and required to prevent
the deposition of construction dirt and dust in the Tunnel, and the
NRA requests that:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 100 of 237
Prior to the commencement of any development, the Developer
shall liaise with the NRA and the operators of the Dublin tunnel
to prepare and agree a Construction Traffic Management
Strategy for the Dublin tunnel for the duration of the works.
Reason: In the interests of managing and protecting the safety,
efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National
Road Network in the Region.
Eastern By-pass:
The NRA broadly supports the proposal and welcomes DPC’s
statement of support for the construction of the Eastern Bypass.
An Engineering and Urban Design Study has been undertaken in
consultation with DCC for the section of the route between the
Dublin Tunnel Southern Portal and the River Liffey, which identifies
a technically feasible corridor that accommodates 3 possible route
alignment options that would not preclude the proposed
development.
A revised Corridor Protection Study Sector A Dublin Port Tunnel to
Sandymount Strand (2014) has been prepared although the
statutory protection of the newly identified corridor has yet been
agreed and pending such agreement, the existing policy outlined in
the 2009 Corridor Protection Study and the DCC Plan has to
remain in place.
The main pedestrian and cyclist access to the port cruise berths at
the Point Roundabout is in conflict with one of the route options for
the eastern By-pass and the NRA requests that the primary access
should be amended to access the LUAS Plaza/terminus just N of
the 3 Arena (Point Depot):
o The proposed development, and any further development of
lands in the ownership or control of Dublin Port Company, shall
be undertaken strictly in accordance with the requirements of the
NRA’s Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to
Sandymount Strand September 2014, including the protection of
the Eastern By-pass Corridor as indicated.
Reason: In the interests of proper planning and sustainable
development.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 101 of 237
o Primary pedestrian and cycle access should be amended to
access the LUA Plaza/Terminus N or the 3 Arena.
Reason: In the interests of the protection of the Eastern Bypass
Corridor.
8.4.3 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht
Dr Freddie O’Dwyer provided a summary of the main concerns raised
in relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 5 of this report. Any additional concerns raised during the
hearing are summarised below.
No outstanding issues of concern in relation to underwater
archaeology; confirmed the absence of Recorded Monuments and
Protected Structures within the proposal site and request the Board
not to attach conditions that require compliance with the DAH&G.
Suggested the use of the Pump house as an interpretative centre;
that the Stoney blocks should be stored in a secure location; and
raised safety concerns in relation to pedestrian access at the Point
Roundabout and the possibility of anti-social activities in the Basin
with regard to the proposed Heritage Trail.
Regard must be had to the Architectural Guidelines (and the
sections related to harbours and quays) and to the ICOMAS Dublin
Principles.
8.4.4 An Taisce
Ian Lumley provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 5 of this report and any additional concerns raised during the
hearing are summarised below.
The concerns in relation to marine ecology have not been resolved;
the studies are extremely confined in their scope to the Port,
shipping channel and dredge disposal site; and the wider potential
impacts of deposition of dredged material (plumes, sediment
transportation, silting, accretion, turbidity, light dilution) with knock-
on effects for re-colonisation, benthos recovery, fish nurseries,
marine mammals and ecosystems chains have not been
addressed.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 102 of 237
The Board is obliged to ensure that adequate information has been
provided in order to carry out an EIA and AA; and more effective
independent monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures
on developments affecting European sites is required.
In relation to dredging, treatment and dumping of sediments, the
Board should also:
o Provide an independent assessment of the methodology
proposed for silt removal and disposal.
o Determine if marine dumping is the most appropriate treatment
and what alternatives have been considered.
o Determine if the level of heavy metals/contaminants are such
that dumping at sea is not appropriate.
o Attach a condition which is transparent and legally enforceable
and to require independent monitoring of the methodology and
mitigation measures, particularly with regard to marine
mammals.
Concerns were also raised in relation to the impact of international
shipping and the proposed development on global CO2 emissions
and climate change.
8.4.5 Irish Underwater Council
Dr Tim Butter provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.1 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
Concerns in relation to the impacts of underwater noise appear to
be resolved by the Applicant’s survey which indicates that noise
from piling could not be detected above normal background
underwater noise at Howth Head and Dun Laoghaire (close to dive
sites).
Concerns still exist with regard to the concentration of suspended
solids resulting from disposal of dredge material and the potential
impact on underwater visibility; computer modelling is a useful
predictive tool but such models do not always predict accurate
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 103 of 237
results and the following additional data would satisfy these
concerns:
o Field data used to substantiate the claim that no adverse
suspended solids issue arose from the 2012 dredging campaign.
o Data correlating suspended solids concentrations to underwater
visibility so as to better understand the impact of additional
suspended solids from the disposal activity.
The MMO can only carry out a visual check for marine mammals
during daylight hours with wind speed Force 3 or less which
restricts the time available for dredge disposal which might have be
disposed of at a faster rate that modelled which a higher
concentrations of suspended solids than predicted.
The use of PAM is not indicated as a mitigating measure in the EIS
or NIS and the DHA&G 2014 Guidelines, consider PAMs to be
helpful but it is not sufficiently developed to be regarded as the
main monitoring approach for risk management purposes,
particularly at night.
8.4.6 Dublin Bay Watch
Gerry Breen provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.1 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
Welcome commitment to re-configure the Port without additional
infill but query the absence of a cruise ship terminal.
Adverse impacts of pile driving noise over 4 years on local
communities and wildlife; the disposal of dredge material within the
cSAC.
The doubling of annual tonnage from 30 to 60 million tonnes per
annum could reinforce the Ports monopoly position among Irish
ports with a possible knock on effect of the price of goods; note the
lack of reference to balanced regional development; and refers to
the Competition Authority’s 2013 report on the Irish ports sector in
relation to the management of Lo-Lo terminal licences and the
granting of stevedore licences.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 104 of 237
Application forms the first stage of a number of applications for
Dublin Port which will result in a future applications for infilling and
could amount to project splitting with adverse ecological impacts.
8.4.7 Coastguards Residents Association
Alex Downes provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.1 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
The long term adverse impacts of port activities on local residents
was described in some detail in relation to disturbance by noise,
vibration and traffic generation, which was occasionally caused by
cruise ships berthing on the S side of the Liffey channel.
8.4.8 Clontarf Residents Association
Deirdre Tobin provided a summary of the main concerns in relation to
the proposed development which are already detailed in section 6.1 of
this report and any additional concerns raised during the hearing are
summarised below.
According to Brendan Price of the Irish Seal Sanctuary the
numbers of grey and harbour seals hauling out and breeding on the
Bull Island has been understated and:
o The concerns in relation to marine ecology are similar to those
raised by An Taisce in section 4.4.4 above.
o The study area should have encompassed UNESCO site, the
SPAs and the proposed MPA (Marine Protected Area); the
development is not confined by the Liffey walls and spoil site but
at the heart of the 3 estuaries and the bay, all of which will be
affected by the outfall and limited mitigation measures.
o Both grey and harbour seals are observed all year round in the
Bay (with pups); they are a highly significant, mixed colony
recorded from c.1914; they feed, breed and haul out in the Bay,
they are vulnerable to disturbance and loss of habitat; and their
presence is important to local residents and cruise passengers.
o The dredging schedule fails to note their October to March
breeding season and presence of pups, whose mortality is
highest during this period (also sea going smolts are noted but
not retuning salmon or the presence of lampreys).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 105 of 237
o The MMO should be present on a year round basis and for the
recovery period after the works are complete.
o Failure to adopt an ecosystem approach to the proposal or
respond adequately the concerns raised; the precautionary
approach would indicate the need for FI and better mitigation;
the consultant’s reports reflect the scientific literature on the
local seals but there is a dearth of local specialist data.
Impact of pile driving noise on adjoining communities and wildlife;
and dredging will disturb mammals, fish and birdlife in the Bay and
the 3 estuaries; and request the Board to attach a condition that
requires separate permissions for each subsequent dredging
programme to ensure continuous monitoring of the dredging
process.
8.4.9 Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association
Lorna Kelly provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.1 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
The capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and road network to safely
accommodate construction vehicles carrying unusually large loads.
Cumulative impacts of proposals in combination with several other
plans and project not adequately assessed in relation to the
environment, ecology, coastal processes and transportation,
particularly with regard to the regional haul routes for the Poobeg
incinerator.
Lack of detail in EIS in relation to construction activities including
the impact of suspended sediments on Poolbeg WWTP outfall; the
effects of storm conditions, tidal surges and wave climate on the
proposed Poolbeg Marine Wall; sedimentation patterns around the
Great South Wall; and patterns of sediment deposition on nearby
beaches.
Lack of detail in EIS in relation to relation to impacts on cultural
heritage on the S side of the Liffey.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 106 of 237
8.4.10 Green Party
Donna Cooney provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.1of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
Construction noise will be audible in Clontarf, request a works time
table, noise contours and a strategic noise plan.
Pile driving noise and dredging/dredge disposal mitigation
measures are not sufficient to protect marine mammals; regard
should be had to the various Water Quality Directives; and proposal
premature pending completion of the Celtic Seas Project.
Opposed to the dumping of slight to moderately contaminated
material at the dumpsite within the cSAC.
8.4.11 Mr Peadar Farrell
Peadar Farrell provided a summary of his main concerns in relation to
the proposed development which are already detailed in section 6.1 of
this report and any additional concerns raised during the hearing are
summarised below.
Described the environmental conditions at the dumpsite and raised
concerns in relation to the transport of fine sediments from
dredging to the N and S of this area and into known dive sites.
Not convinced that the slight to moderately contaminated
sediments will remain at the dumpsite despite capping; night time
and weather restrictions on dumping will prolong of intensify the
activity.
Queried the possibility of dumping in the Irish Sea to reduce
impacts on the benthos, fisheries and marine mammals.
8.4.12 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
Dr Diarmuid O’Grada provided a summary of the main concerns
raised in relation to the proposed development which are detailed in
section 6.2 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 107 of 237
The national, regional, local and historical planning context was
described; the exclusion of Dun Laoghaire Harbour from the list of
Tier 1 ports in the national Ports Policy was queried; and the
compatibility of the proposal with the provisions of the Dublin City
Development Plan in relation to Map K and the Z7 zoning objective
was questioned.
Highlighted several discrepancies between the Dublin Port
Masterplan and the current proposal in relation to the prioritisation of
cruise ship facilities over Ro-Ro facilities in relation to predicted
growth and revenue generation for the Port; the scale of the cruise
ship element; and the absence of a terminal.
Concerns raised in relation to the unattractive setting in comparison
to Dun Laoghaire Harbour; unsafe pedestrian access; the long walk
to the City Centre; and several cruise companies have indicated a
preference for Dun Laoghaire.
The environmental impacts associated with providing for cruise
facilities at Dun Laoghaire would be much less than for Dublin Port
and the facilities could be delivered by c.2017 as opposed to c.2023.
According to Paul O’Connell of Waterman Moylan Consulting
Engineers:
o The environmental conditions, and particularly wind conditions,
assumed for the cruise ship simulation modelling are not clear
and very high vessels can be adversely affected by high winds.
o The berth on the Basin side of the Quay will be difficult to access
even under calm conditions, especially if ships are berthed on
Ocean Pier West and the Ro-Ro berth, particularly in high winds
when many ships master will be unconformable berthing.
o The Quay will be shortened by 180m and narrowed by 35m to
allow cruise ships into this inner berth and allow to access to the
Basin by large cruise ships and shorter Ro-Ro and bulk carriers.
o Ro-Ro vessels are likely to use the high capacity berths at 49
and 52/53 which have double deck ramps and only smaller
ferries will use the new single deck ramp in the Basin.
o The reconfigured Quay is only needed for large cruise vessels,
without which the longer Quay could remain to provide a
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 108 of 237
riverside berthing face of c.550m (as opposed to the proposed
476m) which could facilitate the berthing of 2 medium cruise
ships concurrently (as opposed to 1 small and 1 large vessel)
and the proposal can only accommodate 2 cruise ships over
250m at any one time.
o The same capacity can be achieved if the Basin reconfiguration
is not designed to accommodate larger cruise ships on the Basin
side of the Quay as a much reduced Quay demolition will result
in a longer river berth which could accommodate 2 cruise ships
(250m to 300m) at the same time which would:
Provide better access for ships.
Provide an additional berths for other uses
Reduce the extent of the demolition of the historic quay.
o Although the trend is towards larger cruise ships (+300m), the
Port will also have to continue to service a considerable number
of smaller cruise ships (less than 300m).
o The biggest growth in ship arrivals will be in Ro-Ro traffic which
will be doubled and the smallest growth will be cruise ships but
no additional Ro-Ro berths are provided:
The 2 berths at 52/53 will be replaced with a single higher
capacity, double deck ramp with an increased landside
area, and
The double deck ramp at the Basin and the single deck
ramp on the riverside of the Quay will be replaced with 2
single deck ramps in the Basin.
According to the Masterplan additional Ro-Ro facilities will be
provided in the future on reclaimed land to the E of Berths 52/53
(which was refused permission under the precious Gateway
proposal) and this uncertainly could place the Port under intense
pressure to accommodate future Ro-Ro growth.
There is no alternative to the Port meeting the forecast demand in
marine traffic (Ro-Ro) but there is a viable alternative at Dun
Laoghaire for cruise traffic.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 109 of 237
Predicted growth in the number of vessels using the shipping
channel has the potential to disrupt port operations particularly if an
accident occurs which would have catastrophic consequences for
the port and the economy.
Captain Philip Carron reiterated the concerns raised by Dr
O’Grada and Paul O’Connell
8.4.13 Dublin Graving Docks Limited
John Gannon provided a summary of the main concerns raised in
relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in
section 6.2 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing
are summarised below.
Joe Nelson (Company Secretary, DGDL):
Described operations in Graving Dock 2, the largest and busiest
dry dock in the country, which carries out statutory inspections and
repairs of commercial vessels and tugs; highly skilled workforce
and profitable commercial operation; inadvisable from a marine
health and safety perspective to close the dock.
Provided services to 200 vessels in 2012; 99% of merchant vessels
and all fishing vessels registered under the Irish Flag may be
accommodated; 68% of vessels visiting the Port in 2014 and 45%
of cruise vessels due to visit in 2015 would fit into the dock.
Several significant inconsistences between the ABR project and the
Masterplan which should have been reviewed to take account of
the changes particularly as Masterplan growth rate assumptions
may not have been high enough.
Query relocation of turning circle from the Bay to the Basin; cost of
using tugs for vessels greater than 300m; shortening of quay wall
and indicative internal road configurations would further encroach
on Ro-Ro; and unsafe pedestrian access at the Point roundabout.
Insignificant amount of land to be gained from closure of Graving
Dock 2 which will be used for infilling with contaminated sediments
and to facilitate the creation of a third cruise ship berth; have other
alternatives been considered including the temporary blocking of
the access to Graving Dock 2 and docking to the W of the East Link
Bridge.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 110 of 237
National Ports Policy does not specifically endorse the cruise
element of the Masterplan or the ABR project; and absence of
national cruise ship strategy for ports.
Three cruise ships were berthed for 3 days in 2014 and estimate
that 3 ships will berth for 11 days in 2035 based on 140 visits and
an 88 day season as per Mr Ajamil - query justification for closing
the dock.
Cruise ship size predictions do not take account of recent
accidents; excessive costs associated with providing for a low
revenue generating port use; the primary allocation of the Quay to
seasonal business is wasteful; and no Ro-Ro or Lo-Lo can’t be
accommodated in practice.
John Gannon (Planning Consultant):
The proposal will result in the closure of the graving dock, a long
established and profitable activity in the port.
Disagree with the applicant’s rationale for closing the graving docks
which relates to poor economic performance; inefficient use of port
lands and decreasing usefulness.
The land gain associated with the closure of graving dock 2 will be
negated by the re-opening and excavation of disused graving dock
1 for a non-core port (heritage) use.
Proposal does not accord with the Port Masterplan, the CTUR LAP
or the Dublin City Plan; the application refers to the Masterplan as
the key document which has followed the traditional plan making
process and it was subject to an SEA and public consultation.
The Masterplan contains 14 options, none of which refer to the
closure of the graving dock; the closure and infilling of the dock is a
material planning issue because it is a change of use; it will be filled
with contaminated material; it will result in job losses; and the
Masterplan should have been reviewed.
Query the need for 3 cruise ship berths; the third berth necessitates
a re-configuration of the Ro-Ro berthing arrangement which
precludes the operation of the graving dock; and no third berth
indicated in the Masterplan or CTUR LAP.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 111 of 237
In 2013 there were 23 days when 2, and 3 days when 3 cruises
ships docked in the Port; and the Masterplan states that cruise
ships do not generate a lot of revenue for DPC.
No provision for a cruise terminal as per the Masterplan and the
CTUR LAP; no details of the multipurpose use of the berths when
not in use for cruise ships.
No consideration of alternative design proposals for the site which
is a serious flaw in the EIS; no consideration given to the possibility
of the public viewing a working graving dock as part of the heritage
use.
Mary Gallagher (STS International):
The works envisaged in the Masterplan would have enabled 2 x
riverside cruise berths and the retention of Graving Dock 2; the
ABR project sets aside the operationally reasonable balance
between multipurpose and dedicated berths in the Masterplan
which could affect other commercial operations such as:
o The use of the new cruise berths by car transporters will not be
counter-cyclical to the cruise trade as stated by DPC because of
the 2 annual car registration periods.
o The removal of 2 x linkspans will adversely affect the use of the
Quay by Ro-Ro ships and continued growth in such traffic will
necessitate more and not fewer linkspans.
o There appears to be a linkspan pontoon proposed in the NE
corner of the Basin at the junction of Alexandra Quay and Ocean
Pier West.
o A berth is only multi-functional if it can meet the variety of
operational demand from ships discharging and loading different
types of cargo at times which may not be possible if the berths
are been shared with cruise vessels.
o ABR seems to be prioritising seasonal cruise traffic at the
expense of daily Ro-Ro traffic.
o Need to retain the Masterplan proposal which balances the
needs of Ro-Ro, Lo-Lo, bulk and multi-purpose berths, while
creating quayside capacity for cruise vessels.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 112 of 237
o Infilling Graving Dock 2 with contaminated material will make the
cost of recovering the facility and reintroducing the land use
prohibitive.
Roy Glendon (Senior Marine Consultant with AECOM):
Following the deletion of the Eastern reclamation (previous
Gateway project), the infilling Graving Dock 2 is the cheapest
option for the disposal of treated contaminated sediments from the
Basin.
The Masterplan proposal for a turning area to the E of Berths 52/52
is not included in the ABR project; upstream dredging has been
extended to provide alternative vessel turning in the Basin which
also requires the demolition of a section of the Quay.
The existing 730m long Quay could berth two 330m vessels which
the proposed 530m Quay could not; the reduced capacity has
necessitated the creation of a third Berth on the basin side for
cruise ships; this will result in the relocation of the existing double
Ro-Ro further N; and the blockage of the entrance to Graving Dock
2.
The proposal has very little effect on capacity; berths widths are the
same; the reduced Quay width of 115m limits its use for containers
which require c.400m; the existing berths at Ocean Pier West
should be able to accommodate vessels with a max draft of 12m
and 3,00TEU (less than Panamx) which are c.230m long (with tug
assistance) without widening the entrance; and the proposed Ro-
Ro facility in the corner of Alexandra Quay and Ocean Pier West
lacks detail.
The Ro Ro facility has changed from 1 x double decker in the Basin
and 1 x river side single decker to 2 (possibly 3) single deckers.
Ro-Ro vessel length of 230-240m are the maximum viable so it is
not necessary to increase the entrance to the Basin; Ro-Ro has
been centralised in the Basin thereby limiting manoeuvring space
for other basin users (bulk berth); it make the use of Graving Dock
2 impossible; and its closure does not contribute to the productive
use of space.
The Bulk berth will be increased from 380m to 530m and the
craneway has been extended to more than 530m taking it across
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 113 of 237
the entrance to Graving Dock 2; the size of bulk vessel will be
restricted by the new channel depth of -10CD to a draught of 12m
which are (on average) 200m long and 30m wide, thus the
entrance can be used without widening; 2 vessels could be berthed
together by a vessel spanning the Graving Dock 2 with a conveyor
over the existing 380m quay.
The total bulk throughput of the Port in 2040 is estimated at 3.5mt/
annum (compared to the current 2mt/annum); with a 50,000WT
vessel, then 3.5mt/annum is 70 ships/annum or 1 every 5 days;
and the quay extension to 530m and the close of Graving Dock 2
appears excessive.
The Masterplan provided for cruise berths on the riverside of the
Quay and the maximum vessel length was given at 300m which
can turn in the existing Basin entrance without modification; the
increase in cruise vessel size to 330m is the critical factor in
widening the entrance.
Two x 330m cruise ships can berth on the riverside of the Quay
with a small vessel upstream on the East Link Bridge; only minor
changes to the existing E end of the Quay are required to achieve
adequate manoeuvrability by the use of:
o A round head strong point with special roller fenders which
would accommodate a 300m vessel at the Basin.
o Dolphin/roundhead turning at the next basin downstream which
would accommodate a 330m vessel with a 440m turning circle.
o Reversing down the river for 300m vessels was satisfactory in
the Masterplan so why not 330m vessels?
Alternatives to the disposal of treated contaminated sediments
include:
o Removal to a licenced land tip.
o Store in vacant areas in the N Port for future construction work.
o Disposal at sea as the cementatious or possolanic bonds will
render it less hazardous.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 114 of 237
8.4.14 Irish Ferries and Stena Line
Stephen Reid provided a summary of the main concerns raised by
these companies in relation to the proposed development which are
already detailed in section 6.2 of this report and any additional
concerns raised during the hearing are summarised below.
Strongly object to the proposed closure of Alexandra Road Access
on East Wall Road to all operational traffic referred to in the EIS;
this is a serious issue that should have been identified in the Public
Notices; and disagree with applicant that this particular section of
the road does not form part of the ABR project.
A significant volume (c.23%) of the daily traffic entering or exiting
the Port currently uses Alexandra Road and the proportion of
inbound traffic is even greater; and the Alexandra Road access
performs an important role.
Proposals to close a section of Alexandra Road between East Wall
Road and the main port area are premature until an adequate
capacity improvements are made to the N access route via
Promenade Road.
C.20% of daily traffic exiting the Port travels onwards via East Wall
Road and not via the Tunnel and by retaining the access off
Alexandra Road onto East Wall Road, these vehicles will not
unduly increase pressure on Promenade Road access roads.
The majority of “U” turners at the Point Roundabout are generated
by the P&O exit and not the other exits and the benefits of the
access closure are overstated.
Spare capacity in the Dublin Tunnel is overestimated and the
potential benefits of the proposal are overstated.
The internal road network and junctions will have serious capacity
issues in the future and DPC has overestimated the capacity of
some of the junctions.
Traffic volumes during construction will be significantly lower than
the post-development traffic volumes however construction
activities need to be well managed.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 115 of 237
There is little tabulated data with reliance on traffic flow diagrams
and Linsig network results diagrams which are difficult to read.
The selection of traffic data at junctions has been selective and
avoids the busy Ro-Ro days (Monday and Friday) and the selection
of limited peak hours does not provide a full picture of the issues
and flows through the Port.
The more appropriate HGV to PCU conversion factor would be 2.9
as opposed to 2.3 which would have given a more robust and
reliable set of flow figures for future modelling scenarios.
The modelling of the Junction 16 and the internal road network is
inadequate and does not provide an accurate representation of
future year conditions along Tolka Quay Road.
The roundabout junction of Promenade Road, Bond Drive and
Bond Drive extension (Junction 10) is the most critical junction in
the Port as it provides access throughout the Port, ad following the
road closures it will provide the only access for most of the traffic
to/from the Port.
8.4.15 P&O Ferries
Gordon Hisleap provided a summary of the main concerns raised by
the P&O in relation to the proposed development which are already
detailed in section 6.2 of this report and any additional concerns raised
during the hearing are summarised below.
Current Ro-Ro operations will be significantly affected, concerns
relate to:
o Closure of existing entrance off East Wall Road.
o The absence of any details as to how displaced operations will
be accommodated in the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015.
o Temporary changes to operational layout during construction.
Concerned about the absence of consultation with DPC but now
satisfied with assurances in relation to the above (and other)
issues:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 116 of 237
o East Wall Road will not be closed until appropriate, agreed
alternative arrangements are in place and that amendments will
be made to traffic management at key junctions to ensure that
P&O are not logistically or commercially disadvantaged.
o DPC will consult with P&O regarded the detailed layout within
the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015 and that the existing
layout will remain in place in the interim.
o The shared use of the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015 with
any other Ro-Ro operator to facilitate Ro-Ro development
elsewhere in the port will only happen while P&O retain the
current operation of the linkspan on the North Wall Quay and
that two operations will not be squeezed into the area.
8.5 Cross questioning
Each of the Observers was afforded the opportunity to question the
Applicant at the end of their submissions and the ensuing debate is
available on the digital record of the proceedings. Although a large
number of points were discussed and/or clarified at this stage, no
significant new planning issues arose, and any salient points of interest
will be referred to in the relevant parts of the assessment under section
9 below.
8.6 Conditions and community gain proposal
The Applicant and Observers were afforded the opportunity to suggest
conditions and comment on the community gain proposal over and
above what was already discussed throughout the course of the
hearing. All of this is available on the digital record of the proceedings
and the following additional conditions were proposed:
8.6.1 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company:
1. The proposed development shall be limited to 2 berth spaces
located along North Wall Quay West with no berth spaces located
along North Wall Quay West inside the Alexandra Basin West.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area and having regard to the strategic position
of Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 117 of 237
2. The two berth spaces shall cater for vessels that do not exceed
300m in length.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area and having regard to the strategic position
of Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.
3. There shall be no demolition of North Wall Quay until a review of the
impacts of potential increase in cruise ship size is complete and a
cruise ship strategy for Dublin Bay should be agreed in writing with
DCC and DLR county council.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area and having regard to the strategic position of
Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.
8.6.2 Dublin Graving Docks Limited:
1. The Dublin Graving Dock Number 2 shall be retained.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
2. The berthing arrangements authorised in this development shall be
as follows:
(a) Cruise ship berths shall be provided on the channel side of the
North Wall Quay only and when not in use by cruise ships they
may be used by other vessels in accordance with the operational
requirements of Dublin port Company.
(b) The proposed demolition works at North Wall Quay shall be
excluded and the provision of a cruise ship berth within
Alexandra Basin West shall be omitted from this development.
(c) The proposed Ro-Ro berth arrangement within Alexandra Basin
West shall be provided as shown on Figure 3 of Dublin port
Masterplan 2012-2040.
Revised drawings showing the above layout shall be submitted to
the Planning Authority for written agreement before development
commences
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 118 of 237
3. The closure and infill of Graving Dock Number 2 is not permitted as
part of this development.
Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area.
8.7 Closing submissions
The applicant and several of the Observers availed of the opportunity
to make a brief closing statement to the hearing which summarised
their main concerns and no new issues were raised.
8.8 End of oral hearing
The oral hearing was formally closed on Friday 17th October 2014.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 119 of 237
9.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
9.1 Background
9.1.1 The proposed ABR project would comprise the reconfiguration of
Alexandra Basin West, the infilling of Berths 52 and 53, the installation
of new quay walls in the W and E sections of Dublin Port and the
construction of a protection wall at Poolbeg Marina, along with
extensive channel dredging and associated site and heritage works.
The proposed development has been described in detail in Section 2.2
of this report and the works are required to provide appropriate future
access to the Port for larger shipping vessels and to accommodate the
anticipated increase cruise ship calls to Dublin Port.
9.1.2 Dublin Port Company (DPC) prepared a non-statutory Masterplan to
guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040. The plan sets out the key
objectives for the Port and it provides a general overview of the
economy and anticipates future growth. The plan assesses potential
capacity by showing how the Port could handle 60 million tonne per
annum by 2040 based on an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum.
DPC’s predicted breakdown in growth trends up to 2040 are
summarised in the following table (extrapolated from the Masterplan)
and the number of cruise ship calls is predicted to increase significantly
by c.2033.
Ship type Additional
growth (‘000
tonnes) by 2040
% increase in
additional
growth by 2040
Additional units
(‘000units) by
2040
Ro-Ro 25,929 3.2% +1090
Lo-Lo 4,163 1.7% + 248
All Bulk 1,441 1.9% N/A
9.1.3 The DPC Masterplan also describes the main infrastructure and
engineering proposals which will serve to deliver new capacity up to
2040 by reconfiguring existing facilities, intensifying existing land use
and the possible reclamation of an area to the E of the Port, along with
substantial channel dredging to a depth of -10mCD. The proposed
ABR project comprises approximately one third of the overall
development envisaged by the Masterplan.
9.1.4 The issues raised in this application are numerous and range from
those of a strategic nature to matters of more site specific and local
interest. I am satisfied that all of the main issues that need to be
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 120 of 237
considered by the Board in assessing the proposed development have
been raised in the various written and oral submissions received and
that no other substantive issues arise.
The issues are addressed under the following headings: -
Principle of development
Alternatives
Movement and access
Heritage
Noise, vibration, air and water quality
Dredging and contamination
Coastal processes, hydrodynamics and flood risk
Ecology
Other issues
9.2 Principle of development
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
EU policy
National and regional policy
Local statutory policy
Local non-statutory policy
The planning policy context for the proposed development is set by EU,
national, regional and local planning policy and by the objectives of the
non-statutory CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-
2040.
9.2.1 EU policy context:
9.2.1.1The proposed development of Dublin Port, which forms part of the EU
Trans European Network - Transport (TEN-T), would be compatible
with EU policy and guidance in relation to improving the economic
productivity and efficiency of major ports and by contributing to the
provision of an efficient, integrated and sustainable strategic transport
network. This could, in part, be achieved at regional and local level by
way of regularly updated consensus based Port Masterplans. Although
the Port is currently served by 2 existing rail connections there is no
indication that DPC intend to significantly intensify the use of these
connections for cargo or passenger transit under this proposal.
However I am satisfied that the proposed development is compatible
with EU policy in relation to ports and transportation.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 121 of 237
9.2.2 National and regional policy context:
9.2.2.1The National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013, the National Spatial
Strategy (NSS) 2002 -2020 and the Regional Planning Guidelines -
Greater Dublin Area 2004- 2016 (RPG GDA) continue to provide the
national and regional policy framework for managing future
development in Ireland. However, the recently published National Ports
Policy 2013 now provides the main policy framework for the future
development of the countries ports which have been categorised into
ports of national and regional significance.
9.2.2.2Dublin Port (along with Cork and Shannon Foynes) is designated as a
Tier 1 Port of National Significance whilst the neighbouring ports at Dun
Laoghaire and Drogheda are designated as Ports of Regional
Significance. Although the EU TEN-T core network proposes that the
GDA Ports Cluster (which includes existing ports within the GDA) be
included as a core port in line with the RPG for the GDA 2010-2022
(which supports examination of the expansion of Dublin Port and/or a
new facility on the E coast of the GDA), the National Ports Policy 2013
specifically categorises only Dublin Port as a Tier 1 Port of National
Significance.
9.2.2.3The National Ports Policy states that the core objective of national
policy is to facilitate a competitive and effective market for maritime
transport services. It accepts that the long term international trend in
imports and shipping is toward increased consolidation of resources in
order to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale. It acknowledges that
this trend will have knock-on effects in terms of vessel size, water depth
in ports and the type and scope of port hinterland transport
connections.
9.2.2.4There is an expectation that Tier 1 Ports will lead the response of the
State commercial ports sector to future national port capacity
requirements, and that such ports should prepare consensus based
Masterplans which have the potential to become embedded into
planning and development strategies at national, regional and local
level.
9.2.2.5There is no statutory requirement on ports to produce Masterplans and
there is no national guidance in relation to the preparation of such
plans. However the UK Department of Transport (UKDoT) and the
Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development (DRDNI)
provide helpful plan preparation guidance.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 122 of 237
9.2.3 Local statutory policy context:
Statutory development plan:
9.2.3.1The proposed ABR project is broadly compatible with the policy
provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011- 2017 in relation
to the environment, heritage, ecology, the economy, employment,
tourism and transportation. Dublin City Council (DCC) has welcomed
the proposed development subject to a number of detailed concerns
which are addressed in later sections of this report. The proposed
development would be located within an area covered by the “Z7”
zoning objective which seeks to:
9.2.3.2Provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses, and facilitate
opportunities for employment creation and the majority of these lands
are located in the Port area, and port-related industries and facilities
are permissible uses within this zone.
9.2.3.3Several of the Observers (including Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
and Dublin Graving Docks Limited) have raised concerns that the
cruise ship element of the proposed development is incompatible with
the Z7 zoning objective for the area.
9.2.3.4Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company is concerned that the existing
industrial character of the Port, which includes several SEVESO II
sites, provides an inappropriate setting for cruise ships which be better
served by the more attractive character of Dun Laoghaire Harbour.
9.2.3.5Dublin Port is a large working port. The existing arrangements for most
cruise ships berthing in Alexandra Basin West are less than
satisfactory from an operational, tourism, and health and safety
perspective. Passengers currently disembark onto berths that are
mainly used by bulk carriers and Lo-Lo vessels within a highly
industrialised section of the Port. The circuitous route out of the Port is
equally unattractive, which is in contrast to the shipping route through
Dublin Bay and along the Liffey Channel towards East Link Bridge and
the City.
9.2.3.6Under the proposed arrangements, the cruise ship berths would be
located on either side of North Wall Quay Extension and away from the
main industrial section of the Port that they currently occupy. Foot
passengers will ultimately have direct access on to East Wall Road and
the Liffey Quays. I am satisfied that the cruise ship element of the
proposed development will not conflict with the Z7 zoning objective for
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 123 of 237
the area in that it will provide for port related activities whist ultimately
locating the berths away from the more industrial uses.
9.2.3.7It is also noted from the submitted documentation that the cruise ship
element of DPC’s portfolio is one of the least revenue generating
activities in the Port. The Masterplan indicates that the cruise business
currently generates c.E700, 000 in direct revenue for DPC and it is
estimated that cruise passengers contribute up to E50 million to the
local economy. On balance, the revenue dis-benefits are significantly
outweighed by the existing and potential economic and employment
benefits accruing to the wider City and regional economy from the
cruise tourism sector. The proposed development will also provide for
multi-purpose berths and not just cruise berths.
9.2.3.8Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
development would be compatible with local planning policy for the Port
and the Z7 zoning objective for the area as set out in the DCC
Development Plan 2011-2017.
9.2.3.9Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company also submitted that the provision of a
cruise ship facility at Dun Laoghaire, which would require less channel
dredging with fewer environmental impacts, would be more compatible
with local planning policy than the current ABR Project. This issue will
be addressed in detail in later sections of this report.
9.2.4 Local non-statutory context:
9.2.4.1DCC prepared the non-statutory Cruise Traffic and Urban
Regeneration Local Action Plan (CTUR LAP) as part of the URBACT II
EU programme in order to develop a strategy for the development of
cruise traffic and the regeneration of the Port area. This will ultimately
provide for a new relationship with the City through the development of
the cruise tourism sector which is an identified growth area. The Liffey
side of Alexandra Basin West is identified as the preferred location for
cruise ships. The three main objectives of the LAP are to provide a
cruise terminal in the long term (with a small scale reception facility in
the short term) and improve connectivity between the Port and the City;
to maximise the potential of cruise traffic and Port heritage as
economic and social generator; and to plan and manage the cruise
development within a global city project.
9.2.4.2Dublin Port Company (DPC) prepared its non-statutory Masterplan
2012-2040 to guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040. The plan
sets out the key objectives for the Port, it provides a general overview
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 124 of 237
of the economy and anticipates future growth. The plan assesses
potential capacity by showing how the Port could handle 60 million
tonne by 2040 based on an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum.
The relevant details are summarised in Section 9.1 above.
9.2.4.3Several of the Observers (including Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire
Harbour Company and Dublin Graving Docks Limited) raised concerns
that the proposed development would not accord with the objectives of
the CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040,
particularly in relation to the proposed reconfiguration of Alexandra
Basin West to accommodate cruise ships, the location of the cruise
ship berths, the closure of Graving Dock no.2 and the absence of a
cruise terminal structure. Dublin Graving Docks Limited also submits
that the Masterplan should have been reviewed to take account of the
current proposal prior to lodging an application for approval.
9.2.4.4Dublin Graving Docks Limited is concerned that the proposed re-
configuration of Alexandra Basin West, which relocates the existing
P&O Ro Ro operations closer to the Graving Dock no.2 and extends
the bulk berths in the N section of the Basin at Alexandra Quay across
the entrance to the Graving Dock, will lead to the closure of the dry
dock facility. The closure of the dock will result in the closure of a
valuable maritime maintenance facility within the Port and the loss of
26 jobs. This would, therefore, be incompatible with local planning
policy and the Z7 zoning objective for the area which seeks to “provide
for the protection and creation of industrial uses and facilitate
opportunities for employment creation.” Dublin Graving Docks Limited
submitted a revised proposal for the Basin (which is assessed in
section 9.3.2 below) which would facilitate the continued operation of
Graving Dock no.2. This retention would in turn be more compatible
with the provisions of the Z7 zoning objective which seeks to protect
port related industrial and employment uses, than the current ABR
proposal.
The main differences between the CTUR LAP, Dublin Port Masterplan
and the ARB Project are summarised in the following table.
Engineering / development options CTUR
LAP
2011
Master
Plan 2012
ABR
Project
2014
Reduce the length and width of N Wall Quay
Extension to widen entrance to Basin
No No Yes
Deepen berths on N Wall Quay Extension to Yes Yes No
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 125 of 237
provide for 2 large cruise ships on riverside
Deepen berths on N Wall Quay for 3 cruise ships
on river and Basin side of Quay
No No Yes
Envisage landmark development which could
also provide cruise terminal facilities at Quay
Yes, but
long term
Yes, but in
future
No
Provide new pedestrian entrance and facilities on
to East Wall Road from N Wall Quay
Yes Yes In the
future
New 400m turning area to the E of the Port
entrance for large cruise ships
N/A Yes No
Turning area at Basin entrance N/A No Yes
Options for Graving Dock no.1 N/A None Excavate
& restore
Options for graving Dock no.2
N/A None Infill &
closure
Options for bulk berths in N section of Basin
(other than dredging)
N/A None –
retain
berths
Provide
longer
berths
Build new Ro-Ro berth to replace capacity lost to
cruise ships on N Wall Quay at Terminal 3 in
Basin
N/A Yes No
Relocate Ro-Ro berths N-wards to central
position in Basin
N/A No Yes
Remove Bulk Jetty (ore) and provide alternative
facilities on a new 120m berth
N/A Yes Yes
9.2.4.5The Observers submit that the proposed additional elements, which
are not provided for in the CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port
Masterplan 2012-2040, will result in the closure of the Graving Dock
facility and reduce the competitiveness of Dun Laoghaire Harbour as a
cruise ship destination (as 3 and not 2 cruise ship berths will be
provided), whilst the omitted elements will result in a failure to deliver a
cruise terminal structure.
9.2.4.6It should be noted that plans are non-statutory, there is no statutory
requirement to produce a port Masterplan, and there is no national
guidance in relation to the preparation of such plans. Furthermore the
DPC Masterplan states:
The development options presented in Section 5 are not a
prescriptive menu of developments that will be carried out in
Dublin Port. Rather they are a set of possible options that need
to be assessed before being developed by reference to issues
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 126 of 237
of demand and capacity, and that are subject to completion of
the relevant planning consents and requirements. (Page 23),
and
The Masterplan may also be taken into account ay An Bord
Pleanála in considering any application submitted to it under the
Strategic Infrastructure Act. (Page 13)
Preparation of the Dublin Port Masterplan was informed by reference to
the guidance provided by the UK Department of Transport (2010) and
the NI Department for Regional Development (2008). Both documents
state that a port Masterplan is not intended to be restrictive and that:
Ports operate in a dynamic commercial world and it is essential
that they should have the flexibility to adapt to changing patterns
of demand, and to competitive opportunities. The master plan
should therefore present a framework within which such
adaptation can occur without undue bureaucracy. Neither should
the master planning process impose a bureaucratic burden on
the ports. Its purpose is to be of assistance.
These documents go on to recommend a time horizon of 20 to 30
years with a c.10 year review; the underlying assumptions should be
reviewed in relation to the wider economic environment; the
effectiveness of the plan should be assessed after a period of c.5
years; such plans should feed into regional and local planning
strategies but they will not obviate the need for detailed planning
applications to be brought forward for individual schemes. Most of this
guidance has been taken on board in the DPC Masterplan.
Page 23 of the DPC Masterplan goes on to state that:
Where individual applications are advanced during the
Masterplan period they will also require to demonstrate that the
option chosen is justified following a consideration of the
alternatives at that time and by reference to the necessity and
impacts of the proposed development.
The main differences between the 2011 CTUR LAP objectives and the
2012 Masterplan options, and the current 2014 ABP proposals have
been summarised in the above table.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 127 of 237
During 2012 specialist consultants assisted DPC with the planning of
cruise facilities and the location of cruise terminals in Dublin Port. The
current planning application reflects the main recommendations to
expand the cruise business and to strategically locate the facilities at a
site integrated with the City, and modifications to North Wall Quay
Extension are required to deliver the recommended three cruise ship
berths at this location.
2.4.4.7Notwithstanding the apparent emphasis on the provision of cruise ship
facilities, the Inspector asked Captain Dignam (Dublin Port Harbour
Master) whether or not the proposed works would be required with or
without the cruise ship element.
Captain Dignam confirmed that the works are necessary in order to
future proof the Port as there is a global trend towards larger and
longer ships. Captain Dignam referred to changes that are currently
taking place in the Panama Canal where a new set of larger locks are
being constructed to create an additional lane which can handle ships
nearly three times the size of the “Panamax” vessels currently able to
transit the Canal. A “New Panamax” container ship is in the region of
c.400m and the new locks will accommodate an extra 12 to 14 larger
vessels per day, which will double Canal capacity.
According to Captain Dignam, these large cargo ships will eventually
arrive into Dublin Port and the Bulk Berths at Alexandra Basin West
must be able to accommodate them. This will require the widening of
the entrance to the Basin from the Liffey Channel as well as the
deepening of the shipping channel.
2.4.4.8The length of North Wall Quay has to be reduced in order to provide a
widened access to the Basin by larger cargo and cruise ships, although
the proposed reduction in Quay width only appears to be required to
accommodate cruise but not cargo ships. DPC has justified their
selection of the current ABR option on the basis of global trends in
shipping and on the economic and engineering advice it received from
its advisors post adoption of the 2012 Masterplan. I am satisfied that a
review of the plan was not warranted.
2.4.2.9In relation to the absence of a cruise terminal, it is noted that both the
CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040 refer to
the need for a terminal in the long term but not the short term.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 128 of 237
The CTUR LAP 2011 suggests the re-use of Terminal 3 at North Wall
Quay as an interpretative, reception and tourist information facility, but
that:
Dublin is primarily a port of call, rather than a turnaround port,
although a very limited number of cruises have commenced at
Dublin. (Page 37)
It is desirable that the potential for a permanent cruise terminal
is examined in the long term planning for the cruise traffic
industry in Dublin and in the short term a small scale reception
facility needs to be provided. (Page 38)
The DPC Masterplan states in relation to new cruise ship berthing and
related facilities that:
Beyond this (deepening the berths), it is envisaged that there
could be a landmark development in this area which could
simultaneously provide cruise terminal facilities and provide for
an appropriate additional step in the redevelopment of Dublin’s
north quays.
The Observer’s concerns were acknowledged by DPC who reaffirmed
that a cruise terminal would be provided at some stage in the future if
Dublin Port became a turnaround port or point of departure. This
position largely accords with the provisions of the CTUR LAP 2011 and
the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040 in terms of planning policy.
9.2.4.10The CTUR LAP 2011 seeks to provide a strategy for the future
provision of a cruise facility at Dublin Port, the DPC Masterplan was
prepared in accordance with EU, UK and NI guidance and both Plans
are non-statutory documents which the Board may or may not have
regard to. Whilst the DPC Masterplan provides guidance for the future
development of port lands, the engineering options (which vary slightly
in their description throughout the document) are not prescriptive and
the plan is flexible enough to take account of changing economic
circumstances.
9.2.4.11I am therefore satisfied that a review of the Masterplan was not
required prior to the submission of the ABR planning application and
that the proposed development should be assessed on its merits and in
accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of
the area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 129 of 237
9.2.5 Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
development would comply with EU, national, regional and local
planning policy in relation to the development, expansion and
upgrading of a Tier 1 Port of National Significance and that it would
broadly accord with the objectives of the non-statutory CTUR LAP 2011
and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040.
9.3 Alternatives
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
Consideration of alternatives by DPC
Suggested amendments by Dublin Graving Docks Limited
Suggested amendments by Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
Discussion of alternatives
9.3.1 Consideration of alternatives
DPC examined the following options:
1. Do-nothing scenario.
2. Use of other locations within the port area.
3. Creation of other additional port areas.
4. Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the
south and west coasts.
5. Other locations for new ports.
Do-nothing scenario: DPC submit that the critical importance of port
and shipping services to Ireland as an open trading nation without land
or bridge connections and the continued interest in Dublin as a tourist
destination for cruise vessels means that this is not a viable option.
Use of other locations within the port area: DPC submit that other sites
identified in the DPC Masterplan are less advantageous and could
involve land reclamation (which poses environmental problems), are
not well configured for unitised trade, are remote from motorway and
rail access, distant from deep water and/or are not available within a
reasonable period. This is not a viable option.
Creation of other additional port areas: DPC submit that the previously
refused proposal to reclaim 21ha offers the only obvious lands that
could be developed for cruise liners. The only other available lands that
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 130 of 237
could be reclaimed are those to the N in the Tolka Estuary or to the S
fronting Sandymount Strand, neither of which is adjacent to a navigable
channel, they are remote from the City and there could be significant
ecological, visual and recreational impacts. This is not a viable option.
Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the south
and west coasts: DPC submit that Dublin is the major attraction of
cruise chips and the use of Dun Laoghaire Harbour as an alternation
would be constrained by quayside dimensions and navigable access.
Unitised trade could use spare capacity although they are distant from
the main Dublin market. In both economic and environmental terms this
is not a viable option.
Other locations for new ports: DPC submit that the neither of the two
proposals for Bremore and Loughshinny was designed to
accommodate cruise ships and they are remote from the Dublin market
for unitised trade. This is not a viable option.
Conclusion: DPC concluded that the proposal offers the only realistic
solution within the immediate terms of the Dublin region’s requirements
for the movement of unitised trade in and out of the region by sea.
9.3.2 Suggested amendments by Dublin Graving Docks Limited
9.3.2.1Dublin Graving Docks Limited (DGDL) suggested amendments to the
proposed works at Alexandra Basin which would negate the need to
reduce the length and width of North Wall Quay Extension; allow for the
berthing of two large cruise ships (c.330m) on the river side of the
Quay which could be turned at the entrance to either Alexandra Quay
West or Alexandra Quay East; allow for the retention of Ro-Ro
operations in their current position and accommodate the temporary
(as opposed to permanent) expansion of the bulk berths across the
entrance to the dry dock.
9.3.2.2According to the calculations put forward by DGDL, North Wall Quay
extension could accommodate two 330m long cruise vessels with a
33m separation between each vessel and a 54m set back from East
Link Bridge (747m in total). The 54m set back takes account of the
proposed Conservation Interpretative Zone and also the NRA’s 2014
Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern Bypass which extends into
the ABR site by c.55m (described in Section 9.4 below).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 131 of 237
9.3.2.3 According to the measurements obtained from the application
drawings, North Wall Quay Extension is c.720m long and its length
would be reduced by c.150m to c.570m under the current ABR
proposal. The c.55m section of Quay located within the NRAs corridor
protection area for the Eastern Bypass would reduce the useable
length of Quay to 665m (existing) or 515m (proposed). Furthermore, an
additional c.25m set back would be required to provide an appropriate
slope from the level of the existing river bed to the level of the dredged
berthing pocket as indicated on Drawing No. IBM0498-NQ-010. This
set back would also be necessary to ensure an adequate separation
between a berthed vessel and any future Liffey Bridge (NRA Options
A1 and A6) in the interests of safety and security. The additional
c.25m set back would further reduce the length of useable Quay to
c.640m (existing) or c.490m (proposed).
9.3.2.4The existing c.720m long North Wall Quay Extension could potentially
accommodate one large and one medium sized large cruise ship on
the river side of the Quay as per the DPC Masterplan. In the event that
the length of North Wall Quay Extension was not reduced as proposed,
the remaining c.640m (after the NRA’s 2014 route protection corridor
and the dredge slope are accounted for) could only accommodate one
large c.340m long cruise vessel and one medium c.265m long medium
ship on the riverside of the Quay (with a c.35m separation between
vessels). Under the ABR proposal the useable length of North Wall
Quay Extension would be further reduced to c.490m which could
accommodate one large c.340m vessel and possibly one small c.115m
vessel at the same time on the riverside of the Quay (with a c.35m
separation between vessels) and another large ship on the Basin side.
9.3.2.5Under DGDL’s proposal, the c.720m long Quay could not
accommodate two 330m long vessels and provide for a c.54m set back
from the bridge with a 33m separation between vessels as the
combined length equates to 747m. The suggested arrangement could
not be accommodated without the easternmost vessel partly extending
across the entrance to Alexandra Basin West, which would in turn
cause an obstruction to other Port users, and in particular the larger
cargo vessels envisaged by DPC.
9.3.2.6It should be noted that the suggested amendments were not subject to
any simulation exercises, and that DPC had no comment to make in
relation to the suggestions, other than that a total of three cruise ship
berths are a fundamental requirement of the ABR project. The Board
may wish to seek further information in relation to the technical
feasibility of the suggested amendments. However, it should also be
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 132 of 237
noted that the amendments were not proposed by the Applicant, and
that DPC, as the Port Landlord is not obliged to retain any of the
existing uses within the Port, subject to individual lease arrangements.
9.3.3 Suggested amendments by Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company
9.3.3.1Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company also suggested amendments to the
proposed works at Alexandra Basin which would also negate the need
to reduce the length and width of North Wall Quay Extension. DLHC
submit that the reconfigured Quay is only needed for large cruise
vessels, without which the longer Quay could remain to provide a
riverside berthing face which could facilitate the berthing of 2 medium
cruise ships concurrently.
9.3.3.2DLHC submit that the same capacity can be achieved if the Basin
reconfiguration is not designed to accommodate larger cruise ships on
the Basin side of the Quay as a much reduced Quay demolition will
result in a longer river berth which could accommodate 2 cruise ships
(250m to 300m) at the same time which would provide better access
for ships, provide an additional berths for other uses and reduce the
extent of the demolition of the historic quay.
9.3.3.3It is noted that the DLHC suggestion does not take account of the need
to provide future access to the Basin for larger vessels and it is unclear
whether or not the suggestion includes the 55m protection corridor for
the Eastern By-pass of the 25m slope between the existing and
proposed channel depths.
9.3.4 Discussion of alternatives
Several of the Observers raised concerns that DPC had not given
adequate consideration to alternative layouts and configurations for
Alexandra Basin West in the EIS. It should be noted that the EIS
Regulations only require a developer to provide an outline of the main
alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for his/her
choice, taking into account the environmental effects. There is no
requirement to undertake detailed consideration of specific alternatives
of the component parts of the proposed development. This view was
upheld by Justice Mahon in the High Court in Klohn v An Bord Pleanála
and I am satisfied that DPC has addressed this issue at the correct
level.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 133 of 237
9.3.5 Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the applicant’s EIS
has had adequate regard to the consideration to alternatives. I am also
satisfied that amendments suggested by Dublin Graving Docks Limited
and Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company would not fulfil the stated
requirements of DPC with regard to future proofing the Port and
improving and berthing facilities large cargo and cruise vessels.
9.4 Movement and access
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
Traffic movements and vehicular access closures
Dublin Tunnel
Dublin Eastern Bypass
Access to Alexandra Basin West
9.4.1 Context:
DPC submits that the proposed ABR project will assist in achieving the
Masterplan objective to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040.
This would equate to an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum from
2012 to 2040. DPC carried out a transportation appraisal to evaluate
the impact of this increase in port traffic on the surrounding internal and
external road network. However, it should be noted that this appraisal
considered all of the development envisaged by the Masterplan up to
2040 and not just the current ABR project which comprises c. one third
of the overall Masterplan works. Although the Port estate is currently
served by 2 existing rails connections, there are no significant
proposals to utilise these connection to serve cargo or passenger
transport in the short to medium term.
The proposed development would comprise the:
Reconfiguration of Alexandra Basin West to provide new and/or
deeper berths for cruise ships and other vessels along with the
repositioning of existing berthing operations within the Basin;
The closure of the 2 existing “left-only” vehicular access points on to
East Wall Road along with the associated redistribution of traffic
within the Port estate towards Promenade Road; and
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 134 of 237
The infilling of Berths 52/53 to the E of the Port along with the
corresponding creation of replacement riverside berths parallel to the
newly in-filled area.
9.4.2 Traffic movements and vehicular access closures
9.4.2.1The proposed ABR element of the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 will not
generate significant volumes of additional traffic. However the
proposed closure of 2 existing access points along East Wall Road will
lead to a redistribution of traffic within the Port Estate which will be
channelled towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel.
Promenade Road currently carries c.70% of port traffic and it will
ultimately carry c.99% of traffic.
9.4.2.2Vehicular access to Alexandra Basin West and the North Wall Quay
Extension is currently via 2 existing entrance points off East Wall Road.
These entrances are located at Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 (P&O)
and they have a “left-only” turn when exiting the Port Estate. Because
of the City Councils HGV ban, all heavy vehicles leaving the Port via
these two access points must travel S to the Point Roundabout, carry
out a “U-turn” and then travel N along East Wall Road towards the
Dublin Tunnel.
9.4.2.3All vehicles exiting from Terminal 3 are compelled to turn left and all of
the HGVs must carry out the “U-turn” in order to reach the Dublin
Tunnel. There was some discussion during the Oral Hearing as to
whether or not DPC had overestimated or underestimated the use of
this “U-turn” route by HGVs exiting other sections of the Port via
Alexandra Road. Notwithstanding the results of the EIS transport
study, it should be noted that vehicles exiting other sections of the Port
can avoid this route by using the Port’s internal road network to reach
the Dublin Tunnel via Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road. A third
existing entrance off East Wall Road to North Wall Quay Extension,
which is located at the Point Roundabout, is rarely used.
9.4.2.4Under the current proposal the East Wall Road access points will be
closed and c.99% of port traffic will eventually use Promenade Road
with direct access to the Dublin Tunnel, which has adequate spare
capacity. There was some discussion during the Oral Hearing as to
whether or not DPC had overestimated tunnel capacity. However it was
agreed that adequate capacity does exist in the short to medium term
to serve the ABR project. The proposed access closures and resultant
traffic re-distribution will also serve to reduce the volume of traffic along
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 135 of 237
East Wall Road, albeit with some minor increases along the
surrounding road network.
9.4.2.5Dublin City Council (DCC) confirmed at the Oral Hearing that the
existing entrances to the Port Estate along East Wall Road currently
give rise to a traffic hazard, that Council plans to replace the Point
Roundabout with a signalised junction are at an advanced stage, and
that the “U-Turn” will be eliminated. It is therefore evident that vehicles
exiting the western section of the Port will have to be accommodated
by new transportation and exit arrangements when the new DCC
junction layout has been implemented.
9.4.2.6Overall the National Roads Authority (NRA), National Transport
Authority (NTA) and DCC are supportive of the Masterplan, the overall
consolidation of the Port and the movement objectives, and the ABR
Project,. However, certain aspects of the current ABR project and
future Masterplan proposals will require further consultation with these
agencies. In particular the timing of the access closures off East Wall
Road will require the agreement of DCC which could be addressed by
way of a planning condition.
9.4.2.7Notwithstanding the above, several of the Observers (including P&O,
Irish Ferries and Stena Line) raised concerns in relation to the impact
of the proposed access closures and the redistributed traffic on ferry
and shipping operations, especially during peak disembarkation times
in the Port. It was noted that many of the concerns raised by Irish
Ferries and Stena Line relate to the full suite of development proposals
contained in the DPC Masterplan to 2040 and not necessarily the
current ABR proposal. I am satisfied that the internal road network and
junctions have the capacity to accommodate the redistributed traffic
and predicted traffic increases in the short to medium term. However
DPC has indicated that there will be road and junction capacity
problems in the future when other elements of the Masterplan are
implemented (subject to future planning approval).
9.4.2.8Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the internal road
network will operate within capacity up to at least 2024, subject to
compliance with conditions related to the timing of the access closures
and the implementation of traffic management measures to be agreed
with DCC.
9.4.2.9P&O is located at Terminal 3 in Alexandra Basin West and this
company is currently dependent on the existing access to and from
East Wall Road. Concerns have been raised in relation to the absence
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 136 of 237
of any details as to how displaced operations will be accommodated
and how temporary changes to their operational layout will be managed
during construction. During the Oral Hearing P&O stated that DPC had
provided assurances that:
East Wall Road would not be closed until appropriate, agreed
alternative arrangements are in place and that amendments will be
made to internal traffic management at key junctions.
DPC will consult with P&O regarding the detailed layout within the
area shown and that the existing layout will remain in place in the
interim.
The shared use of the area used by P&O with any other Ro-Ro
operator to facilitate Ro-Ro development elsewhere in the Port will
only happen while P&O retain the sole and current operation of the
linkspan.
9.4.2.10In relation to other matters:
I am satisfied that the Port’s internal road network and the surrounding
local road network can accommodate the coach and taxi traffic
generated by the increase in cruise ship calls to Dublin Port, which are
predicted to increase up to 2032, with minimal impact on local traffic
volumes.
Construction traffic, vehicles should be required to arrive and depart via
the Dublin Tunnel subject to compliance with conditions related to the
management of dirt and dust, and to arrive and depart the Port at times
that do not conflict with peak ferry arrivals and departures.
In relation to emergency route options, it should be noted that drawing
no. IBH0362/0075 illustrates alternative access routes if a blockage
was to occur at any section of the internal road network once the
proposed access and internal road closures are in place.
Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the traffic
generated by the proposed ARB project, the proposed access closures
along East Wall Road and the resultant redistributed traffic within the
surrounding internal and external road network will not give rise to a
traffic hazard or endanger the safety of other road users.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 137 of 237
9.4.3 Dublin Tunnel:
9.4.3.1Having Most of the Ports vehicular traffic will be directed towards the
Dublin Tunnel which has adequate spare capacity to accommodate the
additional and redistributed traffic arising from the ABR project. The
NRA has raised concerns that the possible future function of the Dublin
Tunnel as a section of the proposed Eastern By-pass must be
recognised and protected. This is an issue of particular concern when
considering the potential future impact of the additional traffic that
would be generated by the other developments envisaged in the DPC
Masterplan up until 2040.
9.4.3.2The NRA has requested that DPC prepare a scheme of specific
demand management measures for the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 in
consultation with the Authority. The scheme would be prepared in the
interests of managing and protecting the safety, efficiency and capacity
of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road Network in the Region. As
this request relates to the entirety of the Masterplan period until 2040
and not just the works currently proposed under the ABR project it
would not be appropriate to attach a planning condition in this regard.
However the specific issues of relevance to the current proposal and
the use of the Dublin Tunnel by could be addressed by way of a
planning condition.
Conclusions:
9.4.3.3Notwithstanding these long term concerns, I am satisfied that the
Dublin Tunnel has sufficient capacity to accommodate the construction
vehicles and the additional traffic generated by the ABR project in the
short to medium term.
9.4.4 Dublin Eastern Bypass:
9.4.4.1The NRA’s 2009 Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern Bypass
identified a number of route options for connecting the N portal of the
Dublin Tunnel to the Poolbeg Peninsula on the S side of the River
Liffey:
A1: Medium Level Open Bridge across Dublin Port
A2: Cut and Cover Tunnel through Dublin Port
A4: High Level Bridge across Dublin Port.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 138 of 237
9.4.4.2Policy SI19 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 seeks to
support the provision of a link between North Dublin Port and the South
Eastern Motorway via an Eastern by-pass of the city as per the 2009
Corridor Protection Study. An indicative layout is illustrated in the
current City Development Plan and this envisages the extension of the
Dublin Tunnel along the W Port boundary with East Wall Road (Option
A1 above). DCC stated that the proposed ABR Project is consistent
with the objective of delivering the Eastern By-pass in the medium to
long term but that it should make provision for the NRAs emerging
Corridor Protection Study by facilitating a potential alignment along the
W boundary of the Port.
9.4.4.3An Engineering and Urban Design Study has recently been undertaken
in consultation with DCC for the section of the route between the Dublin
Tunnel Southern Portal and the River Liffey. This Study identified a
technically feasible corridor that accommodates 3 possible
route/alignment options that would not preclude the proposed
development.
9.4.4.4A revised Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Port Tunnel to
Sandymount Strand (2014) was submitted to the Oral Hearing by the
NRA. It should be noted that the statutory protection of the newly
identified corridor has not yet been agreed, and pending such
agreement the Study advises that the existing policy outlined in the
2009 Corridor Protection Study and the current DCC Development Plan
should remain in place.
9.4.4.5Section 2 of the 2014 Study identifies three technically feasible route
options for Sector A which lie within a single protected corridor that
follows the line of East Wall Road from the Dublin Tunnel to Poolbeg
(and along the W Port boundary). It should be noted that Option A4
(from 2009) has been omitted to take account of DPC’s aspiration to
accommodate large cruise ships in Alexandra Basin West, whist
Options A1 and A2 have been retained and a new Option A6 proposed:
A1: Medium Level Opening Bridge across Dublin Port
A2: Cut and Cover Tunnel though Dublin Port
A6: Route the motorway at grade
9.4.4.6Section 3 of the 2014 Study proposes that development should
generally not be permitted within this protected corridor where it would
jeopardise the deliverability of the Eastern By-pass motorway. The
width of this protection corridor varies between 0.8km and c.1.5km from
N to SE along East Wall Road. The N section located along the W Port
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 139 of 237
boundary would extend into the ABR site by c.55m. This reservation
would include the proposed pedestrian entrance to the cruise ship
berths at the Point Roundabout, the Conservation Interpretative Zone
at the W end of North Wall Quay Extension and the two Conservation
Zones located at the boundary wall with East Wall Road. (Conservation
issues will be addressed in section 9.5 below)
9.4.4.7The NRA raised concerns that the main pedestrian access to the
proposed cruise berths at North Wall Quay Extension (in the vicinity of
the soon to be signalised Point Roundabout) conflicts with one of the
route options for the Eastern By-pass. The Authority requested that the
pedestrian access be amended so that pedestrians disembarking from
the cruise ships access the LUAS stop at a point to the N of the 3
Arena (Point Depot /02).
9.4.4.8It should be noted that the 2014 Study did not identify a preferred
scheme, but stated that each of the three options was technically
feasible and should be brought forward for comparison as part of the
formal Route Selection and EIS processes at a later date. I am satisfied
that the appropriate formal route selection will be subject to further
investigation and consultation with the relevant authorities. However,
given that the delivery of the Eastern By-pass is a long term objective, I
am satisfied that a temporary short term solution to providing
pedestrian access to the cruise berths could be agreed by the parties
which could be addressed by way of a planning condition.
9.4.4.9DPC should, nonetheless, be required to comply with the requirements
of the NRA’s Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to
Sandymount Strand, September 2014.
Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR
project would be compatible with the long term objective to provide for
the future delivery of the Dublin Eastern By-pass.
9.4.5 Access to Alexandra Basin West:
Vehicular access:
9.4.5.1The proposed re-configuration of Alexandra Basin West, which
includes the closure of the two existing vehicular access points on to
East Wall Road, does not include any proposals to provide vehicular
access to the cruise ship berths at North Wall Quay Extension.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 140 of 237
DPC submitted an Indicative Layout for Terminal 4 (Drawing No.
IBH0362/0020 – Figure 4) to the Oral Hearing which shows an
indicative vehicular route. This route runs from the W side of Alexandra
Road (in the vicinity of the Port Offices), parallel to the western Port
boundary with East Wall Road, to North Wall Quay Extension. This
Indicative layout also illustrates the possible future location of parking
facilities for buses, taxis and other vehicles within the Port Estate. Any
final decision on the layout should be agreed with DCC. However, it
should be noted that the indicative vehicular route runs parallel to the
proposed Conservation Zone located along the W Port boundary and
that it would also be located within the c.0.55m wide reservation
identified in the NRA’s 2014 Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern
by-pass. This vehicular access issue could be addressed by way of a
planning condition which requires consultation and agreement with
DCC.
Pedestrian access:
9.4.5.2DPC proposes that the original Port entrance in the vicinity of the Point
Roundabout will be the dedicated route for pedestrians and cyclists
associated with the cruise liners until such time as the Eastern By-pass
is implemented. DPC submits that the traffic situation at the roundabout
will be alleviated by the removal of HGV U-turns and the future
signalisation of the junction by DCC. The DHA&G also indicated that
this route would eventually form part of a Heritage Trail along the
quays.
9.4.5.3As previously stated by DCC, work is progressing on plans for the
signalisation of the Point Roundabout including the provision of
pedestrian facilities. However the Council raised concerns that it would
not be appropriate to concentrate pedestrian/cyclist access at this
location until improved facilities are available. These concerns could be
addressed by a planning condition.
4.4.6 Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the vehicular
movement and access arrangements for this element of the overall
DPC Masterplan proposals for the Port Estate are acceptable, subject
to continued ongoing consultations with the NRA, NTA and DCC, and
compliance with planning conditions.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 141 of 237
9.5 Heritage
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
Context
Heritage features and proposed works
Discussion
9.5.1 Context:
9.5.1.1DPC state that the proposed ABR Project is required to future proof
Dublin Port by ensuring that it is accessible to larger shipping vessels,
including cruise ships, which will facilitate the continued viability of the
Port and the contribution it makes to the national and regional
economy. This would be achieved by reducing the length and depth of
North Wall Quay Extension, widening the entrance to Alexandra Basin
West, deepening the berths and fronting the remaining quay walls with
newer deeper structures within the Basin and along sections of the
Liffey channel.
9.5.2 Heritage features and proposed works:
9.5.2.1The proposed development would comprise substantial works in the
historic western section of the port including the demolition, partial
demolition and restoration of several heritage features at Alexandra
Basin West and North Wall Quay Extension, and the construction of
new quay walls in front of the existing quays.
9.5.2.2The Port is not located within a Conservation Area and none of the
features are Protected Structures. Although North Wall Quay to the W
is a Protected Structure (comprising granite ashlar quay walls, stone
setts, mooring rings, steps, bollards, lamp standards and machinery)
this designation does not extend to North Wall Quay Extension.
9.5.2.3However, the Port has considerable industrial heritage value and it
comprises a wealth of industrial, engineering and maritime features that
are of international, national and regional importance. These features
include 29 sites of interest in Alexandra Basin West and several
underwater sites of archaeological interest in the shipping channel.
Twelve of the 275 sites listed in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage
Record are located within the area.
9.5.2.4The engineering method used in the construction of North Wall Quay
Extension, which was started by Bindon Blood Stoney and completed
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 142 of 237
by Joseph Mallagh, is of international importance. Furthermore, the
Basin, River Liffey and the shipping channel may contain ship wreck
artefacts.
The main elements of the works are summarised in the following table.
Feature Proposed works
Alexandra Basin
To be dredged with potential exposure of a ship wreck
site.
North Wall Quay
Extension -
demolition
Partial demolition will remove the basin side and the
E-most section of the Quay which will result in the
removal of original Bindon Blood Stoney and Joseph
Mallagh construction blocks, and the relocation of the
East Wall Lighthouse.
North Wall Quay
Extension -
conservation
Dredging below the quay wall foundations will require
the insertion of a support wall; the quay will be
retained within a composite casing structure which will
leave several sections of the quay’s river façade
exposed; the conservation zones will retain original
quayside features including steps and rings;
Stoney blocks will be re-used to create an
interpretative feature to the W at the Port entrance.
North Wall
Lighthouse
To be relocated to new position at the Easternmost
end of reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension
(previously relocated in 1937)
Goods shed x 3 Potential demolition
Revenue Watch
House
Potential demolition
Graving Dock no.1 Reopen mid-19th century engineering structure as a
heritage feature
Graving Dock no.2 Infill mid-20th century engineering structure with blocks
of treated contaminated sediments
Pumphouse Restore
Poolbeg lighthouse Foundations to be reinforced
Shipping channel To be dredged with the potential exposure of several
ship wreck sites
9.5.2.5The proposed heritage works would also comprise the creation of a
number of interpretative and conservation zones at Alexandra Basin
West and North Wall Quay Extension. The DPC Conservation Strategy
includes 2 Interpretative Zones and several Conservation Zones.
Other heritage initiatives include the retention of the original entrance
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 143 of 237
gates and the retention and/or relocation of historic cranes to another
part of the Basin.
9.5.2.6The Interpretative Zones include the conservation of a c.55m length of
quay in its original state in the vicinity of the East Link Bridge along with
the creation of an Interpretative Pavilion using a reclaimed 350 tonne
mass concrete Bindon Blood Stoney block. These features would be
linked to the relocated East Wall Lighthouse by a central pathway along
North Wall Quay Extension, all of which would ultimately form part of a
wider Heritage Trail for the Quays.
9.5.2.7The Conservation Zones include the restoration of Graving Dock 1
which will be open to public access and the infill of Graving Dock 2
(which DPC submit will be reversible so as to ensure that there is no
long term loss of historic fabric) and the restoration of the original Port
boundary with East Wall Road. The Conservation Zones also include
the retention and exposure of 5 sections of the original quay wall along
the river side of North Wall Quay Extension including the original
Stoney steps and mooring rings in the W section. These sections will
be visible to the public when viewed from above along North Wall Quay
Extension and from the East Link Bridge to the W.
9.5.2.8The heritage elements of the ABR Project were informed by a number
of specialist studies submitted by the applicant. DPC submits that the
works will be carried out in accordance with international and national
best practice as articulated in the Joint ICOMOS – TICCIH Principles
for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites 2011, the DoEH&LG
Architectural Heritage Guidelines, 2004, and the Dublin City
Development Plan 2011-2017.
9.5.2.9Section 14.3.1of the Architectural Heritage Guidelines, 2004 deals with
the identification of features of interest associated with harbours which
should be protected including quay walls, dry docks, piers, jetties and
associated buildings such as warehouses. Section 14.3.2 states that
protection could also extend to features such as cranes, other
machinery, bollards, lamp standards, chains, harbour lights,
navigational structures or buoys and other items which may or may not
be original to the construction of the harbour but which contribute to
the appreciation of the protected structure and should be retained.
Section 14.3.3 the Guidelines states that where it is necessary to infill a
harbour or dock the works should as far as practicable be reversible.
9.5.2.10Policy FC26 Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017seeks to
protect and conserve the city’s cultural and built heritage, Policy FC29
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 144 of 237
seeks to reinforce the character, cultural significance and tourism
potential of the historic areas in the city, Policy FC46 seeks to protect
and enhance the important civic design character of Dublin’s Quays,
and Policy FC68 seeks to implement the relevant recommendations of
the aforementioned Industrial Heritage Record.
9.5.3 Discussion
9.5.3.1From a practical perspective a number of small structures may have to
be demolished, the partial demolition of North Wall Quay Extension and
the relocation of the North Wall Lighthouse are necessary to enable
future access to the Basin by larger vessels to ensure the continued
viability of Dublin Port. Although the impacts will be direct, negative and
irreversible, I am satisfied, on balance, that the overall benefits to the
continued and future operation of Dublin Port will outweigh the dis-
benefits associated with the partial loss of industrial, engineering and
maritime heritage.
9.5.3.2The proposed conservation initiatives will provide a degree of
compensation for the loss of heritage as they will allow for the
retention, restoration and interpretation of several key features. The
proposed initiatives would be in accordance with Section 14.3.2 of the
Architectural Protection Guidelines, 2004 in relation to the protection of
harbour features and other items which contribute to the appreciation of
the area, irrespective of the absence of a protected structure
designation. The initiatives would also be compatible with Policies
FC26, FC29 and FC46 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017
in relation to conserving the city’s cultural and built heritage, reinforcing
the importance of historic areas, and protecting and enhancing the
important civic design character of Dublin’s Quays.
9.5.3.3Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that the NRA’s 2014
Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern By-pass identifies a
protection corridor that follows the line of East Wall Road from the
Dublin Tunnel to Poolbeg. The Study proposes a 55m reservation
within the W section of the Port which covers some of the proposed
conservation and interpretative zones including the Interpretative
Pavilion. It also includes the proposed pedestrian entrance to the
cruise ship berths via the original Port entrance gates; the 55m long
Conservation Interpretative Zone at the W end of North Wall Quay
Extension (including the Stoney steps) and the two Conservation
Zones located along the original western boundary wall.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 145 of 237
9.5.3.4The mid-19th Century and mid-20th Century Graving Docks are located
within an area designated as a conservation zone in the DPC
Masterplan 2012-2040. DPC propose to excavate and restore the mid-
19th Century Graving Dock 1 and infill the mid-20th Century Graving
Dock 2 with treated and stabilised contaminated material. This material
would be dredged from the Basin and converted into small cylindrical
concrete blocks at Berths 52/53. DPC submit that the infilling of
Graving Dock 2 will be reversible so as to ensure that there is no long
term loss of historic fabric.
9.5.3.5Section 14.3.3 of the Architectural Protection Guidelines, 2004 states
where it is necessary to infill a harbour or dock, the works should as far
as practicable be reversible; for example the use of loose fill would
allow for later re-instatement of the protected structure. Although both
Graving Docks are located within Masterplan conservation zone,
neither of the Graving Docks are designated protected structures and
the Guidelines are not strictly applicable in this instance.
9.5.3.6The DHA&G suggested the use of the Pump House as an
interpretative centre along with the concentration of all heritage
features in one location, however this was considered unworkable by
DPC due to access and security reasons. Several Observers raised
concerns about the effects of the works on the stability of the Quay
walls, sediment patterns in the Liffey on the W side of East Link Bridge,
and the stability of the Great South Wall. All of these concerns were
addressed by DPC during the course of the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied
that the stability of the Quay wall would not be undermined, that the
sediment regime W of the bridge will not be affected and that the
proposed rock amour works will not affect the integrity, character or
setting of the Recorded Monuments at the Great South Wall to the E of
the Port.
9.5.3.7It should be note that one of the heritage benefits of the alternative
options proposed by Dublin Graving Docks Limited and Dun Laoghaire
Harbour Company (see section 9.3 and 9.4 above) would be the
retention of North Wall Quay Extension in its entirety.
9.5.3.8In relation to underwater archaeology, it should be noted that the
DHA&G is satisfied with the proposed development subject to the
implementation of the EIS mitigation measures and the attachment of
planning conditions related to archaeological monitoring and recording.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 146 of 237
9.5.4 Conclusions:
The proposed development would have a permanent adverse impact
on the historic character of Dublin Port and it has the potential to
expose buried ship wreck artefacts. Although the dis-benefits would be
compensated for by the implementation of the heritage measures
outlined in the Conservation Strategy, it is noted that the long term
retention of some of these features could be affected by the final
decision on a route for the Eastern Bypass. Notwithstanding this
concern, and having regard to the national and strategic importance of
Dublin Port, the proposed development is considered acceptable,
subject to the full implementation of the EIS mitigation measures and
the attachment of planning conditions related monitoring and recording.
9.6 Noise and vibration, air quality and climate, and water quality
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
Engineering works
Dredging
Noise and vibration
Air quality and climate
Water quality
It should be noted that issues related to Ecology will be addressed in
section 9.9 of this report.
The proposed works would comprise two main elements which are
anticipated to take between 6 to10 years:
Engineering works to facilitate:
o The creation of deeper berths (-10mCD),
o The enclosure of Berths 52/53 and creation of new berths, and
o The construction of a marine protection wall at Poolbeg Marina.
Dredging of Alexandra Basin West, berthing pockets and the
shipping channel for a distance of c.10km to a depth of -10mCD.
9.6.1 Civil engineering works:
9.6.1.1The proposed civil engineering works would include the partial
demolition of North Wall Quay Extension to reduce its length (from
c.720m to c.567m) and width (from c.75m to 45m); removal of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 147 of 237
stockpile; dismantling the lead-in and bulk jetties; relocating linkspans
and ramps; re-fronting the quay walls; and the reconfiguration of the
existing berths within Alexandra Basin West; along with the demolition
of several small structures and the relocation of North Wall Lighthouse.
The works would also include the infilling of in Berths 52/53, re-fronting
of quay walls and the creation of new riverside berths; and the
construction of a marine protection wall at the Poolbeg Marina which is
located opposite the entrance to Alexandra Basin West on the S side of
the River Liffey. The Port will remain operational during the civil
engineering works which are expected to take c.4 years to complete
and phasing details are contained in the EIS and Draft High Level
Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP).
9.6.1.2The proposed works will result in the construction of c.3, 185m of new
quay walls (many of which will be attached to existing quay walls)
which will require the installation of c.2376 piles. There will be three
month break in marine based piling operations between March and
May to mitigate against any potential impact on migrating salmon
smolts in the river channel. The construction works are summarised in
the following table:
Location Combined
length
Total no.
of piles
Type of piling
No. of rigs
Alexandra
Basin West
1616m 521 Combi-wall with tubular
piles
1 per section;
5 in total
North Wall
Quay
937m 312 Combi-wall with tubular
piles
2
Marina Wall 220m 74 Combi-wall with tubular
piles
1
Berths 49,
52 & 53
412m 1469 Combi-wall with tubular
piles; cellular walls with
straight web sheet piles
1 per section
2 for Berths
52/53; 4 in
total
Totals 3185m 2376 12
The number of piling rigs that will be active at any one time throughout
will vary throughout the construction period, with initially one rig being
active (October 2015) reaching a maximum of 5 in (January 2018)
working simultaneously at the following locations:
Berths 52 (2 x rigs)
North Wall Quay extension (2 x rigs)
Marina wall ( 1 x rig)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 148 of 237
9.6.1.3The exact piling details have yet to be finalised although it is known
that the piles will probably comprise tubular pile combi walls (diameter
1.6m) and HZM king pile walls. Although this is subject to change when
works commence it was confirmed at the Oral Hearing that the
diameter of the piles would not increase. The piles will be driven by a
combination of vibratory and impact hammer techniques with ramp-up
procedures. There will be a certain degree of cross-over between
construction activities most of which will not take place at the same
time.
9.6.2 Dredging:
9.6.2.1Alexandra Basin West and the shipping channel will be dredged to a
depth of -10mCD for a distance of c.10km from a point just E of the
East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy. The rate of dredging in the
main channel will be determined by the capacity of the dump site to the
W of the Burford Bank to accommodate dredged material, and the
length of the dredging season, which is 6 months during the winter.
Dredging is expected to take c.6 years (up to a maximum of 10 years),
given favourable conditions and the prior completion of the demolition
and construction works at North Wall Quay and the Marina Wall. The
dredging of Alexandra Basin West is dependent on the closing of
Berths 52/53 and the requirement to have sufficient re-fronted quay
wall established to facilitate the dredged depth.
9.6.3 Noise and vibration:
9.6.3.1The ABR Project would be located within the country’s largest and
busiest working port and it is anticipated that noise and vibration from
the proposed demolition, construction and dredging activities will not
escalate above background noise levels to any significant extent.
9.6.3.2DCC had no objection to the proposed development but requested
clarification in relation to several matters which was provided by DPC.
DCC also highlighted the need for on-going noise monitoring during the
construction and operational phases either at the noise monitoring
locations or noise prediction locations in order to confirm the projected
noise impacts of the works. DCC requested that these monitoring
results should be presented to the Council periodically, and this was
agreed to by DPC and could be affirmed by way of condition. DCC also
requested that potential noise impact zones should be mapped in
relation to the European Site boundaries, which could also be
addressed by way of condition. (Ecological issues area addressed in
section 9.9 below).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 149 of 237
9.6.3.3Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the adverse
impacts of noise and vibration from construction, demolition and
dredging activities on residential amenity, cumulative impacts as a
result of ongoing Port activities, and a noise contour map and strategic
noise management plan were suggested.
9.6.3.4The EIS contains a detailed appraisal of worst case construction phase
activities including demolition and pile driving. According to the models,
although noise will be audible along Pigeon House Road to the S the
levels will be lower than the noise threshold limits in the 2004 NRA
Guidelines and BS5228:2009, predicted noise levels will be below
existing ambient noise levels at all of the nearest noise sensitive
locations and below or similar to existing background noise levels. DPC
confirmed that the demolition and construction activities will operate
between 08.00 and 18.00 in the vicinity of residential properties, which
is broadly acceptable. In relation to vibration, the main sources would
also be from piling, demolition and dredging.
9.6.3.5It should be noted that demolition and piling activity at North Wall Quay
Extension will be over 70m away from the 3 Arena to the W; piling
activity at Poolbeg Marina will be over 120m from Pigeon House Road
to the SE; and that piling activity at Berths 52/53 will be over 1km from
the nearest residential area at Clontarf to the N. Most of the dredging
will take place in the shipping channel which is well removed from any
residential areas which is acceptable. However dredging in the W
section of the Liffey Channel in the vicinity of Pidgeon House Road
should be restricted to normal construction related hours of operation to
protect the night time amenities of local residents.
9.6.3.6Having regard to all of the above, including the location of the proposed
development within a busy working port, and the separation distances
between the proposed activities and the nearest residential areas, I am
satisfied that there will be no significant adverse effects from noise and
vibration on the surrounding area as a result of the proposed
demolition, construction and dredging activities, subject to conditions.
9.6.3.7It should be note that one of the environmental benefits of the
alternative option proposed by Dublin Graving Docks Limited and Dun
Laoghaire Harbour Company (see sections 9.3 9.4 above), in relation
to the retention of North Wall Quay Extension in its entirety, would be a
reduction in demolition noise however there would be an increase in
pile driving noise as the entire quay would have to be re-fronted.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 150 of 237
Other sources of noise and vibration:
9.6.3.8In relation to operational noise, potential impacts would be related to
the addition of new, and the relocation of existing plant equipment.
However, having regard to the existing character of the Port, I am
satisfied that the proposed changes to the locations of several ramps
and jetties in Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52/53 will not result in a
significant increase in noise levels at the nearest residential area or
other noise sensitive receptor.
9.6.3.9In relation to noise from shipping vessel movements, the Dublin Port
Masterplan anticipates that the number of Ro-Ro ships will ultimately
double from c.5, 000 in 2014 to c.9, 500 in 2040 (from 14 to 27 per
day), that the number of Lo-Lo ships will stay the same and that the
number of cruise ship visits will increase from 87 to c.160. Although
vessel size is also expected to increase, DPC submit that this will not
give rise to a corresponding increase in noise from vessel turning
movements because of more environmentally sustainable design
improvements and that there is no direct relationship between noise
and vessel size. Most night-time port activities occur in the container
area at Ocean Pier where there will be no significant increase in
activity. I am satisfied that noise levels will not exceed existing ambient
and background noise levels in the Port, subject to curbs being placed
on the night time use of a ships fog horn in the interest of residential
amenity.
9.6.3.10DPC’s traffic appraisal predicts a marginal increase in traffic flows
along Sheriff Street, North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road with a
larger increase at the Dublin Tunnel and along Promenade Road in
2018, 2023 and 2040. Although there would be a corresponding
increases in traffic noise, having regard to the character of the
surrounding area in which the largest increase would occur, and which
is dominated by port related activities, I am satisfied that there would
be no significant traffic noise related impact on any residential or noise
sensitive receptors as a result of the ABR project.
Conclusions:
Noise and vibration arising for the demolition, construction and
dredging activities along with noise from port operations, shipping
movements and traffic generation, will not have an adverse effect on
the amenities of nearby residential areas. This is subject to compliance
with the EIS mitigation measures and conditions related to noise
monitoring, control and the management of construction related
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 151 of 237
activities. Noise and vibration arising from shipping, port related
activities and associate traffic movements will not give rise to any
significant noise impacts.
9.6.4 Air Quality and climate:
9.6.4.1The ABR Project would be located within a busy working port and the
surrounding area is characterised by industrial uses including electricity
generating stations, a wastewater treatment plant, several Seveso II
sites and a permitted waste treatment facility. The main existing
sources of atmospheric emissions in the vicinity of the Port are related
to road traffic, shipping vessels and industrial processes.
9.6.4.2There are a number of sensitive receptors located within a 2km radius
of the ARP project including residential areas at Pigeon House Road,
York Road and Pembroke Cottages to the S; commercial areas
including the 3 Arena, the Gibson Hotel and offices to the W; residential
areas at Clontarf to the N; and amenity areas to the N and S at the Bull
Island, Sandymount Strand and Ringsend Park; as well as several
ecological areas to the N, S and E.
9.6.4.3The main source of emissions from the proposed ABR project would be
from road traffic during the construction phase; dust from demolition,
construction and treatment activities; odours from dredging Alexandra
Basin West including hydrogen sulphide which, according to DPC, was
not encountered in previous dredging campaigns but may be present in
deeper sediments; combustion gases including carbon monoxide,
sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide; particulate matter; heavy metals
including arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel from dredging the Basin;
and emissions from the treatment of contaminated sentiments at Berths
52/53; along with emissions from road traffic and shipping vessels
during the operational phase; and greenhouse gas emissions from
removal of organic material.
9.6.4.4The EIS predicts that the proposed development will not have any
significant adverse impact on air quality in the long term subject to the
implementation of a series of mitigation measures and compliance with
all relevant EU, UK and national environmental standards. The
mitigation measures contained in the Draft Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) include a Dust Minimisation Plan, which will
include measures to keep roads clean; an Odour Management Plan to
mitigate the potential for odours from dredging operations; a Dredge
Management Plan to manage the dredging campaign; and a Traffic
Management Plan to minimise congestion and queuing as a means of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 152 of 237
minimising greenhouse gas emissions. DPC also anticipate the use of
construction materials with a reduced environmental impact.
Conclusion:
Having regard to all of the above and to the location of the proposed
development within a busy working port which is surrounded by
existing heavy industrial uses, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR
project would not have any long term significant effects on air quality
and climate. This subject to compliance with relevant environmental
standards, the implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, and
compliance with any conditions attached to other licences and permits.
9.6.5 Water quality
9.6.5.1Dublin Port is located within the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay
water bodies. According to DPC, the overall WFD status of the water
bodies is classified as moderate, the tropic status is unpolluted,
dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting
most forms of aquatic life, the level of oxygen demand is acceptable,
and the designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the proposed works
are compliant with bathing water quality standards. The main potential
source of impacts to water quality relate to the construction, dredging
and operational phases.
9.6.5.2Several construction phase activities have the potential to cause
temporary impacts. These include pollution from mobilised suspended
sediment during dredging and deposition of spoil; sedimentation due to
settling of suspended silt; the dispersal and fate of contaminated
sediments; and impacts associated with works machinery,
infrastructure and on-land operations have the potential to cause
temporary impacts.
9.6.5.3The EIS concluded that there will be no significant impact on the
sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay and estuary as a result of
the capital dredging scheme (refer to section 9.8 below) and the
dredging will not have an adverse effect on the existing morphology of
the Liffey Estuary Lower or Dublin Bay water bodies.
9.6.5.4Potential impacts during the operational phase are associated with
normal and the anticipated growth in port operations. These include
discharges from vessels, cargo handling and cargo storage areas and
onward transportation, all of which can be addressed by way of
adherence to Dublin Port management practices.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 153 of 237
9.6.5.5All of the activities associated with the construction and dredging have
the potential to impact on water quality and associated species and
habitats (refer to section 9.9 below). These activities will require
construction phase mitigation measures including compliance with
construction techniques and timing and phasing of works set out in the
EIS. The Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
contains a Waste Management Plan, a Contamination Strategy and a
Water Quality Management Plan.
9.6.5.6The operational phase mitigation measures include compliance with
the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan which requires that
no waste should be disposed of at sea, the correct treatment of ballast
water and tanks, and appropriate storage of hazardous wastes, oil,
chemicals and waste.
Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above and to the location of the proposed
development within an existing busy working port, I am satisfied that
the proposed ABR project would not have any long term significant
effects on water quality in the Lower Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay
water bodies subject to compliance with relevant environmental
standards, the implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, and
compliance with any conditions attached to other licences and permits.
9.6.7 Conclusions:
The proposed development, which would comprise substantial civil
engineering works, dredging operations and operational changes within
Dublin Port, has the potential to affect the quality of the surrounding
environment by way of noise, vibration, dust, odours, release of
contaminants, turbidity and general disturbance. However, having to
the location of the proposed development within an existing busy
working port, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR project would not
have any long term significant effects on the surrounding area. This is
subject to compliance with relevant environmental standards, the
implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, adherence to the
finalised High Level High Level CEMP and compliance with conditions
attached to any other licences and permits.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 154 of 237
9.7 Dredging and contamination
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
Dredging
Contamination
Treatment of heavily contaminated sediments
Disposal of moderately contaminated sediments
It should be noted that the proposed dredging, treatment and disposal
operations will require licences and/or permits from the DoEHLG and
EPA.
The Board should also refer to the report prepared by Dr Tony Cawley,
Consultant Hydrologist, who provided advice in relation to these issues
which is attached to this report.
In relation to non-contaminated sediments, it should be noted that the
potential effects of dredging and dredge disposal at sea on coastal
processes and ecology will be addressed in section 9.8 and section 9.9
of this report.
9.7.1 Dredging
9.7.1.1The proposed ABR project will entail substantial dredging of Alexandra
Basin West, the Liffey Channel, the berthing pockets and the shipping
channel for a distance of c.10km to within the vicinity of the Dublin Bay
Buoy, with a small incursion into a European Site. A total of 6,
370,000m3 of sediments will be dredged over a period of between 6 to
10 years. The proposed dredging will take place for 6 months every
year (October to March), it is anticipated that c.one sixth of the channel
will be dredged per year and that the process will operate from E to W.
The quantities of sediment to be dredged is summarised in the
following table:
Alexandra Basin West Liffey Channel Approach channel
470,000m3 500,000m3 5, 400,000m3
9.7.1.2The depth of the channel will be increased from c.-7.8.mCD to c.-
10mCD as a result of the dredging campaign. The section of channel
located between in the North and South Bull Walls will be realigned and
straightened to allow for a two-way flow of shipping traffic. Although the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 155 of 237
DPC Masterplan contains a development option to provide a large
turning area for ships in the channel to the E of Berths 52/53, this has
not been included in the currently proposed dredging operation.
9.7.1.3DPC states that the dredging works are required ensure future access
to the Port by larger shipping vessels over the DPC Masterplan period
and beyond. The existing channel depth of -7.8mCD can accommodate
vessels with a maximum draught of 10.2m during Neap tides and 7.5m
during Spring tides. The proposed channel depth of -10mCD would be
able to accommodate ships with a maximum draught of 12.2m during
Neap tides and 9.7m during Spring tides.
9.7.1.4According to the DPC Masterplan, the Port will handle up to 60 million
tonnes per annum by 2040 with an average growth rate of 2.5%. Most
of this growth will occur in the Ro-Ro sector (3.2%) with a modest
amount of growth in Lo-Lo (1.7%) and bulk (1.9%) while cruise ships
calls are predicted to significantly increase over the entire Masterplan
period.
9.7.1.5The ABR project comprises c. one third of the overall development
envisaged by the DPC Masterplan and the proposed works at
Alexandra Basin West will cater for future increases in ship size and
more frequent cruise calls. The proposed works at in the vicinity of
Berths 52/53 will provide some additional Ro-Ro capacity. However the
DPC Masterplan anticipates that most of the predicted future growth in
Ro-Ro operations would be accommodated by way of a reclamation
project to the E of the Port at some stage in the future (subject to
planning approval).
9.7.1.6DPC have included the entire capital dredging programme as part of
the current application as the proposed works will serve both current
and future development proposals in the Port, as well as providing
access to shipping vessels of ever increasing size.
9.7.2 Contamination
9.7.2.1The sediments in Alexandra Basin West are contaminated with heavy
metals. According to DPC this legacy contamination has prevented
maintenance dredging of this part of the Port which has led to siltation
in the vicinity. The proposed ABR project will provide for the
excavation and removal of this material for treatment and the treated
material will be reused to infill Graving Dock no.2 and Berths 52/53.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 156 of 237
9.7.2.2The sediments in the section of the Liffey channel adjacent to
Alexandra Basin West at the entrance to the Basin are classified as
having slight to moderate contamination levels. DPC proposes to
dispose of these sediments at sea in the licenced dump site to the W of
the Burford Bank. The sediments will be capped by gravel to prevent
the re-dispersion of contaminated material in a similar manner to
previous maintenance dredging campaigns.
9.7.2.3The uncontaminated sediments dredged from the remainder of the
Liffey channel and the shipping channel will also be disposed of at the
dump site to the W of the Burford Bank. The coastal process models
predict that the finer sediments will be rapidly dispersed into the wider
Irish Sea by strong N-S currents while the heavier sands will remain at
the dump site until they get dispersed within Dublin Bay under storm
conditions (these issues are addressed in more detail in section 9.8
below).
9.7.2.4In relation to dredging and dredge disposal at the dump site, it should
be noted that DPC will have to apply for Foreshore Consent (under the
Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment Act) 2009) from the
DoEC&LG and a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA.
The quantity of sediment, the level of contamination and the fate of
dredged sediment are summarised in the following table:
Location Dredge
quantity
Level of
contamination
Sediment fate
Alexandra Basin
West
470, 000m3 Heavy Treat and reuse as infill
Liffey channel
adjacent to Basin
500,000m3 Slight to
moderate
Dispose of at sea in
dump site and cap
Liffey & approach
cannel
5,400,000m3 Clean Dispose of at sea in
dump site
Treatment of heavily contaminated sediments:
9.7.2.5The sediments in Alexandra Basin West are not suitable for disposal at
sea as they exceed the upper level environmental guidance
parameters for heavy metals including nickel, lead, zinc, cadmium,
arsenic, copper, chromium and mercury. Furthermore, the Basin
sediments do not meet the acceptance criteria for inert waste and
treatment is therefore required prior to their use as fill in Berths 52/53
and Graving Dock 2.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 157 of 237
9.7.2.6Dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator
mounted clamshell bucket. This system has been adapted for
environmental dredging and it is designed to minimise disturbance and
escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water
column. The dredger will be surrounded by a silt curtain and dredging
will not be seasonally dependent as the potential spread of
contaminated sediments will be prevented by the use of the silt curtain
and the enclosed nature of the Basin.
9.7.2.7The c.470, 000m3 of contaminated sediments will be transported by
barge from the Basin to a treatment facility at Berths 52/53. The
proposed remediation process will comprise the use of Stabilisation/
Solidification (S/S) technology to reduce the mobility of contaminants
by chemically binding them after the sediments have been screened
and dewatered. DPC submit that this process has been successfully
undertaken in similar harbour related projects in the UK and Europe.
9.7.2.8Dredging and treatment will be carried out at a rate of c.1, 000m3 per
day over an 18 month period and the rate of dredging will be
determined by the rate of treatment so that stockpiling will not occur.
Wastewater will be treated and held in a settlement lagoon/tank. The
mobilised sediments will batched into small cylindrical “concrete” blocks
for re-use as infill at Berths 52/53 and Graving Dock 2 and it is
proposed to raise the existing surface levels at Berths 52/53 to
c.7.1mCD over an area of c.95, 000m3. The volume of material
required to infill these areas is summarised in the following table.
Receptor Volume
Berths 52/53 519,000m3
Graving Dock 2 55,000m3
Total capacity 574,000m3
9.7.2.9Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the pollution
effects of the proposed works in relation to dredging, transport,
treatment and re-use, on water quality, the River Liffey and the wider
marine environment.
9.7.2.10In relation to the construction phase, the proposed sediment dredging,
transfer and treatment operations, water quality in the Basin and the
Liffey channel could be affected by pollution from suspended
contaminated sediments. This could arise as a result of leaks and
accidental spills from the dredger and barges and from the transfer of
material to the treatment facility at Berths 52/53. In relation to the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 158 of 237
operational phase, the main concern relates to the potential leaching of
contaminants from sediments used as fill material in Graving Dock.
The EPA stated that DPC must apply for an Industrial Emissions
Licence for the treatment of contaminated dredge spoil from the Basin
and the deposit of the treated material as infill at Berths 52/53 and
Graving Dock 2. However, according to the EPA, the dredging of the
Basin and the transport of dredged material to the proposed treatment
facility at Berths 52/53 do not require authorisation from the Agency.
9.7.2.11Class 11.2 of the First Schedule of the EPA Act 1992, as amended
provides for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste with a
capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day. According to the EPA, it may be
that some of the excavated dredge spoil will be classified as hazardous
waste, and if hazardous spoil is mixed with non-hazardous spoil, then
the entire mixture will be classified as hazardous waste. If DPC
demonstrates that the dredge spoil is not hazardous waste or the
capacity of the treatment plant is less than 10 tonnes per day, then an
Industrial Emissions Licence will not be required but that a Waste
Licence will be required.
9.7.2.12The EPA confirmed that the treatment process will need to be
contained and mitigation measures are required to ensure that that
there are no uncontrolled emissions to ground, air and water, that the
leaching of contaminates from the treated material should be controlled
by way of the leaching limit values contained in any licence granted by
the EPA. Any licence application to the EPA will be subject to an
Environmental Impact Assessment and all matters to do with emissions
to the environment from the proposed activities come within the remit of
the EPA.
9.7.2.13The EIS mitigation measures require adherence to best practice
construction techniques and the timing of works, compliance with
relevant guidelines, consultation with relevant stakeholders, and the
preparation of a construction monitoring programme would also reduce
the risk of leaks and accidental spills. The strict implementation of the
mitigation measures and on-going compliance with monitoring
requirements will ensure the protection of surface and ground water
quality.
9.7.2.14DPC carried out a risk assessment as part of the Draft Dredging
Management Plan, which forms part of the Draft High level CEMP that
identified incidents from dredging and disposal operations that could
pose a potential hazard to the environment. The Risk Analysis
examined (and rated) the consequence and likelihood of occurrence of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 159 of 237
hazards and the subsequent risk evaluation was used to inform the
Risk Matrix.
No high level risks requiring priority attention were identified.
Ten low-level risks with moderate consequences were identified
which indicates a need for continuing awareness and monitoring
on a regular basis, including a breach in the silt curtain,
overtopping of barges, poorly controlled release of material from
barges at the treatment facility and collisions.
Three risks with medium to high level risk requiring action were
identified and these pre-mitigation risks are summarised in the
following table:
Process Potential risk Likeli-hood
of risk
Level of
risk
Level of
consequence
Dredging Ship collision with
dredge vessel
Low Medium to
high
Major
Dredging Major spillage from
dredge vessel
Low Medium to
high
Major
Transport Ship collision with
dredge barge
Low Medium to
high
Major
Following the implementation of mitigation measures the 3 medium to
high level risks move into the low level likelihood of risk category with
moderate to major consequences. These are summarised in the
following table:
Potential risk Mitigation measures Level of
risk
Level of
consequence
Ship collision with
dredge vessel
Notices, warnings,
monitoring & emergency
response plans
Very low Major
Major spillage from
dredge vessel
Emergency response
plans
Very low Moderate
Ship collision with
dredge barge
Notices, warnings,
monitoring & emergency
response plans
Very low Major
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 160 of 237
Disposal of moderately contaminated sediments at sea:
9.7.2.15The sediments in the section of the Liffey channel adjacent to the
Basin entrance have slight to moderate levels of contamination. It is
proposed to dispose of this material at sea in the licenced dump site to
the W of the Burford Bank. DPC state that this would be undertaken at
slack tide and that the sediments would be immediately capped to
prevent their re-suspension into the water column and dispersal
throughout Dublin Bay.
9.7.2.16The dump site is located outside the application site boundary and
DPC will require a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA, the relevant
consent authority. Notwithstanding this, the Board should be satisfied
that any works undertaken inside the site boundary (including the
transfer and disposal of material outside the site boundary) when
assessed in-combination with other associated works in the
surrounding area, do not have an adverse effect on the environment,
and in particular the European sites located to the N, S and E of the
proposed development.
9.7.2.17In relation to the sampling information provided in the EIS, DPC was
requested to comment on the relatively small number of sediment
cores provided for the Liffey Navigation channel; the accuracy of the
contamination classification and how the delineation of
slightly/moderately contaminated sediments from sediments suitable
for disposal was arrived at, and how representative the cores are with
respect to capital dredge depth, given that the channel will be dredged
to a depth of -10mCD.
9.7.2.18DPC stated that they had regard to several previous studies
undertaken within the Port; the Marine Institute was consulted with
regard to the assessment of the suitability of sediments for disposal at
sea; sampling and vibro-core locations for the basin, navigation
channel and fairway were agreed with the Marine Institute in advance
of the site investigation works who advised on both the locations and
testing regime; and a line delineating the boundary between
slightly/moderately contaminated material and material suitable for sea
disposal was developed.
9.7.2.19DPC was also requested to consider alternative treatment options for
the slight to moderately polluted sediments and to provide details of a
monitoring program that should be carried out to identify such
sediments prior to dredging. DPC stated that the costs associated with
land filling and/or export would be prohibitive given the large volume of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 161 of 237
material in combination with the associated energy costs. The
Company also confirmed that there is no further spare capacity in
Berths 52/53 or Graving Dock 2 to accommodate any additional treated
material.
9.7.2.20Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the adverse
effects of depositing slight to moderately contaminated sediments at
sea and within a European site. Some of the Observers suggested that,
if remediated, the slight to moderately contaminated sediments would
be a valuable economic resource which could be used infrastructure
projects. DPC stated at the oral hearing that, in accordance with its
current EPA Dumping at Sea Permit, the Company is already permitted
to dredge slight to moderately contaminated sediments from the
navigation channel and dispose of these sediments at the Burford Bank
subject to specific conditions. The conditions include dumping during
certain tidal conditions and capping the material a layer of clean coarse
uncontaminated material.
9.7.2.21Dr Cawley continued to have concerns that the number of samples
collected from the Liffey channel is too sparse to allow an accurate
determination of the dredge area sediments that can be classified as
moderately, slightly and uncontaminated and that further sampling was
required. However this is considered a matter for the EPA and the
DoEC&LG when assessing any new Dumping at Sea and Foreshore
applications.
9.7.3 Conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
dredging, treatment and reuse of heavily contaminated sediments from
Alexandra Basin West will not have an adverse effect on the
environment subject to the strict implementation of mitigation
measures, compliance with planning conditions and the terms and
conditions attached to any other licences and permits.
The proposed disposal of slight to moderately contaminated material at
the dump site to the W of the Burford Bank will require an EPA Permit.
The EPA, as the consent authority, will assess the environmental
ecological impacts of the proposed disposal works and set appropriate
conditions.
I am satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, and subject to
compliance with the mitigation measures, planning conditions and the
terms and conditions attached to any licences and permits, that there
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 162 of 237
will not be any significant in-combination impacts arising from the
proposed development and the subsequent treatment and disposal of
dredged sediments in the wider Dublin Bay area.
9.8 Coastal processes, hydrodynamics and flood risk
9.8.1 The Board should refer to the report prepared by Dr Tony Cawley,
Consultant Hydrologist, which is attached to this report. Dr Cawley
provided advice on the quality of the data and the effectiveness of the
Coastal Processes and related models along with the adequacy of the
simulations and predictions contained in the EIS in relation to:
Hydrological impacts
Dredge material and disposal
Coastal process modelling
Flood risk assessment (and climate change)
Dr Cawley was generally satisfied with the quality of the data collected,
the modelling techniques, simulation exercises and predicted
outcomes, and the main conclusions and recommendations are
summarised below.
9.8.2 Overview of models:
The sediment transport models and modelling approach used to
evaluate the dredging operation within the Liffey Channel area, the sea
disposal at the licenced disposal site near the Burford Bank and the
morphological modelling of the sea bed evolution within Dublin Bay are
considered fit for purpose and meet normal Irish and International
practice for such assessments. The main conclusions are as follows
Flood Risk Assessment:
The proposed development is appropriate development for the
flood risk zones identified.
The flood risk to the development is primarily tidal but potentially
compounded by wave climate.
The proposed Quay levels are located above the 200 year with
sufficient freeboard to account for climate change and potential
local wind and sea waves propagating up the Liffey in combination
with storm tides.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 163 of 237
The site is accessible under 200 and 1000 year flood conditions.
The development is unlikely to materially impact flood risk in the
neighbouring areas of Clontarf and the south Quays.
The proposed development will significantly replace lands in Flood
zones A and B with raised grounds having elevations above the
estimated 1000year flood level (using treated contaminated
sediments)
The flood risk assessment includes the recommended current Irish
practice for Climate Change allowance.
The flood risk assessment meets the requirements of the Flood
Risk Management Planning Guidelines in terms of suitability,
impact and residual flood risk.
Dredging operations:
The simulation results for dredging operations within the inner Liffey
Channel indicate the potential for high sustained suspended solids
spreading across the entire Liffey channel width with concentrations in
excess of 50mg/l. Dredging in the middle and outer channel section
are shown to produce lower sustained concentrations of less than
20mg/l
Sediment deposition:
The simulations show that deposition rates outside of the channel
dredge area as a result of the capital dredging operation will be
insignificant.
To lessen the suspended solids concentration in the inner Liffey It
is recommended that over-spilling at the surface of the dredger is
avoided for all dredging activities within the inner Liffey channel
section. This will significantly reduce the potential suspended
sediment from the dredging operation. It is recommended that
outside of the immediate dredging zone that the increase in
suspended sediment concentration over the ambient does not
exceed a maximum of 50mg/l. This could be addressed by way of
a planning condition.
The sediment transport simulations of the Burford Bank disposal
site show that the silt fraction deposited at the site will be dispersed
widely by tidal flows whereas and a large portion of the fine sand
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 164 of 237
fraction will remain in-situ under tidal flows and is only removed by
storm waves conditions with the dominant wave direction from the
S and SE. Under such a transport mechanism the sand is likely to
remain in Dublin Bay and likely to re-join the natural sediment
budget within the bay.
The simulations indicate no depositional hot spots that will end up
receiving significant amounts of sediment from the disposal site.
The depositional impact on the reef habitat within the Rockabill to
Dalkey Island cSAC and the Lambay Island cSAC based on
modelling results is considered to represent a slight to
imperceptible impact and transitory in nature given the exposure of
the reef areas to wave climate and tidal currents.
Morphological assessment of the navigation channel:
The proposed new channel will not result in any significant change
in the morphological response of the sea bed in Dublin Bay outside
of the channel area.
Similar to the existing case there will be a tendency for deposition
towards the northern side of the channel and erosion to the S side.
The simulation output for the E and SE storm directions indicate an
increase in deposition within the approach channel near the Bull
wall entrance under the proposed capital dredge case. Given the
localised nature of this increase it is unlikely that magnitude of
future maintenance dredging will be significantly increased.
The new channel will require maintenance dredging of a slightly
higher magnitude to that required with the existing channel
9.9 Ecology
This section of the report will focus on the following issues:
European sites and protected species
Terrestrial ecology
Benthic communities
Fisheries
Marine mammals
Birds
Other areas
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 165 of 237
9.9.1 European sites and protected species
9.9.1.1The ABR project would be located adjacent to several European Sites
and the proposed channel dredging would extend into a small section
of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. Most of the dredged material
would be disposed of at a licenced dump site to the W of the Burford
Bank within the same European Site. Dublin Bay is of international
importance for birds, particularly wintering waterfowl, and it contains
many protected species of plants, birds and marine mammals. Sections
of the Bay are also covered by other environmentally sensitive
designation including NHAs and Ramsar sites along with a Biosphere
at North Bull Island, which is also subject to a DCC Special Area
Amenity Order. The River Liffey is a designated Conservation Area in
the Dublin City Development Plan, and it is an important Salmonid
system which also supports migratory sea trout, lamprey and eels.
Several of the Port buildings are potential bat roosts for this protected
species.
9.9.1.2It should be noted that the dump site lies outside the application site
boundary and DPC will require a Foreshore Licence and a Dumping at
Sea Permit for dredging and dredge disposal operations. However as
stated in previous sections of this report, the Board should be satisfied
that any works undertaken inside the site boundary, when assessed in-
combination with other associated works in the surrounding area,
would not have an adverse effect on the environment or the integrity of
any European sites. This is of particular relevance to the SPAs and
cSACs located to the N, S and E of the proposed works which could be
affected by the re-suspension, dispersal and deposition of sediments
from the dump site.
9.9.1.3There are numerous European Sites located within a 15km radius of
the proposed works and the following 5 sites are potentially at risk from
the proposed construction, development and operational works:
North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206)
South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)
North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 166 of 237
9.9.2 Terrestrial ecology
9.9.2.1The proposed ABR project will comprise the demolition of several
structures, ramps and jetties located at Alexandra Basin West; the
partial demolition of North Wall Quay Extension and the relocation of
North Wall Lighthouse; the excavation of Graving Dock 1 and the infill
of Graving Dock 2; the reconfiguration of quay side berths; and the
infilling of Berths 52/53. None of these proposed works would be
located within a European Site however it is possible that several
protected species could be present in the area.
9.9.2.2DPC carried out surveys for badgers, otters and bats in addition to an
extended Phase 1 Habitat Study of Alexandra Basin West and Berths
52/53 in May 2013 to identify any of the following ecological features:
Plant habitats
Invasive flora and fauna
Invertebrates
Protected amphibians (smooth newt and common frog)
Protected reptiles (Common lizard)
The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:
There was no evidence of badgers, otters, invertebrates, protected
amphibians, protected reptiles or invasive flora and fauna.
The North Wall Quay lighthouse and the building associated with
the Tara Mines conveyor had minimal bat roost potential as the
foraging potential of the site is low.
Four other structures proposed for demolition at the P&O site
revealed no evidence of bat activity, however the Automated
Passive Monitoring survey recorded two species of bat (Common
pipistrelle and Leisler’s bat) which, according to DPC, were
probably foraging but not roosting.
Nothing of further note was recorded at the Basin or Berths 52/53.
DPC concluded that the proposal would not result in a significant loss
of habitat or protected species or the loss of typical bat associated
habitats.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 167 of 237
9.9.2.3Several of the Observers (including DAH&G and DCC) raised concerns
in relation to the adequacy of the bat surveys; the lack of attention
afforded to otters which are known to use the Tolka estuary; the
omission of bryophytes from the survey results given that several
species (subject to the Flora Protection Order 2014) are known to
present; the stated absence of any invasive species in the Port; and the
lack of sufficient planting to enhance the ecological function of the Port.
9.9.2.4In relation to the potential presence of two bat species, it should be
noted that DPC’s survey was undertaken in January when the bats are
in a state of torpor. DAH&G and DCC request that the structures
proposed for demolition be re-surveyed for bats prior to demolition
when they are most likely to be active (May to September). In the event
that bats are found a derogation licence will be required for their
removal. This issue could be addressed by way of a planning condition.
9.9.2.5In relation to invasive species, international ports are well known
vectors for such species, the EU Invasive Species regulations (2014)
require the identification of pathways for invasive alien species and this
should have been considered in the EIS and a risk assessment
undertaken. DCC has requested that DPC provide a risk assessment
and a strategy for a management system for invasive alien species
which could be used for the duration of the works in accordance with
EU Regulations. This issue could be addressed by a planning
condition.
Discussion and conclusions:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
development would not have significant adverse impacts on terrestrial
ecology subject to strict compliance with mitigation measures and
planning conditions.
9.9.3 Benthic communities
9.9.3.1The proposed ABR project would comprise substantial dredging of
Alexandra Basin West and the shipping channel for a distance of
c.10km from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy. The depth of
the channel would be increased from c.-7.8mCD to -10mCD which will
result in the overall removal of over 6, 000, 000m3 of sediments. It is
proposed to dispose of most of this material at sea in the licenced
dump site to the W of the Burford Bank, which is located within the
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. The works would take a minimum of 6
years to complete, dredging would take place 24/7 for 6 winter months
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 168 of 237
each year, and c.one sixth of the channel would be dredged each year.
This would result in the deposition of c.1, 000,000m3 of sediments per
year or c.177, 000 cubic metres per month at the dump site.
The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:
The Basin, Berths 52/53 and the E section of the Liffey channel are
characterised by sandy muds and the more exposed parts of
Dublin Bay are characterised by fine, gravelly and muddy sands.
The dump site is characterised by fine to medium sands with
pockets of coarser material, and the N-S current takes most of the
finer dredged material away to open sea.
Two distinct faunal groupings occur in the inner outer parts of the
Bay, the species are common to the Irish coast and none are of
significant conservation interest.
The faunal samples collected at the dump site are typical and
similar to the samples taken 30 years ago which indicates benthos
stability.
9.9.3.2DPC concluded that there would be a temporary loss of benthic habitat
along the shipping channel as a result of the proposed dredging works;
the temporary removal of the benthos from within the Rockabill to
Dalkey Island cSAC (c.0.25% of the European Site) will have no
adverse effects on its Qualifying Interests (Harbour Porpoise and Reef
communities) and that the benthos recovery rate will be rapid; with no
significant changes to hydrodynamics, wave climate or wave velocities
predicted. Benthic communities within a 200-500m radius of the
dredger could also be affected by sediment plumes however DPC
submit that the benthos will start to recover after each 6 month annual
winter dredge campaign with full recovery expected after 2 to 3 years.
9.9.3.3The removal of substrate and smothering could affect the quality of
benthos food available for adult and juvenile fish, seals and other
marine mammals. This would include Harbour porpoise which is one of
the Qualifying Interests for the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. The
coastal processes models predict that finer sediments will be rapidly
dispersed by strong N-S tidal currents into the Irish Sea, and that the
sandy material will remain on site until it is eventually re-dispersed
throughout the Bay under storm conditions. DPC submit that the dump
site has a long history of disturbance from dredge disposal and that the
proposed works will not give rise to any long term negative impacts.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 169 of 237
9.9.3.4Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the permanent
loss of benthic communities, the length of the recovery time, and the
effects on the food chain caused by the loss of fish biomass to
wintering birds and the consumption of contaminated prey by fish, birds
and marine mammals.
9.9.3.5According to DPC, international studies indicate a rapid rate of
recovery (6 months to 1 year) at sites with similar characteristics to
Dublin Bay (including high tidal energy, fine sediments, disturbed
community types, opportunistic species and dumping history). Data
collected from on-going maintenance dredging of the shipping channel
confirms that there are no significant differences in benthic community
structures between dredged and un-dredged areas; faunal samples
collected at the dump site are similar to those taken 30 years ago and
the 6 month winter dredge campaign will allow for a 6 month partial
recovery period each summer.
9.9.3.6DCC raised concerns in relation to the direct loss of benthic food
supplies and the resultant loss of fish biomass for wintering birds in the
Bay. DCC is also concerned that sedimentation plumes arising from
dredging and dredge disposal appear to be directed toward North Bull
Island and the Tolka Estuary. This event would be exacerbated during
storms; sediment deposition could affect seabed levels which could in
turn adversely affect food resources for wintering birds in the European
sites.
Discussion:
9.9.3.7The proposed dredging and dredge disposal operations will have a
short term localised negative impact on benthic communities located on
the seabed of the shipping channel and at the dump site by way of
habitat disturbance and smothering. The proposed works relate to a
very small proportion of the overall area of Dublin Bay and the works
will be phased over a 6 to 10 year period, the shipping channel is
subject to regular maintenance dredging and the area around the dump
site has been used for sediment disposal for several decades. I am
therefore satisfied that the proposed development will not have a
significant adverse effect on the seabed and benthic communities at
this location.
9.9.3.8The dump site is highly dispersal and fine sediment will be rapidly
dispersed into the Irish Sea by strong N-S tidal currents whilst the
heavier sands will remain in-situ. The coastal processes models predict
some re-suspension and deposition of sand throughout the Bay under
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 170 of 237
storm conditions (see section 9.8 above). I am satisfied that the depth
of sediment that would be deposited across the sea bed (c.0.0002mm)
would be imperceptible and not be of a sufficient magnitude so as to
adversely affect food resources for winter birds in the surrounding
European sites.
9.9.3.9No heavily contaminated sediment will be disposed of at the dump site.
The slight to moderately contaminated material will be capped by
heavier sands and gravels at the dump site (see section 9.8 above).
The proposed disposal operations will be subject to the conditions of an
EPA Dumping at Sea Permit as per the current arrangement for spoil
disposal. Any contaminated silts escaping from the dump site would be
rapidly dispersed in to the Irish Sea by the strong N-S tidal currents. I
am satisfied that there is little likelihood of the food chain becoming
contaminated by materials dredged from within the application site
boundary and disposed of at the dump site. The proposed development
would not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic food
resource for fish or the marine mammals and birds in the Bay and
surrounding European sites that prey on fish as their main food
resource.
Conclusion:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
development will not have a significant long term adverse effect on
benthic communities, that any disturbance will be largely contained
within the shipping channel and the dump site, and that there would be
no significant knock-on effects for fish, marine mammals or birds.
9.9.4 Fisheries
9.9.4.1Certain aspects of the works have the potential to affect fish life in the
Liffey channel, the shipping channel and Dublin Bay.
The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:
The Rivers Liffey, Dodder and Tolka support a regionally significant
population of Atlantic salmon and river lamprey, which are
protected under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.
Salmon smolts travel to the sea from the Liffey in the spring to
early summer while a small number of multi-sea winter adults
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 171 of 237
(spring salmon) return in February to March and grilse (after one
winter at sea) return in the summer and autumn.
River Lampreys migrate along the Liffey during October.
The coastal and inshore habitats around Dublin Bay provide
nursery areas for several commercially valuable species including
herring, cod, haddock, whiting and lemon sole.
Sea angling takes place in Dublin Bay for several species including
mackerel, Pollack and occasionally bass.
9.9.4.2DPC acknowledge that benthic food resources for adult and juvenile
fish in the shipping channel will be significantly reduced during and
after dredging and dredge disposal (see section 9.9.3 above) and that
some fish could become entrained in the dredger. Suspended
sediments from dredging plumes have the potential to block fish gills,
and reduce visibility, which is a particular concern in the Liffey Channel
for migrating species. The proposed mitigation measures include
phasing dredging operations, prohibiting dredging in the Liffey channel
from March to May to protect migrating smolts, and ensuring that
certain sections are not dredged during lamprey migration.
9.9.4.3Noise from demolition and construction activities (including pile driving)
has potential impacts that range from non-auditory tissue damage to
death, and fish with bladders are the most vulnerable to noise related
injury. DPC state that recognised US noise level criteria will be applied
to all Annex 11 species (EIS Table 5.4.13 and 4 describe this in more
detail) and that piling driving will not take place at certain times of the
year during species migration. The proposed mitigation measures
include phasing demolition and construction works and prohibiting pile
driving from March to May to protect smolts.
9.9.4.4Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the effects of
the proposed construction, dredging and dredge disposal works on
fisheries. Their main concerns relate to seasonal migration of fish along
the Liffey channel (Atlantic salmon, river lamprey, sea trout and eels);
loss of benthic food resources for fish in the shipping channel and at
the dump site as a result of dredging and dredge disposal; reduced
visibility as a result of increased turbidity from dredging; physical injury
at the dump site as a result of dredge disposal; contamination of the
food chain as a result of the re-suspension of slight to moderately
contaminated sediment at the dump site; and pile driving noise.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 172 of 237
9.9.4.5Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) also requested that the overall impact of
dumping be assessed by post dumping bathymetric surveys; suitable
conditions for fish transition should be maintained through the
redevelopment and dredging process; and water and habitat quality
should be regularly monitored to ensure compliance with the objectives
of the Water Framework Directive.
Discussion:
9.9.4.6The effects of the proposed dredging and dredge disposal operations
(including the disposal of slight to moderately contaminated sediments)
on the sea bed, benthic communities and the food chain have been
addressed in section 9.9.3 above. It was concluded that there would be
a temporary and localised impact on the benthos as a result of habitat
disturbance and smothering, and that there is little likelihood of
contaminants entering the food chain. I am satisfied that any resultant
impact on the quantity and quality of food available for fish will also be
temporary, short term and localised with no effect at population level on
fish species in Dublin Bay.
9.9.4.7Fish entrainment could be minimised by using the most
environmentally friendly type of dredger available and adherence to
best practice dredging and dredge disposal techniques should
minimise fish fatalities. The shipping channel and the area around the
dump site have been dredged and dumped for decades and I am
satisfied that most species will tend to avoid these disturbed areas.
Finally, the proposed seasonal breaks in dredging and pile driving will
serve to protect migrating species of fish along the channel. The
monitoring concerns raised by IFI would be addressed either by way of
the proposed mitigation measures or by a planning condition.
Conclusion:
Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed
works will not have a significant long term adverse effect on fish
populations in the Liffey Channel, the shipping channel or Dublin Bay,
subject to compliance with the phasing programme, mitigation
measures and monitoring conditions.
9.9.5 Marine mammals
9.9.5.1The proposed ABR project would comprise significant demolition,
construction, dredging and dredge disposal works over a 4 to 6 year
period. The proposed demolition and construction works would not be
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 173 of 237
located within any sensitive sites although there several SPA, cSACs
and NHAs located to the N and S of the works and a small proportion
of channel dredging would take place within the Rockabill to Dalkey
Island cSAC. Certain aspects of the proposed works (including noise
from pile driving and noise and disturbance from dredging) have the
potential to affect marine mammals in Dublin Bay by causing physical
injury, behavioural changes (permanent and temporary), avoidance,
loss of food resources and reduced visibility.
9.9.5.2Several species of marine mammal regularly frequent Dublin Bay
including Harbour porpoise, harbour seals, grey seals and dolphins,
with occasional visits from minke whales. Dublin Bay is covered by a
variety of sensitive ecological designations and many of the marine
mammals are protected under Annex II and V of the Habitats Directive.
Although there are numerous European Sites located within a 15km
radius of the proposed ABR project, marine mammals in three of the
cSACs are most at risk from the proposed pile driving and dredging
works.
The relevant European Sites and their protected marine mammals
include:
European Site (cSAC) Qualifying Interest (QI) Protected species
(PS)
Rockabill to Dalkey Island Harbour porpoise (QI &PS)
Lambay Island Grey seal (QI & PS)
North Dublin Bay (Bull
Island)
Grey seals: haul out and breeding (PS)
The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:
There are high densities of Harbour porpoise in the Bay; they are
very sensitive to vessel noise and activity; but are not attracted to
vessels.
Harbour (common) seals are present in the Bay and around the
dump site to the W of Burford Bank; they haul-out at Lambay Island
and North Bull Island; they spend c.80% of time at sea and
continue foraging during the breeding season; disturbance from
noise could affect mating; and they are at risk to detrimental
impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 174 of 237
Grey seals have breeding sites at Lambay Island, Dalkey Island,
Irelands Eye and St. Patricks Island; they frequent Dublin Bay,
Howth Harbour, Sandycove and Bull Island where they haul-out;
and they are extensive foragers and at risk to detrimental impacts
of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.
Bottlenose dolphins are transient visitors to the Bay; they are
attracted to vessel activity; and are vulnerable to harm from
dredging.
Minke whales are occasional users of the Bay and the Burford
Bank and they are very vulnerable to noise.
Common dolphins are infrequent visitors to the Inner Bay but are
occasional users of the Outer Bay and Burford Bank.
Risso’s dolphins have been observed around the coast, they not
attracted to vessels and there are no recorded sightings in the Bay.
9.9.5.3DPC acknowledge that the most likely impact from dredging and
dredge disposal operations will be through sound disturbance, reduced
visibility from suspended sediments and plumes, and local habitat
modification. The effects of re-suspended fine sediments on visibility,
the loss of benthic food resources for fish and subsequently marine
mammals, and potential contamination of the food chain were
addressed in sections 9.9.3 and 9.9.4 above. Although dredging noise
is mainly low frequency and continuous in nature, it could affect minke
whales and Harbour porpoise which have a relatively high sensitively
across most frequencies and also harbour and grey seals which have
good underwater hearing. DPC concluded that although Harbour
porpoise is present in this area, the site is not critical for feeding as it
has regularly used as a dump site for several decades and it is not a
significant feeding area for cetaceans or seals.
9.9.5.4DPC acknowledged that noise from demolition and construction
activities has the potential to affect marine mammals through sound
disturbance. Pile driving produces a very high source level and broad
bandwidth pulse which is biased towards lower frequencies, it
propagates through the water column and sediments, although sound
pressure levels in impact pile driving depend on the length and
diameter of the pile. Sound propagation is also dependent on water
depth, bathymetry, sediment type, oceanographic conditions, ambient
noise levels and species behavioural responses. Extended exposure
to pile driving noise can lead to noise related injuries and permanent
hearing loss in cetaceans and pinnipeds, source levels are similar to
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 175 of 237
tactical sonar, and it can adversely impact behaviour, communication
and breeding, with effects detected up to 20km for Harbour porpoise
and harbour seals. DPC concluded that:
Piling, demolition and dredging within Alexandra Basin West and
the Liffey Channel at the same time would increase potential
impacts of sound exposure to marine mammals.
The impacts of piling, dredging and dredge disposal at the dump
site on marine mammals are not considered significant although
individuals will be affected by noise in the works area.
9.9.5.5DPC proposes to implement the NPWS Guidance to Manage Risk to
Marine Mammals from Manmade Sound Sources in Irish Waters (2014)
along with some additional measures which are summarised below:
A marine mammal observer (MMO) should be employed.
No marine mammals should be present in the pre-determined
exclusion zones (500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m for
piling) in the 30 minute period prior to operation.
Noise producing activities should only commence in daylight hours
and ramp up procedures must be employed over a 20-40 minute
period.
Piling, dredging and dumping should cease if a cetacean or seal is
observed in the vicinity of the works (c.50m).
There is no requirement to halt or discontinue activity at night time,
in poor weather conditions or if marine mammal occurs within 500m
(dredging and demolition) and 1000m (piling).
9.9.5.6DPC concluded that there would be no significant impacts on marine
mammals in Dublin Bay or the European sites during pile driving,
dredging and dredge disposal operations subject to adherence to the
phasing programme and compliance with the 2014 Marine Mammal
Guidelines.
9.9.5.7Notwithstanding this conclusion, Further Information was requested to
assist the Board in its consideration and assessment of the potential
impacts of noise on marine mammals in Dublin Bay and the European
sites in relation to:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 176 of 237
The use of North Bull Island by harbour and grey seals.
The potential effects of prolonged noise from pile driving, dredging
and dredge disposal works on marine mammals.
The potential effects of prolonged noise on Harbour porpoise.
The potential effects of prolonged noise from dredging and dredge
disposal on marine mammals.
The effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures
The use of North Bull Island by harbour and grey seals:
9.9.5.8DPC carried out survey in August 2014 which concluded that the c.30
seals (including pups) that regularly use the area are probably
habituated to harbour and shipping noise. International studies suggest
that disturbance from pile driving may be restricted to 200-300m while
minor disturbance may occur up to 15km although seals are highly
mobile. No adverse impacts are predicted subject to compliance with
the mitigation measures and DPC will carry out monthly monitoring of
the haul out sites to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures during and after construction.
The potential effects of prolonged noise from pile driving, dredging and
dredge disposal works on marine mammals:
9.9.5.9DPC submit that most marine mammals are habituated to noise from
shipping vessels; piling will be fairly continuous for c.38 months when
c.990 piles will be driven and piling could be simultaneous at 3 sites;
potential impacts include Permanent or Temporary Threshold Shift
(PTS or TTS) and behavioural disturbance; international studies
indicate that PTS onset could occur within 5m of pile driving for
cetaceans and 20m for seals and that TTS onset could occur within
10m and 40m, and that no injury or hearing impairment should occur
outside of 100m; Harbour porpoise can experience strong avoidance
behaviour within 20km of the sound source; minke whales and seals
exhibit behavioural disturbance within 40 and 14km.
The potential effects of prolonged noise on harbour porpoise:
9.9.5.10DPC state that although difficult to visually detect, Harbour porpoise
have very distinctive echolation characteristics (high frequency –
narrow bandwidth) which facilitates acoustic monitoring techniques;
DPC now propose to install a real time passive acoustic monitoring
system (PAMs) at the approaches to the Port to provide information on
the presence of marine mammals when visual mitigation is not
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 177 of 237
possible, this would allow for real time monitoring of Harbour porpoise
within a range of 250-800m and it will detect mid and low frequency
seal vocalisations 24/7 in all weather conditions; the 2 hydrophone
systems will monitor the minimum 1000m and 500m exclusion zones
for piling and dredging; DPC also referred to the use of bubble curtains
to reduce the impact of sound pressure levels on marine mammals
however this system is mainly used for wind turbine piles which have a
much greater diameter and higher sound pressure levels.
9.9.5.11DPC also carried out a pile driving noise trial in Dublin Bay in June
2014 (using slightly smaller diameter piles than proposed); the trial was
undertaken in Alexandra Basin East and the results indicate rapid
attenuation of sound pressure from piling within 500m of the sound
source due to topography, seabed substrate, shallow water, and the
confined character of the site within the Liffey channel and the Bull
Walls; sound pressure was undetectable above ambient noise outside
of the Liffey channel ; DPC submit that the results suggest that piling
noise will not cause TTS in marine mammals within 500m of the site
and that the standard mitigation measures would be adequate.
9.9.5.12During the Oral Hearing the Inspector queried whether or not the
results of a single pile driving trial in Alexandra Basin East could be
considered statistically significant and whether or not the conclusions
and extrapolations for the entire project were scientifically robust. DPC
reaffirmed their conclusions and stated that the only way to fully
examine underwater noise transmission would be to undertake the
actual pile driving works.
9.9.5.13Having regard to the results of this pile driving noise trial DPC
proposed the following amendments to the marine mammal mitigation
measures, during the Oral Hearing, which had the agreement of the
NPWS:
Models carried out as part of the pile driving appraisal indicate that
the impact of noise levels arising from piling will be confined to an
area 500m upstream and downstream of the Basin.
o DPC request that the mitigation zone for piling be reduced from
1000m to 500m in line with the results of this model.
Noise from dredging/dumping is estimated in the NPWS Guidelines
at 177dB at peak frequency of 80-200Hz and band width of 20Hz-
80Hz; the source level for dredging is below the threshold for injury
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 178 of 237
to marine mammals (c.183-206dB at 2.5KHz for pinnipeds and
c.145dB for Harbour porpoise); the recommended criteria for injury
for non-pulsed sound of 203dB SEL for pinnipeds in water and
215dB SEL for high frequency cetaceans; the potential impact for
dredging is therefore confined to disturbance only; in a general
model of 15 Log R, the disturbance distance for marine mammals,
assuming a SEL threshold of 145dB is 256m whilst a 35 Log R
model reduces the distance to 16m.
o As the disturbance distance is well below that threshold for injury
DPC request that the mitigation zone for dredging be reduced
from 500m to 250m.
A mitigation measure contained in S.5.2.9 (bullet point 4) of the EIS
relates to a 50m zone around dredging which is not included in the
NPWS 2014 Guidelines, as Harbour porpoise are unlikely to enter
this zone such a measure is not necessary and DPC request its
removal.
The potential effects of prolonged noise from dredging and dredge
disposal on marine mammals:
9.9.5.14DPC state that Harbour porpoise tend to avoid busy areas and
dredging has less effect on marine mammals than moving sources of
noise; dredging noise can exceed ambient levels for considerable
distances depending on the type of dredger used; this could disrupt
communication due to masking or alteration of behaviour patterns,
however international studies suggest that marine mammals will be
exposed to the sound equivalent of an additional ship during dredging
operations and most species are habituated to such noise.
The effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures:
9.9.5.15DPC state that mitigation measures will include the use of a MMO and
ramp up procedures, and they now propose to install a static acoustic
monitoring programme (SAM) using CPODS which are self-contained
click detectors that log the echolocation clicks of dolphins and
porpoises, they have detection distances of c.250m for Harbour
porpoise and 800mfor bottlenose dolphins, the deployment of 2 units is
proposed at the dump site and within Dublin Bay.
9.9.5.16Several of the Observers and the Inspector continued to have
concerns in relation to the effects of the proposed works on marine
mammals. These concerns related to underwater noise from pile
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 179 of 237
driving, dredging and vessel movements; the DPC noise trial; the
marine mammal exclusion zones; MMO fatigue; cumulative noise
impacts from other plans and projects in the Bay; the loss of food
resource and contamination of the food chain as a result of dredging
and dredge disposal; the adequacy of the seal surveys; and the use of
monitoring data by other agencies. DPC was requested to address
these concerns at the Oral Hearing.
9.9.5.17DPC stated that the underwater noise evaluation is based on a worst
case scenario; the use of the port by larger vessels will not necessarily
mean an increase in noise levels; underwater noise levels in the cSAC
will not adversely affect the conservation interests of the site;
underwater noise levels will be at a level, that when combined with any
of the other plans and projects in the Bay, the cumulative impact will be
zero due to the logarithmic addition of noise levels; and there are no
known cases of injury or death of a marine mammal due to noise from
pile driving.
9.9.5.18DCC noted that the exclusion zones for dredging and piling activities
will necessitate the inclusion of several other European sites within the
zones and requested the Board to consider attaching the following
condition in relation to noise impact zones which is considered
acceptable:
The potential noise impact zones should be mapped in accordance
with the distances stated in the assessment and in relation to the
European Site boundaries, so that it can be clearly shown where
the key impacts are to occur with regard to the European sites on
Dublin Bay; these zone maps should include each species and
their known usage of and range within Dublin Bay.
DCC raised the issue of MMO fatigue and request the Board to
consider attaching the following condition (as recommended by the
Irish Whale and Dolphin Group):
Daytime hours are clearly defined in terms of when operations can
commence and cease and that all mitigation measures should be in
accordance with the 2014 Guidelines.
DCC raised a concern in relation to the sharing of marine mammal
monitoring data with other relevant agencies and request the Board
consider attaching the following condition:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 180 of 237
The records of monitoring which should be published by the
Applicant and the Applicant shall also submit the data to NBDC for
the Marine Database, in the national interest.
The concerns raised by DCC in relation to marine mammal mapping
and monitoring are valid and could be addressed by way of planning
conditions.
9.9.5.19DCC noted that DPC did not carry out a comprehensive survey of
seals in Dublin Bay and regard should have been had to the Irish Seal
Sanctuary data for the North Bull Island the Council’s Management
Plan for the SAAO which states that the Island has been regularly used
by seals for haul out and breeding for several decades, and the use of
North Dublin Bay and beyond for breeding must be fully taken into
account. DCC request the Board to consider attaching the following
condition:
In order to assess the impact and effectiveness of mitigation
measures it is recommended that the Applicant undertakes monthly
monitoring of seal haul out sites at the North Bull island and
adjacent areas pre-construction, during construction and for a
minimum of 2 years post construction, in line with best international
practice; the propose monitoring methodology and duration of the
survey to be agreed with DCC and the NPWS.
o The monitoring for harbour and grey seals should be further
extended to include executing a survey of Dublin Bay within the
zones of influence as defined by the EIS.
o There should be a review by DCC and the NPWS of the
mitigation strategy following completion of the surveys at each
stage of completion.
The concerns raised by DCC in relation to ongoing survey and
monitoring of seals on the Bull Island and Dublin Bay are valid and
could be addressed by way of a planning condition.
9.9.5.20DCC also noted that although the piling schedule is described as
phased, some of the phases are potentially simultaneous and that any
overlap may intensify impacts on protected species; they request that
consideration be also given to the timing of the operations of these rigs
in relation to the breeding season for cetaceans (seals in October to
March) and the autumn and spring migration of lamprey (in the Liffey)
and returning salmon.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 181 of 237
Discussion:
9.9.5.21The proposed ABR Project has the potential to affect marine
mammals (including Harbour porpoise and seals) in Dublin Bay and the
European sites by causing physical injury, behavioural changes
(permanent and temporary), avoidance, loss of food resources and
reduced visibility.
9.9.5.22In relation to dredging noise and disturbance, I am satisfied that most
marine mammals that frequent the Bay are probably habituated to
noise and disturbance from ship movements, that dredger noise will not
exceed shipping noise to any significant extent, and that most species
will tend to avoid the proposed dredging works, which will also
minimise the risk of injury a result of collision. However, strict
adherence to the marine mammal mitigation measures in the NPWS
2014 Guidance in combination with the deployment of hydrophones
(PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay is of paramount importance to ensure
the protection of marine mammals during the dredging and dredge
disposal phase.
9.9.5.23In relation to dredging and dredge disposal operations, I am satisfied
that these works, which will take place on a 6 month phased basis over
a minimum of 6 years, will not have any significant long term adverse
effects on marine mammal food resources or visibility in the area.
Harbour porpoise and seals are highly mobile species and it is likely
that they will forage elsewhere for food; each section of the sea bed will
begin to recover after each dredging phase is complete; and the strong
N-S tidal currents will disperse the finer sediments out to sea with no
long term effects on visibility.
9.9.5.24Heavily contaminated sediments will not be disposed of at the dump
site and slight to moderately contaminated sediments will be capped so
that there is little potential for contamination of the food chain, subject
to compliance with the mitigation measures and any conditions
attached to the EPA Permit.
9.9.5.25In relation to the deposition of sediments over the seabed in Dublin
Bay, the coastal process models predict that the proposed dredging
and sediment disposal operations will give rise to some imperceptible
deposition of sediment in Dublin Bay (refer to section 9.8 above).
Although there will be some smothering of the seabed within c.200-
500m of the dredger it should be noted that dredging will be phased
over c.6 years and the areas affected will be localised. Most of the finer
material will be dispersed from the dump site into the Irish Sea by
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 182 of 237
strong N-S tidal currents. The coastal processes model predicts that
the heavier sands will only be dispersed from the dump site only under
storm conditions. I am satisfied that any subsequent deposition of sand
on the seabed would not be of such a magnitude as to smoother the
benthos or affect available food resources for marine mammals to any
significant extent outside of the immediate works area in the short term.
9.9.5.26In relation to underwater noise, the extensive pile driving operations
that are required to construct the new quay walls, berths and marina
protection wall has the potential to adversely affect marine mammals,
including Harbour porpoise and the seals that regularly frequent Dublin
Bay. It is unlikely that such noise would propagate as far the Rockabill
to Dalkey Island cSAC which is located c.10km to the E of the
construction works, and which lists Harbour porpoise as a Qualifying
Interests. However there is potential for underwater pile driving noise to
adversely affect marine mammals up to c.1000m from the sound
source. This could extend as far as the North Bull Island, a regular haul
out site and breeding ground for seals, however it is noted that the
seals tend to occupy the eastern section of the Island in the vicinity of
Sutton Creek which is beyond the 1000m zone. However Harbour
porpoise and seals swimming in the Inner Bay area could be affected
by underwater pile driving noise, and it is noted that seals have been
recorded in the Liffey channel. Therefore strict adherence to the marine
mammal mitigation measures in the NPWS 2014 Guidance in
combination with the deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in
the Bay is of paramount importance to ensure the protection of marine
mammals during the construction phase.
9.9.5.27The marine mammal mitigation measures include the employment of
Marine Mammal Observer (MMO); the delineation of exclusion zones
(500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m for piling); and use of
ramp up procedures for noisy activities which will ensure that marine
mammals exit the area before the noise intensifies to the point where it
could cause harm.
9.9.5.28Based on the findings of the pile driving noise trial undertaken in June
2014 which concluded that noise from pile driving would not transmit
more that 500m from source along the Liffey channel, DPC has
requested a reduction the size of the exclusion zones from 1000m to
500m for pile driving and from 500m to 250m for dredging in the Liffey
channel. Although the results of the noise trial are compelling, I remain
concerned that the extrapolations for the entire ABR pile driving and
dredging works should be treated with caution because of the limited
number piles, the diameter of the pile, the infrequent and intermittent
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 183 of 237
nature of the pile strikes and site specific location of the trial. I am not
convinced that the exclusions zones should be reduced as requested
by DPC. However I am satisfied that there is little likelihood of a marine
mammal arriving to within 50m of the piling and dredging after the
works have commenced (subject to mitigation).
9.9.5.29DPC proposes to phase the works to ensure that demolition, pile
driving and dredging do not occur at the same time in Alexandra Basin
West and the Liffey Channel in line with the marine mammal
recommendations. It is also proposed that none of these works will
take place during March to May to accommodate the migration of
salmon smolts. However it would appear from the DPC work
programme that several of these activities will take place
simultaneously with up to a maximum of 5 piling rigs operating at the
same time, albeit over a short time frame. Having regard to the
sensitive nature of the receiving environment, and notwithstanding the
implementation of the marine mammal mitigation measures and the
proposed deployment of hydrophones, I am not satisfied that the
intensity of the simultaneous works would not have an adverse impact
on marine mammals. This concern could be addressed by way of a
planning condition which prohibits the operation of more than 3 pile
driving rigs at any one time. Any subsequent revision to the work
programme should be submitted to the Planning Authority for their
written agreement.
Conclusion:
The proposed ABR project would not have a significant adverse impact
on marine mammals in Dublin Bay, including Harbour porpoise which is
a protected species and Qualifying Interest for the Rockabill to Dalkey
Island cSAC and grey seal which is protected species. This is subject
to the strict implementation of the marine mammal mitigation measures
including the retention of the 1000m and 500m exclusion zones for
piling and dredging, the deployment of hydrophones, and compliance
with the attached conditions.
9.9.6 Birds
9.9.6.1Certain aspects of the proposed works have the potential to affect bird
life in the Liffey channel and Dublin Bay by way of noise disturbance
and loss of food resources.
Dublin Bay is a site of international importance for resident, passage,
breeding and wintering birds. The Bay is covered by several sensitive
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 184 of 237
heritage designations including two SPAs which are located to the N
and S of the proposed works at the South Dublin Bay and Tolka
Estuary SPA and North Bull Island SPA.
The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:
Dublin Bay holds the largest single group of Brent Geese in Ireland;
they regularly use Alexandra Basin between November and April to
feed on agricultural foodstuff as well intertidal vegetation in the Bay
and amenity grasslands around Dublin.
Some 36 waterfowl species have been identified in the Tolka
Estuary and the Liffey channel, the sum of peak counts for all
waterfowl species in the estuary in 2012/13 was 18, 900 birds, and
the average total number of birds wintering in Dublin Bay is 31,
700.
Dublin Bay holds a sizable colony of breeding Black Guillemots
who breed throughout the Port in disused drainage pipes and feed
on fish caught in the shallow waters of the Bay; there are 82 adult
birds in the Port and 16 in the Basin, which equates to 20% of the
population.
Dublin Bay holds a breeding colony of Common Terns and Artic
Terns (Annex 1 species) at two mooring structures on the S side of
the Liffey near the Poolbeg power station and a total of 449
Common Terns and 33 Artic terns have been ringed.
Several other species of bird have been recorded in Alexandra
Basin although none have been recorded as breeding there.
Some 31species of waterfowl have been recorded in the shipping
channel; the most abundant species was the Black Headed Gull
who mostly frequents the WWTP outfall; the shipping channel is
mainly used by Common and Artic Terns, Black Guillemots,
Cormorants, Herring Gulls, Common Guillemots and occasionally
Kittewakes.
9.9.6.2In relation to the demolition, construction and dredging works at
Alexandra Basin West, DPC concluded that:
Brent Geese will continue to feed off agricultural foodstuff as the
proposed works will occur on a phased basis, the geese are
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 185 of 237
already used to high levels of shipping activity and noise, and they
will not be exposed to contaminants as do not feed on water.
Black Guillemots breed in cavities within the quay walls and jetties
which will be removed and new nest sites will be found elsewhere
in the Port.
The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins are sufficiently
remote from the Basin to be affected by the works and they rarely
fly into the Basin.
No other species that feed of agricultural foodstuff in the Basin will
be significantly affected.
9.9.6.3DPC state that the works connected to the infilling, river berth
construction and remediation of contaminated material at Berths 52/53
will not result in a loss of feeding resource, and fill material will be
contained by a new steel pile wall with no significant impacts on
wintering birds. The two pairs of Black Guillemots in the vicinity will be
accommodated by removing the cavities used for nesting to prevent
their use by birds during demolition and alternative nest sites will be
found.
9.9.6.4DPC state in relation to the channel dredging works that the winter
dredging programme will not interfere with summer birds feeding and
breeding in the area; sediment deposition in the Tolka estuary will be
imperceptible with no adverse impact on the intertidal area or loss of
bird feeding resource; dredging will not alter the tidal regime, wave
climate or sediment transport with no adverse impact on the
surrounding intertidal areas and waterfowl; monitoring of the term
colony in the Port indicates that it was not adversely affected by recent
dredging; works will only take place in the winter months when the
terns are absent; although increased turbidity in the shipping channel
could affect fish eating birds (Black Guillemots, Cormorants and terns)
these species usually forage for food in the wider Bay and Black
Guillemots are only present in small numbers in the winter. DPC
concluded that the SPAs and their conservation interests would not be
adversely affected subject to phasing works in the Basin to ensure a
regular supply of agricultural food for Brent geese and the
implementation of mitigation measures related to the installation of
artificial nest boxes for Black Guillemots.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 186 of 237
9.9.6.5Notwithstanding this conclusion, Further Information was requested to
assist the Board in its consideration and assessment of the potential
impacts of noise on birds in the Bay and the neighbouring European
sites in relation to:
Dredging noise and disturbance
Pile driving noise and disturbance
Dredging noise and disturbance:
9.9.6.6DPC stated that underwater noise from dredging will be similar to
shipping noise which does not propagate more than 200m from source
and even less in shallow water so wading birds will not be affected in
the nearby SPAs; recent maintenance dredging had no noticeable
impact on bird populations; and international studies indicate that there
are no significant correlations between overwintering bird numbers and
dredging activity.
Pile driving noise and disturbance:
9.9.6.7DPC referred to the underwater noise test undertaken in the Port June
2014 (refer to section 9.9.5 above). This test took place at the start of
the breeding season for Common and Arctic Terns whose colonies are
located c.1.2 km and 1.5km from the Basin; the test demonstrates that
the tern colonies and Black Guillemots (which regularly use the Basin)
were unaffected by pile driving activity in the area. Brent geese are
already habituated to high levels of noise. DPC concluded that pile
driving noise will not change underwater noise levels in the adjoining
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA and underwater noise
measurements taken close to the tern colony indicate that piling noise
was not audible during shipping activity. DPC further submits that pile
driving noise will not affect wader birds as underwater noise
propagates least at low water when they are likely to be foraging.
9.9.6.8Notwithstanding DPCs response, several of the Observers and the
Inspector continued to have concerns in relation to the potential effects
of airborne noise (as opposed to underwater noise) particularly from
pile driving, on birdlife in the surrounding European Sites.
9.9.6.9Although the results of the June 2014 pile driving noise test did not
record any adverse reaction from the breeding tern colonies and
Kittiwakes in the Port either from underwater or airborne noise, it
should be noted that the test was carried out at a time when there were
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 187 of 237
no wintering birds in Dublin Bay or the neighbouring SPAs.
Furthermore, the noise test was undertaken within the confines of
Alexandra Basin East whereas substantial pile driving is proposed at
Berths 52/53 which is located in much closer to the European sites.
The Inspector also raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of
noise disturbance on the feeding patterns of wintering birds in the
adjoining and nearby SPAs. In particular, a reduction in feeding time
could affect the amount of stored energy required to ensure their safe
return to their northern breeding grounds in the spring, which could in
turn adversely affect breeding patterns and their subsequent rate of
return to Dublin Bay. DPC was requested to address these concerns at
the Oral Hearing.
9.9.6.10In response, DPC stated that the effects of construction activity
(including pile-driving noise) may affect birds by way of aerial and
underwater pathways. DPC stated that the effects of noise disturbance
include changes in feeding behaviour, taking flight or being more
vigilant but often without any effect on their energy budget; that impacts
imply a change in body condition, productivity or survival at population
level; and that the level of impact depends on the availability of
alternative feeding sites.
9.9.6.11DPC submits that although threatening sounds can include impulsive
sounds pile driving noise is also repetitive and therefore not threatening
to birds. DPC referred to a UK study on the effects of pile driving noise
and vibration disturbance in birds in the Humber Estuary SPA. This
study concluded that noise up to 50dbA had no effect; noise between
50dbA and 85dbA had some effects; and noise above 85dbA resulted
in flight. The study recommended that ambient construction noise
levels should be restricted to below 70dbA and sudden irregular noise
above 50dbA should be avoided.
9.9.6.12According to DPC the nearest construction noise will be at the S end
of Berths 52/53 which is c.120m from the nearest boundary of the
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA and that a worst case noise
level of 51dbA is predicted at the nearest point of the SPA. DPC submit
that the entire site is screened from the SPA on the E and N sides by
an elevated embankment of the seawall, stockpiles of sand and gravel,
and by port structures, which will serve to attenuate aerial noise, and
the perceived noise from this source will be below the safe 50dbA level.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 188 of 237
Discussion and conclusions:
9.9.6.13 The proposed works have the potential to adversely affect bird
populations in the adjoining and nearby European Sites to the N and S
of the ABR project area at the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary
SPA and to the NE at the North Bull Island SPA by way of noise
disturbance and sedimentation. The works also have the potential to
affect some bird species which are of Special Conservation Interest to
the SPAs and who frequent the ABR project area on a regular basis, by
way of noise and general disturbance.
9.9.6.14 I am satisfied that Brent Geese, Black Guillemots and Arctic and
Common Terns are well habituated to noise and disturbance from port
activities, that Brent Geese will continue to forage for agricultural food
in Alexandra Basin West and that the use of artificial nest boxes will
accommodate breeding Black Guillemots after the demolition works
have commenced. I am also satisfied that dredging operations will not
have any significant adverse effects on foraging bird species in the
shipping channel, any impacts would be short term and localised and
dredging could possibly give rise to more foraging opportunities for
birds. I am further satisfied that noise from the winter dredging and
disposal operations would not have a significantly adverse effect on
breeding or feeding birds in the SPAs, having regard to the separation
distance between most of the shipping channel and the European
Sites, and to the level of background noise from shipping vessels.
9.9.6.15 Heavily contaminated sediments will not be disposed of at the dump
site and slight to moderately contaminated sediments will be capped so
that there is little potential for contamination of the food chain, subject
to compliance with the mitigation measures and any conditions
attached to the EPA Permit.
9.9.6.16 The coastal process models predict that the proposed dredging and
sediment deposal operations will give rise to some deposition of
sediment in Dublin Bay but that most of the finer silt will be dispersed
into the Irish Sea by way of strong N-S currents. I am satisfied that the
deposition of sand on the seabed will be imperceptible would not be of
such a magnitude so as to smoother the benthos or affect the depth to
which the various wading birds can forage to find their particular food
resource in the sea bed strata.
9.9.6.17I am satisfied that most bird species have become habituated to noise
and disturbance from port activities and the findings of the Humber
Estuary SPA in relation to impulsive pile driving noise and vibration are
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 189 of 237
informative. However, in the absence of any site specific research, I
remain concerned that the combined airborne effect of several pile
driving rigs operating at the same time in the Port could have an
adverse effect on the feeding patterns of wintering birds in the adjoining
SPA and that this could in turn influence the number of wintering bird
returning to the area in the future.
9.9.6.18 This concern was addressed in section 9.9.5 above when the effects
of underwater pile driving noise on marine mammals was assessed
and it was recommended that the phasing programme be amended by
way of condition to allow for the simultaneous operation of no more
than 3 pile driving rigs at any one time. In the event that the Board
decide to attach such a condition, it would also be of benefit to
wintering birds in the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA by
reducing the transmission of airborne noise. DPC should also be
required to carry out regular monitoring of birds in the vicinity before,
during and after construction. This could be addressed by way of
planning conditions.
9.9.619 I am satisfied that the proposed works would be would not have a
significant adverse impact on the winter birds that frequent the North
Bull Island SPA because of the separation distance between the
proposed works and this European Site, and that the effects of
underwater noise transmission on birds would be minimal because of
the low rate of propagation in shallow water.
Conclusions:
The proposed ABR project would not have a significant adverse impact
on bird populations in Dublin Bay and the neighbouring European sites.
This is subject to the strict implementation mitigation measures and
compliance with planning conditions.
9.9.7 Other areas:
9.9.7.1 Dublin Bay is also covered by several environmentally sensitive
designations including the North Dublin Bay cSAC (which includes the
North Bull Island) and the South Dublin Bay cSAC. Both of these sites
contain Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats as a Qualifying Interest. The North
Dublin Bay cSAC contains sand dune systems, salt meadows and
Petalwort. The Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC contains Reef
communities at Howth Head and Dalkey Island to the N and S of the
dump site.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 190 of 237
9.9.7.2 The knock-on effects arising from dredging and dredge disposal have
the potential to adversely affect these sites by way of erosion and
deposition of sediment as a result of hydrodynamic changes in to tidal
patterns and wave climate. These issues were addressed in detail in
sections 9.8 of this report where it was concluded that the
hydrodynamic changes would be minor. The predicted changes would
include some erosion and deposition at the Port entrance in vicinity of
the North and South Bull Walls; the rapid dispersal of fine sediments
into the Irish Sea; and the deposition of negigible quantities of sand
across the sea bed within Dublin Bay under storm conditions.
9.9.7.3 Several of the Observers and the Inspector raised concerns that these
sites could be adversely affected by erosion and deposition (including
erosion and deposition at Bull Island; and deposition which could
smoother sensitive species such as Dward Eelgrass (below Merrion
Gates), Green algae (throughout the Bay), Fucoid algae (Maretimo to
Dún Laoghaire area) and Reef Communities (Howth Head)). However
these concerns have been addressed in detail in previous sections of
this report and I am satisfied that the deposition of sand on the seabed
would not be of such a magnitude so as to adversely affect the Reef
Communities in the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, any of the
Qualifying Interests in the North and South Dublin Bay cSACs or any
other protected species of in the Bay.
9.9.8 Conclusions
Having regard to all of the foregoing, and subject to the full
implementation of DPC’s mitigation measures and compliance with any
conditions attached by the Board, the proposed development would not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment or adversely
affect the integrity of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC or any of the
other designated European sites in the area. This is subject to strict
compliance with all of the mitigation measures and planning conditions.
9.10 Other issues
Visual impact: The proposed development would not entail the
erection of any new buildings, structures or cranes. The Visual and
Landscape Study concluded that the proposed development would
have no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area or of views
in to the Port from a variety of locations around Dublin Bay. I am
satisfied that the proposed development would not seriously injure the
visual amenities of the surrounding area including the views along the
approach channel and the Liffey Channel.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 191 of 237
Environmental services: The proposed arrangements are considered
acceptable subject to compliance with the requirements of Irish Water
Utilities: The proposed development would not have any significant
impacts on electricity supply provided that the existing underground
high voltage cables that traverse the navigation channel from within the
vicinity of the Poolbeg Marina to the North Wall Quay Extension are
relocated prior to commencement of development in consultation with
the ESB and ERGRID. Appropriate safeguards should be put in place
to avoid disruption from dredging activities to the cooling water intake
and outfall the existing servicing power stations at Poolbeg. The
sewerage pipeline which runs across Dublin Bay from Sutton to
Ringsend treatment works at a depth of -15m CD will not be affected,
and no impacts are predicted on sewerage networks within the Port.
Dive sites: The concerns raised by the Observers in relation to
increased suspended solids, turbidity and underwater noise have been
addressed in section 9 of this report (coastal processes, benthic
communities, fisheries and marine mammals).
Financial contributions: The standard development contributions
conditions should be attached.
Community gain proposal: The DPC community gain proposal is
considered acceptable subject to compliance with conditions in relation
to the handover and management arrangements.
Conditions: Several of the Observers suggested conditions in relation
to a number of issues which have been assessed in section 9.0 of this
report.
Public Notices: Dublin Graving Docks Limited submitted that the
Public Notices were inaccurate as they did not refer to the proposed
access closures off East Wall Road to the Port Estate. DGDL submitted
that the propose closures could have an adverse impact on the
surrounding environment and that the public should have been duly
notified. I am satisfied that the Public Notices complied with all statutory
requirements and approximately half of the Observers written
submission referred to transportation issues.
Project splitting: The issue of project splitting was raised however I
am satisfied that this is not relevant as the proposed development
represents approximately one third of the overall development
envisaged in the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 192 of 237
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
10.1 Compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and
Development Regulations 2001, as amended
The application is accompanied by an EIS, as required for any
application made under Section 37A. The EIS is laid out as follows:
Volume 1 - EIS: Main Statement
Volume 2 - EIS: Appendices
Volume 3 - EIS: Appendices (Photomontages & Transportation)
Volume 4 - Non-Technical Summary
I have reviewed the application documentation, including the EIS, FI
submissions, the written submissions and the submissions to the oral
hearing, and the legislative requirements in terms of Environmental
Impact Assessment. In particular, I note the requirement of Article 94
of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended that
the EIS shall contain the information specified in paragraph 1 and
paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations.
The EIS describes the proposed development, including information on
the site and the project size and design. A description of the main
alternatives studied by the developer, including the do-nothing scenario
and alternative locations considered, is provided and the reasons for
the preferred choice.
The EIS adopts a grouped format and assesses likely significant effects
on the environment under the following headings: Flora & Fauna,
Landscape and Visual, Air and Climate, Material Assets, Coastal
Processes, Water, Geology and Soils, Cultural Heritage, Human
Beings. Under each heading, the EIS describes the receiving
environment, the survey methodology, likely significant effects,
proposed mitigation measures and likely residual effects. Chapter 14
of the EIS identifies the interactions of the above topics, in-combination
effects and technical difficulties. In accordance with Article 94 (c),
there is an adequate summary of the EIS in non-technical language.
With regard to the requirements of Article 111 of the regulations, I
consider that the submissions are generally in accordance with the
requirements of Article 94 of the Planning and Development
Regulations 2001, as amended. In-combination effects with other
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 193 of 237
plans and projects in Dublin Bay are not considered likely to be
significant.
10.2 Likely significant effects arising from the proposed development
Section 9.0 of this report identifies and describes the main likely
significant effects arising from the proposed development and regard
should be had to this section of the report. The likely significant effects
can otherwise be identified as follows:
10.2.1 Human Beings
Impacts
Employment - direct and indirect: Construction activity is estimated
to give rise to 375 jobs for varying lengths of time on different
aspects of the project. The economic analysis indicates that the
operational phase of the ABR Project, including the development of
dedicated cruise berths, will have local and regional economic and
tourism benefits, contributing to the safeguarding or overall creation
of employment. DPC employs 140 people directly and a further 4,
000 are employed in the Port estate, however it is noted that the
proposal will give rise to the loss of 26 jobs when the Graving Dock
is closed and in filled as part of the project.
Residential Amenity: Construction activity will potentially impact on
surrounding residential amenities by reason of noise, dust and
odours; however the proposed redistribution of traffic away from
East Wall Road towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel
during the operational phase will have a positive impact residential
amenity.
Tourism Impacts: The cruise berth and heritage elements of the
element of the proposed development will have a positive impact
for the city and region.
Leisure and marine activity: The new Marina Wall will have a
positive impact on the continued operation Poolbeg Marina. There
will be some minor temporary loss of fishing grounds in Dublin Bay.
Modified commercial shipping movements may impact on marine
safety.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 194 of 237
Invasive species: Increased port activity may result in the arrival of
more invasive species.
Mitigation
Noise reduction through the use of exhaust silencers and mufflers
or silencers for pneumatic percussive tools, selection of sound
reduced compressors, placement of noisy plant equipment beyond
existing physical barriers, and switching warning systems to
minimum acceptable settings.
Phasing and timing of construction activity.
Noise emission limit values for day, evening and night and
monitoring.
Switching off ship foghorns at night.
Implementation of a High Level Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP)
Compliance with all relevant standards or guidelines for noise,
vibration, dust and odours.
Residual Effects
There will be some increase in noise emissions during the construction
phase however predicted levels are within guidance limit values. No
significant vibration impacts are predicted. Residual impacts are not
predicted to be significant.
10.2.2 Cultural Heritage
Impacts
Effects on features of cultural and archaeological interest:
Permanent loss of part of North Wall Quay Extension. Potential for
disturbance or loss of previously unidentified archaeological
features in the sea bed.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 195 of 237
Mitigation
Archaeological monitoring during works.
Creation of Conservation and Interpretative Zones.
Residual Effects
In terms of residual impacts, there will be a permanent loss of part of
the historic North Wall Quay Extension. A condition is therefore
recommended for the reuse of material from this quay. Residual
impacts are not otherwise regarded as significant.
10.2.3 Landscape and Visual Impact
Impacts
No significant landscape of visual impacts predicted.
Scale, height and extent of visibility: The development will
consolidate and intensify commercial port activities in the W section
of the Port.
Impact on landscape character: Commercial and tourist related port
activities will be marginally extended and intensified in the W and E
sections of the Port.
Impact on important views or scenic routes: The works will visible
from East Link Bridge.
Mitigation
None required.
Residual Effects
None anticipated.
10.2.4 Material Assets / Traffic and Transportation
Impacts
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 196 of 237
Impact on local road network: The closure of the two vehicular
access points off East Wall Road to port traffic which will have a
positive impact on the existing road network. These closures will
result in the redistribution of Port traffic within the internal road
network towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel. The
Tunnel has sufficient capacity to accommodate redistributed port
traffic and the predicted increase in port traffic as a result of the
proposal. However congestion problems may arise in the future
when DPC seeks to implement other phases of the Masterplan
2012-2040.
Road safety: The creation of a pedestrian and cyclist access to the
cruise berths off East Wall Road at its junction with the Quay and
the East Link Bridge may have road safety implications.
Mitigation
None required. However planning conditions will be required to
ensure that DPC consults with Planning Authority in relation to the
timing of the access vehicular access closures and the pedestrian
access arrangements; and with the NRA in relation to the section of
the proposed Eastern By-Pass to the W of the Port.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
10.2.5 Air, Climate, Noise and Vibration
Impacts
Residential and ecological noise impacts: There is potential for
negative noise impacts on residential amenities and adjoining
European Sites from demolition and construction activities at the
port, particularly from the pile driving works; and from early morning
and night-time activities.
Vibration: Vibration from construction activities has the potential to
result in disturbance.
Dust emissions: Dust, air quality and odour issues arising from the
demolition, construction and dredging phases could result in
disturbance.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 197 of 237
Increased emissions: Increased traffic volumes and shipping have
the potential for local air quality impacts.
Climatic impacts: Reliance on road freight into the future has the
potential to have negative impacts in terms of CO2 emissions.
Mitigation
Compliance with published guidance for noise and vibration control
during construction.
Phasing and timing of construction works.
Noise reduction measures through the use of exhaust silencers and
mufflers or silencers for pneumatic percussive tools, selection of
sound reduced compressors, placement of noisy plant equipment
beyond existing physical barriers, and switching warning systems
to minimum acceptable settings.
Compliance with day, evening and night-time noise emission limit
values.
Implementation of operational dust control measures, including
water sprays and compliance with emission limit values for
deposition.
Control of traffic movements to avoid peak hour congestion and
provide for more efficient vehicle movements.
Compliance with international obligations with regard to emissions
from shipping.
Compliance with standard construction management measures.
Residual effects
There will be some increases in baseline noise levels, however,
predictions are within guidance limit values. Imposition of limits on dust
emissions will facilitate increased levels of control of activities. Residual
impacts are not predicted to be significant.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 198 of 237
10.2.6 Soils & Geology
Impacts
Dredging: The development will require the dredging of c. 6,000,
000m3 from Alexandra Basin, the Liffey channel and the shipping
channel over a distance of c.10km. Potential for the temporary
localised loss of benthic communities and food resource; and
localised temporary reduction in visibility in fish and marine
mammals.
Disposal of clean dredged materials: Uncontaminated and slight to
moderately contaminated dredged materials will be disposed of at
sea, subject to a Dumping at Sea Permit. Potential for the
temporary localised loss of benthic communities and food resource;
localised temporary reduction in visibility in fish and marine
mammals: contamination of the food chain and minor localised
sediment deposition on benthic habitats.
Disposal of contaminated dredged materials: Heavily contaminated
dredged material will be remediated and re-used as infill elsewhere
in the Port. Potential for water contamination as a result of spills,
leakages and accidents at the construction phase and leaching to
ground and water at the operational stage.
Infill of Graving Dock 2 and Berths 52/53: The treated and batched
contaminated sediments will be used to infill theses area. Potential
for leaching to ground and surface water at the operational stage.
Mitigation
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal works.
Use of a dredge disposal site which has been used for the
deposition of maintenance dredging for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated waste at the disposal
site.
Compliance with the High Level CEMP, Dredging Management
Plan, consultation with relevant stakeholders, and the preparation
of a construction monitoring programme.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 199 of 237
Compliance with CEMP to prevent accidental spills and leaks, and
regular monitoring of water quality to detect leaching.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts otherwise arising are not predicted to be significant.
10.2.7 Water Environment
Impacts
Sedimentation: Dredging activities and dredge disposal at sea may
result in deposition of sediment on the seabed. Activities will also
result in the creation of sediment plume and increased turbidity,
impacting on benthic communities, fisheries, marine mammals,
birds and foraging areas.
Contamination: Construction and operational activities have the
potential to result in contamination of waters and/or entry of
pollutants to the port. Potential release of contaminants from
dredged materials.
Loss of habitat: Dredging will result in a temporary localised loss of
benthic habitats or temporary deterioration due to sediment
deposition.
Mitigation
Phasing and timing of works.
Selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations.
Compliance with the High Level CEMP, Dredging Management
Plan, Construction Monitoring Programme, and consultation with
relevant stakeholders.
Compliance with the appropriate marine standards for cleaning
shipping vessels, on-site management of clean and contaminated
surface water run-off, and application of appropriate fuel handling
areas and procedures.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 200 of 237
On-site management of waste water from the remediation process
for contaminated sediments and regular water quality monitoring in
the vicinity of the in-filled areas.
Compliance with the High Level CEMP and conditions attached to
dumping at sea, waste and foreshore licences and permits.
Residual Effects:
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
10.2.8 Flora & Fauna
Impacts
Loss or deterioration of habitats: Dredging the shipping channel will
result in some temporary localised loss or deterioration of benthic
habitats; dredging of the Liffey channel may impact on protected
species passing through this area; demolition may result in the
potential loss of bat roosts; and the construction of new quay walls
will result in loss of nesting sites for Black Guillemots.
Effects on the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC: Dredging noise has
the potential to affect marine mammals including Harbour porpoise
(Qualifying Interest); dredging and dredge disposal operations will
result in some temporary localised loss or deterioration of benthic
habitats which may affect food resources for fish and marine
mammals, including Harbour porpoise (QI); while sediment plumes
and turbidity have the potential to affect fish and marine mammal
visibility in the vicinity, including harbour porpoise(QI). Dredging
and dredge disposal operations may impact on protected species
passing through this area.
Effects on the South Dublin and Tolka Estuary SPA: Pile driving
noise has the potential to affect the behaviour and feeding patterns
of several species of bird, including wintering bird, which are
Qualifying Interests for the adjoining SPA; while dredging and
dredge disposal operations may result in some minor sediment
deposition within the SPA.
Species impact and disturbance: There is potential for disturbance
of species of conservation interest during construction and
operational phases; vulnerable species include breeding birds
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 201 of 237
within the Port, migrating Salmon smolts and Lamprey along the
Liffey channel, wintering birds in the adjoining SPA and marine
mammals in Dublin and the cSAC.
Mitigation
Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication “Guidance
to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound
sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment of a qualified
marine mammal observer.
Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay and
at the Port entrance.
Phasing and timing of works.
Use of a dredge disposal site that has been used for the deposition
of maintenance dredging for an extended period.
Closure and removal of nesting sites for Black Guillemots and the
installation of new nesting boxes prior to the breeding season.
Pre-clearance surveys of buildings with bat roosting potential prior
to commencement of development.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
A condition may be required to amend the construction phasing
schedule to avoid the use of more than 3 pile driving rigs at any
one time.
10.3 Summary of Interactions:
Human Beings:
Noise & Vibration
Air Quality & Climate
Landscape & Visual
Material Assets / Traffic congestion and road safety
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 202 of 237
Cultural Heritage
Coastal Processes
Human Beings
Material Assets / road improvement works
Landscape & Visual
Human Beings
Traffic & Transportation:
Noise & Vibration
Air Quality & Climate
Human beings (road safety).
Noise & Vibration
Flora and fauna (terrestrial ecology, birds, fisheries & marine
mammals)
Traffic & Transportation
Human Beings
Air Quality & Climate
Traffic & Transportation
Soils &Geology
Human Beings
Soils & Geology:
Air Quality
Flora and fauna (terrestrial ecology, birds, fisheries & marine
mammals)
Human Beings
Water environment
Coastal Processes
Flora and Fauna (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)
Water Environment
Cultural Heritage
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 203 of 237
Water Environment
Flora and fauna (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)
Marine Ecology
Coastal Processes
Soils & Geology (contamination)
Flora and Fauna:
Water Environment (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)
Coastal Processes
Noise and Vibration
Human Beings
Material assets / fisheries
Landscape & Visual
Soils & Geology (contamination)
10.4 Conclusions regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the Likely
residual effects identified.
The main assessment in Section 9.0 above outlines the likely main
residual effects of this proposal. These are not considered to be
significant subject to compliance with mitigation measures and planning
conditions, and the terms and condition attached to any other licences
or permits required for dredging, dredge disposal and the
treatment/remediation of contaminated material.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 204 of 237
11.0 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT
11.1 Compliance with Articles 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive
The Habitats Directive deals with the Conservation of Natural Habitats
and of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout the European Union. Article
6(3) of this Directive requires that any plan or project not directly
connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to
have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination
with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment
of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation
objectives. The competent authority must be satisfied that the proposal
will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.
The EU also provides specific guidance on the implementation of the
Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, with
particular attention to port development and dredging, given that ports
are usually situated in or near estuaries which are often designated
Natura 2000 sites. This guidance is of assistance to the competent
authority when carrying out an appropriate assessment.
The application was accompanied by a Natura Impact Assessment
(NIS) which describes the proposed development, the ABR project site
and the surrounding area. The NIS outlines the methodology used for
assessing potential impacts on the habitats and species within 5
European Sites that have the potential to be affected by the proposed
development. The NIS predicts the potential impacts for these sites and
their conservation objectives, it suggests mitigation measures for each
site, assesses in-combination effects with other plans and projects and
it identifies any residual effects on the sites and their conservation
objectives.
The NIS was accompanied by the following supporting documents:
Appendix A - Avian Impact Assessment
Appendix B - Marine Mammals Impact Assessment
Appendix C - Coastal processes Modelling
Appendix D - Stage 1 Screening Assessment
Furthermore a range of desk stop studies and specialist surveys were
also carried out in including:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 205 of 237
Wintering bird surveys
Boat based surveys of sea birds
Marine mammal surveys
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Badger, otter and bat surveys
Benthos surveys and particle size analysis
Fisheries survey
Several coastal process surveys including sediment sampling,
bathymetric, geophysical and current meter surveys
Coastal processes were simulated using a range of models to
predict changes to the tidal regime including tidal flows, currents,
wave climate, flood risk, and sediment dispersal and deposition
As part of the DPC’s response to a request for Further Information, a
noise test was carried out in Alexandra Basin East on June 2014 and a
seal count was undertaken on the Bull Island in August 2014.
Having reviewed the NIS and supporting documentation, I am satisfied
that it provides adequate information in respect of the baseline
conditions, clearly identifies the potential impacts, and uses sound
scientific information and knowledge. Details of mitigation measures
are also provided and they are summarised in Table 3.3 of the NIS. I
am satisfied that the information is sufficient to allow for appropriate
assessment of the proposed development.
11.2 Potential impacts on European sites
Section 9.0 of this report identifies and describes the main likely
significant effects arising from the proposed development and regard
should be had to this section of the report. As outlined in section 9.0
there are numerous European Sites located within a 15km radius of the
proposed works. Screening for appropriate assessment was carried
out by the applicant and it was concluded that the proposed
development could potentially impact five of these designated sites.
The remaining European Sites were screened out of the process
because of the separation distance or lack of connectivity between the
proposed development and the particular sites. This conclusion is
considered to be reasonable subject to the inclusion of one additional
site at Lambay Island. Although this site is also located within the
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC it is a particularly important breeding
and haul out site for the seal populations that frequent the entire Dublin
Bay area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 206 of 237
The relevant European sites are:
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)
Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204)
North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206)
South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)
North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)
11.2.1 Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)
A small section of the proposed works would be located within the
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. This would comprise the eastern
most section of the c.10km long shipping channel, which equates to
c.0.25% of the cSAC area. The existing dredge disposal site to the W
of the Burford Bank is also located within the cSAC but not within the
boundary of the ABR planning application. However it is proposed to
dump most of the material dredged from shipping channel in this
disposal site, including the slight to moderately contaminated
sediments from the Liffey channel (which will be capped), subject to an
EPA Dumping at Sea Permit.
The Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC is c. 27, 316ha and it includes a
range of dynamic inshore and coastal waters including sandy and
muddy seabed, reefs, sandbanks and islands. This site extends
southwards, in a strip approximately 7 km wide and 40 km in length,
from Rockabill, running adjacent to Howth Head, and crosses Dublin
Bay to Frazer Bank in south county Dublin. The site encompasses
Dalkey, Muglins and Rockabill islands.
The cSAC provides a key habitat for Reef communities which are found
fringing offshore islands along the Dublin coast. These Reefs are
subject to strong tidal currents with an abundant supply of suspended
matter resulting in good representation of filter feeding fauna such as
sponges, anemones and echinoderms.
The cSAC provides a key habitat for the Annex II species Harbour
porpoise, within the Irish Sea which occurs year-round within the site
and comparatively high group sizes have been recorded. The site also
contains a wide array of habitats believed to be important for Harbour
porpoise including inshore shallow sand and mud-banks and rocky
reefs scoured by strong current flow.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 207 of 237
The NIS sets out the qualifying interests and conservation objectives
for the cSAC and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.
Qualifying interests and conservation objectives:
Reefs communities (Annex I habitat)
Harbour Porpoise (Annex II species)
The site also supports Harbour seal and Grey seal, for which terrestrial
haul-out sites occur in immediate proximity to the site. Bottlenose
dolphin has also occasionally been recorded in the area and a number
of other marine mammals have been recorded in this area including
minke, fin and killer whales and Risso’s and common dolphins.
Reef communities: The conservation objective seeks to maintain the
favourable conservation condition of Reefs in Rockabill to Dalkey Island
cSAC, which is defined by the following list of attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Habitat area Hectares
(c.182ha)
Permanent area stable or increasing,
subject to natural processes.
Habitat
distribution
Occurrence Distribution is stable or increasing, subject
to natural processes
Community
structure
Biological
composition
Conserve the following community types in
a natural condition:
Intertidal reef community complex
Sub tidal reef community complex
Harbour porpoise: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable
conservation condition of Harbour porpoise in Rockabill to Dalkey Island
cSAC, which is defined by the following list of attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Access to
suitable
habitat
Number of
artificial
barriers
Species range within the site should not be
restricted by artificial barriers to site use.
Disturbance Level of
impact
Human activities should occur at levels that
do not adversely affect the harbour porpoise
community at the site.
7
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 208 of 237
8 Potential impacts:
Potential direct effects of increased suspended solids from
dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect visibility for
Harbour porpoise.
Potential habitat modification to benthic communities on the seabed
as a result of dredging and disturbance to fish could affect food
resources for Harbour porpoise.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed as a
result of dredging and dredge disposal operations which could
smoother benthic communities.
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of increased
suspended solids from dredging and dredge disposal operations.
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after from the dredge disposal
site.
Potential disturbance to Harbour porpoise from dredging vessels.
Potential disturbance effects on Harbour porpoise during
construction (pile driving noise in the Inner Bay) and dredging and
dredge disposal operations in the Inner and Outer Bay.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed as a
result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect reef
communities.
NIS omissions:
None noted. DPC carried out a pile driving noise test in June 2014
which concluded that underwater would not propagate beyond the
Liffey channel (refer to section 9.0 of this report).
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations to
enable the recovery of benthic communities; selection of
appropriate dredging plant and operations and compliance with
Dredge Management Plan.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 209 of 237
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication “Guidance
to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound
sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment of a qualified
marine mammal observer and the use of ramp up procedures for
noisy activities.
Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay, at
the Port entrance and the dump site to detect the presence of
marine mammals.
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-
S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the
Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the
seabed under storm conditions with no effect on Reef communities.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained
in EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the
coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in
section 9.0 of this report, the proposed development would not
adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, its Conservation
Objectives or the NPWS targets for Reef communities and Harbour
porpoise, as summarised in the above tables.
11.2.2 Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204)
The proposed ABR Project and would be located several kilometres to
the SE of the Lambay Island cSAC which is a large c.250ha island
lying 4km off Portrane on the N Dublin coast. The island rises to 127m
and is surrounded by steep cliffs on the N, E and S slopes.
Qualifying interests and conservation objectives:
Reefs (Annex 1 habitat)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 210 of 237
Vegetated Sea Cliffs (Annex 1 habitat)
Grey Seal (Annex 11 species)
Common (Harbour) Seal (Annex 11 species)
The Lambay Island cSAC is located within the Rockabill to Dalkey
Island cSAC and the Conservation objectives are the same for both
sites. Vegetated Sea Cliffs are not included in this assessment are they
are elevated above the zone of influence.
Reef communities: The conservation objective seeks to maintain the
favourable conservation condition of Reefs in Lambay Island cSAC, which is
defined by the following list of attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Habitat area Hectares
(c.182ha)
Permanent area stable or increasing,
subject to natural processes.
Habitat
distribution
Occurrence Distribution is stable or increasing, subject
to natural processes
Community
structure
Biological
composition
Conserve the following community types in
a natural condition:
Intertidal reef community complex
Sub tidal reef community complex
Grey seal: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable conservation
condition of grey seal in Lambay Island c.SAC, which is defined by the
following list of attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Access to
suitable
habitat
Number of
artificial
barriers
Species range within the site should not be
restricted by artificial barriers to site use.
Breeding
behaviour
Breeding
sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Moulting
behaviour
Moult haul
out sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Resting
behaviour
Resting haul
out sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Disturbance
Level of
impact
Human activities should occur at levels that
do not adversely affect the grey seal
at the site.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 211 of 237
Harbour seal: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable
conservation condition of harbour seal in Lambay Island c.SAC, which is
defined by the following list of attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Access to
suitable
habitat
Number of
artificial
barriers
Species range within the site should not be
restricted by artificial barriers to site use.
Breeding
behaviour
Breeding
sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Moulting
behaviour
Moult haul
out sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Resting
behaviour
Resting haul
out sites
Maintain in a natural condition
Disturbance
Level of
impact
Human activities should occur at levels that
do not adversely affect the grey seal
at the site.
Potential effects:
Potential direct effects of increased suspended solids from
dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect visibility for
grey seals and harbour seals.
Potential habitat modification to benthic communities on the seabed
as a result of dredging and disturbance to fish could affect food
resources for grey seals and harbour seals.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed as a
result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could smoother
benthic communities.
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of increased
suspended solids from dredging and dredge disposal operations.
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after from the dredge disposal
site.
Potential disturbance to grey seals and harbour seals from
dredging vessels.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 212 of 237
Potential disturbance effects on grey seals and harbour seals
during construction (pile driving noise in the Inner Bay) and
dredging and dredge disposal operations in the Inner and Outer
Bay.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed as a
result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect reef
communities.
NIS omissions:
The Lambay Island cSAC was not specifically included in the NIS,
however it is situated within the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC and the
same mitigation measures would apply. The NIS was not informed by any
recent surveys of seal movements in Dublin Bay or the interaction between
the breeding grounds and various haul out sites within the bay. The recent
(post NIS) seal count carried out by the applicant for North Bull Island does
not adequacy describe seal usage of the island. Notwithstanding this
omission, I am satisfied that the following mitigation measures will serve to
minimise the impact of the proposed works on marine mammals including
Harbour and Grey seals.
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations to
enable the recovery of benthic communities; selection of
appropriate dredging plant and operations and compliance with
Dredge Management Plan.
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication
“Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-
made sound sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment
of a qualified marine mammal observer and the use of ramp up
procedures for noisy activities.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 213 of 237
Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay, at
the Port entrance and the dump site to detect the presence of
marine mammals (including grey seals and harbour seals).
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong
N-S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to
the Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on
the seabed under storm conditions with no effect on Reef
communities.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures
contained in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the
conclusions of the coastal processes modelling exercises which
were assessed in section 9.0 of this report, the proposed
development would not adversely affect the integrity of the
European Site, its Conservation Objectives or the NPWS targets
for Reef communities, Grey seal or Harbour seal, as summarised
in the tables above.
11.2.3 North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206):
The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the S of the North
Dublin Bay cSAC which covers the inner part of N Dublin Bay and the
North Bull Island is the focal point of this site. The site supports a
number of important habitats and protected species. The NIS sets out
the qualifying interests and conservation objectives for the cSAC and it
identifies potential direct and indirect effects.
Qualifying interests and conservation objectives (Annex 1 habitats)
Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide
Annual vegetation of drift lines
Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand
Atlantic salt meadows
Mediterranean salt meadows
Embryonic shifting dunes
White dunes (marram dunes)
Fixed dunes - grey dunes (also a Priority habitat)
Humid dune slacks
Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 214 of 237
North Dublin Bay is of international importance for waterfowl. The North
Bull Island is home to several protected species including birds, plants
and invertebrates and it also contains intertidal lagoons and salt
marshes. Whilst not a Qualifying Interest, Grey seals (Annex II species)
and Harbour seals use the island for hauling-out and breeding.
The conservation objectives for this cSAC seek “To maintain or restore
the favourable conservation conditions of the Annex 1 habitat(s) and/or
Annex II species for which the cSAC has been selected.”
Embryonic shifting dunes, White dunes (marram dunes), Fixed dunes
(grey dunes) and Humid dune slacks are not included in this
assessment are they are considered to be located beyond the zone of
influence of the proposed works
Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide: To maintain the
favourable conservation condition of mudflats and sandflats not covered by
seawater at low tide in North Dublin Bay SAC, which is defined by the
following list of relevant attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Habitat area Hectares
Stable or increasing subject to natural
processes
Community
extent
Hectares Maintain the extent of the Mytilus edulis
(blue mussel) dominated community,
subject to natural processes
Community
structure
Individuals
per sq.m.
Conserve the high quality of the of the
Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) dominated
community, subject to natural processes
Community
distribution
Hectares Conserve the following community types
(worms) in a natural condition:
Fine sand to sandy mud with
Pygospio elegans and Crangon
crangon community complex
Fine sand with Spio martinensis
community complex
Annual vegetation of drift lines: To restore the favourable conservation
condition of annual vegetation of drift lines in North Dublin Bay SAC, which is
defined by the following list of relevant attributes and targets:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 215 of 237
Attribute Measure Target
Habitat area Hectares
Stable or increasing subject to natural
processes
Habitat
distribution
Occurrence No decline, or change in habitat distribution,
subject to natural processes
Physical
structure
Physical
barriers
Maintain the natural circulation of sediment
and organic matter, without any physical
obstructions
Vegetation
structure
Occurrence Maintain the range of coastal habitats
including transitional zones, subject
to natural processes including erosion and
succession
Vegetation
composition
(typical)
% cover Maintain the presence of species-poor
communities with typical species: sea
rocket, sea sandwort, prickly saltwort and
saltbush
Vegetation
composition
(negative)
% cover Negative indicator species (including non-
natives) to represent less than 5% cover
Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand, and Atlantic salt
meadows and Mediterranean salt meadows: To maintain the favourable
conservation condition of these Annex 1 habitats in North Dublin Bay SAC,
which are defined by the following list of relevant attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Habitat area Hectares Stable or increasing subject to natural
processes
Habitat
distribution
Occurrence No decline, or change in habitat
distribution, subject to natural processes
Sediment
supply
Physical
barriers
Maintain, or where necessary restore,
natural circulation of sediments and
organic matter, without any physical
obstructions
Flooding
regime
Hectares &
frequency
Maintain natural tidal regime
Vegetation
structure-
zonation
Occurrence Maintain the range of coastal habitats
including transitional zones, subject
to natural processes including erosion
and succession
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 216 of 237
Vegetation
structure-
height
Centimetres Maintain structural variation within sward
Vegetation
structure-
cover
% cover Maintain more than 90% of area
Vegetation
structure-
species
% cover Maintain the presence of species-poor
communities
Vegetation
structure-
negative
indicator
Hectares No significant expansion of common
cordgrass (Spartina anglica), with an
annual spread of less than 1%
Petalwort: To maintain the favourable conservation condition of the Annex 1
Petalwort habitats in North Dublin Bay SAC which are defined by the following
list of relevant attributes and targets:
Attribute Measure Target
Distribution of
populations
Number &
spread
No decline
Population size Number of
individuals
No decline
Area of suitable
habitat
Hectares No decline
Soil moisture Occurrence Maintain hydrological conditions
Vegetation cover Centimetres &
percentage
Maintain open, low vegetation with a
high percentage of bryophytes (and
bare ground)
Potential effects:
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of suspended
solids from dredging operations and pollution arising from the
treatment and reuse of contaminated sediments as infill.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed/sea
shore and smothering as a result of dredging and dredge disposal
operations.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 217 of 237
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after being re-dispersed from the
dredge disposal site.
Potential minor indirect effects on hydrological regimes as a result
of dredging activity.
NIS omissions:
The NIS did not carried out a detailed analysis of the potential effects of
the proposed development on the NPWS targets for various Annex 1
habitats outlined above. However, having regard to the conclusions of
the coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in
section 9.0 of this report and to the scale of the proposed development
relative to the overall size of Dublin Bay, I am satisfied that the
proposed works would not result in any substantial habitat removal or
fragmentation; any perceptible changes to the tidal or hydrological
regimes; or any significant ongoing or continuous disturbance to these
habitats by way of physical barriers, excessive sediment deposition,
smothering or the expansion of negative indicator species such as
Spartina.
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations,
selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and
compliance with Dredge Management Plan.
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-
S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the
Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the
seabed under storm conditions.
Compliance with High Level CEMP along with regular monitoring of
water quality at Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 in vicinity of
areas filled with remediated sediments.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 218 of 237
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained
in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the
coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in
section 9.0 of this report, the proposed development would not
adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, its Conservation
Objectives or the NPWS targets for the individual Annex 1 habitats
located within this site, as summarised in the tables above.
11.2.4 South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)
The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the N of the South
Dublin Bay cSAC lies to the south of the River Liffey and extends from
the South Wall to the west pier at Dun Laoghaire. It is an intertidal site
with extensive areas of sand and mudflats. The sediments are
predominantly sands but grade to sandy muds near the shore at
Merrion Gates. The site supports a number of important habitats and
protected species and it is of international importance for waterfowl.
The NIS sets out the qualifying interests and conservation objectives
for the c.SAC and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.
Qualifying interests and conservation objectives:
Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide
(Annex 1 habitat).
The conservation objective for this cSAC is to maintain the favourable
conservation condition of mudflats and sandflats not covered by
seawater at low tide. The conservation condition is defined by the
following list of attributes and targets for the fine sands with Angulus
tenuis communities (marine bivalve mollusc) at Sandymount and
Blackrock, and the Zostera communities (eelgrass) at Merrion Gates):
No. Targets Considerations
1 The permanent habitat area is
stable or increasing, subject to
natural processes
Activities/operations that will
permanently remove habitat from a site,
and not long/short term disturbance.
2
Maintain the extent of the
Zostera dominated community,
subject to natural processes.
Any significant anthropogenic
disturbance to the extent of these
communities should be avoided.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 219 of 237
3
Conserve the high quality of the
Zostera-dominated community,
subject to natural processes.
It is important to ensure the quality as
well as the extent of Zostera-dominated
communities is conserved
5 Conserve Fine sands with
Angulus tenuis communities in
a natural condition
Significant continuous or ongoing
disturbance of communities should not
exceed an area of c.15% of the area of
each community type
Potential effects:
Potential direct effects from disturbance during channel dredging.
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of suspended
solids from dredging operations and pollution arising from the
treatment and reuse of contaminated sediments as infill.
Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea
bed/seashore and smothering of sensitive ecological communities
as a result of dredging and dredge disposal operations.
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after being re-dispersed from the
dredge disposal site.
NIS omissions:
The NIS did not carry out a detailed analysis of the potential effects of
the proposed development on the NPWS targets for fine sands with
Angulus tenuis community complex and the Zostera communities.
However, having regard to the conclusions of the coastal processes
modelling exercise which are assessed in section 9.0 of this report and
the targets outlined above, I am satisfied that the proposed works
would not result in any habitat removal or fragmentation, or any
significant ongoing or continuous disturbance to this Annex 1 habitat by
way of physical barriers, excessive sediment deposition or smothering.
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations,
selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and
compliance with Dredge Management Plan.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 220 of 237
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
Compliance with High Level CEMP along with regular monitoring of
water quality at Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 in vicinity of
areas filled with remediated sediments.
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-
S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the
Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the
seabed under storm conditions.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained
in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the
coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in
section 9.0 of this report, the proposed development would not
adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, its Conservation
Objectives or the NPWS targets for this site, as summarised in the
above tables.
11.2.5 North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)
The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the SW and S of
the North Bull Island SPA. This SPA covers all of the inner part of N
Dublin Bay, with the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall
lighthouse across to Drumleck Point at Howth Head. The Island sand
spit is a relatively recent depositional feature, formed as a result of
improvements to Dublin Port during the 18th and 19th centuries. It is
c.5km long and c.1km wide and runs parallel to the coast between
Clontarf and Sutton. It comprises a well-developed and dynamic dune
system which stretches along the seaward side of the island. Various
types of dunes occur, from fixed dune grassland to pioneer
communities on fore dunes. The Island contains intertidal lagoons and
salt marshes and it home to several protected species of wintering bird.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 221 of 237
The SPA supports numerous wintering bird species and the NIS sets
out the Special Conservation Interests and conservation objectives for
the site, and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.
Special Conservation Interests and conservation objective:
The conservation objective seeks to maintain or restore the favourable
conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special
Conservation Interests for this SPA:
Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota)
Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna)
Teal (Anas crecca)
Pintail (Anas acuta)
Shoveler (Anas clypeata)
Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus)
Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria)
Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)
Knot (Calidris canutus)
Sanderling (Calidris alba)
Dunlin (Calidris alpina)
Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa)
Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)
Curlew (Numenius arquata)
Redshank (Tringa totanus)
Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)
Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus)
Wetlands & Waterbirds
Potential effects:
Potential direct effects from disturbance during channel dredging.
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of suspended
solids from dredging operations and pollution arising from the
treatment and reuse of contaminated sediments as infill.
Potential indirect effect of minor sediment deposition on the sea
bed/seashore as a result of dredging and dredge disposal
operations.
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after being re-dispersed from the
dredge disposal site.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 222 of 237
Potential for minor indirect effects on birds by way for noise
disturbance during construction and pile driving.
NIS omissions:
The NIS did not analyse the potential effects of pile driving noise on the
feeding and behavioural patterns of winter birds in the SPA although
this issue was addressed at the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied that there
is little likelihood of potential noise effects because of the separation
distance between the proposed works and this SPA.
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations
and selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and
compliance with Dredge Management Plan.
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-
S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the
Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the
seabed under storm conditions.
Compliance with High Level CEMP along with regular monitoring of
water quality at Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 in vicinity of
areas filled with remediated sediments.
Residual Effects
Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.
Brent geese will continue to feed on agricultural feedstuff in
Alexandra Basin West.
It is not anticipated that construction would have a significant effect
on birds however the attachment of a condition to restrict pile
driving operations to no more than 3 rigs at any time would further
reduce the potential effects of noise on birds in the SPA.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 223 of 237
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained
in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the
coastal processes modelling exercises and the additional
information provided to the Oral Hearing in relation to aerial noise
and birds (which were assessed in section 9.0 of this report), the
proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of
this European Site or its Conservation Objectives.
11.2.6 South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)
The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the N and S of the
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA which comprises a
substantial part of Dublin Bay. It includes the intertidal area between
the River Liffey and Dun Laoghaire, and the estuary of the River Tolka
to the north of the River Liffey, as well as Booterstown Marsh. A portion
of the shallow marine waters of the Bay is also included. In the South
Bay, the intertidal flats extend for almost 3 km at their widest. The
sediments are predominantly well-aerated sands. Several permanent
channels exist, the largest being Cockle Lake. A small sandy beach
occurs at Merrion Gates, while some bedrock shore occurs near Dun
Laoghaire. The landward boundary is now almost entirely artificially
embanked.
The SPA supports a number breeding, passage and wintering bird
species and the NIS sets out the Special Conservation Interests and
Conservation Objectives for the site, and it identifies potential direct
and indirect effects.
Special Conservation Interests and conservation objective:
The conservation objective seeks to maintain or restore the favourable
conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special
Conservation Interests for this SPA:
Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota)
Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus)
Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula)
Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)
Knot (Calidris canutus)
Sanderling (Calidris alba)
Dunlin (Calidris alpina)
Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)
Redshank (Tringa totanus)
Black-headed Gull (Croicocephalus ridibundus)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 224 of 237
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo)
Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)
Wetlands & Waterbirds
Potential effects:
Potential direct effects for disturbance and/or displacement of birds
from construction noise, channel dredging and Port operations.
Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of suspended
solids from dredging operations and pollution arising from the
treatment and reuse of contaminated sediments as infill.
Potential for indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain.
Potential indirect effects of minor sediment deposition on the sea
bed as a result of dredging and dredge disposal operations.
Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated
sediments entering the food chain after being re-dispersed from the
dredge disposal site.
NIS omissions:
The NIS did not analyse the potential effects of pile driving noise on the
feeding and behavioural patterns of winter birds in the SPA although
this issue was addressed at the Oral Hearing.
Mitigation:
Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations,
selection of appropriate dredging plant, and operations and
compliance with the Dredge Management Plan.
Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site
which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging
for an extended period.
Compliance with High Level CEMP along with regular monitoring of
water quality at Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 in vicinity of
areas filled with remediated sediments.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 225 of 237
The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-
S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the
Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the
seabed within the SPA under storm conditions.
Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the
disposal site.
Residual impacts
Residual effects are not predicted to be significant.
Brent geese will continue to feed on agricultural feedstuff in
Alexandra Basin West.
The tern colonies within the Port are well habituated to dredging,
shipping and harbour noise.
It is not anticipated that construction would have a significant effect
on birds however the attachment of a condition to restrict pile
driving operations to no more than 3 rigs at any time would further
reduce the potential effects of noise on birds in the SPA.
Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained
in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the
coastal processes modelling exercises and the additional
information provided to the Oral Hearing in relation to aerial noise
and birds (which were assessed in section 9.0 of this report), the
proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of
this European Site or its Conservation Objectives.
11.3 Cumulative impacts
The NIS examined the potential cumulative impact of the proposed
development together with existing and permitted facilities within Dublin
Bay. Ten plans or projects were assessed as having possible
significant impacts (which would be reduced by way of mitigation) and
eight were assessed as having no impact. The plans and projects
included the Clontarf flood relief scheme, the Sutton to Sandycove
cycle path, the extension to the Ringsend WWTP sewerage outfall (no
longer relevant) and an offshore windfarm (Dublin Array) as well as
ongoing maintenance dredging in the channel.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 226 of 237
The only project of plan that could have a potential in-combination
effect on the integrity of European Sites and their Conservation
Objectives relates to piling noise from the offshore wind farm (Dublin
Array) which could affect Harbour porpoise and other noise sensitive
marine mammals. However given that the timescales for the proposed
ABR development and the offshore windfarm do not coincide, there
would be no cumulative or in-combination impacts.
No cumulative or in-combination impacts on marine mammals, benthic
communities, fisheries, bird populations or sensitive habitats from the
construction or operation of the ABR project are predicted. No other
potential in-combination impacts on qualifying habitats and species
within the European sites are identified. It is concluded, therefore, that
no long-term cumulative or in-combination impacts are predicted.
11.4 Conclusion
Having regard to the above assessment, it reasonable to conclude that,
subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in
the EIS and NIS, the construction and operation of the proposed
development, individually and in-combination with other plans or
projects would not adversely affect the integrity of the following
European Sites or their Conservation Objectives:
Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000);
Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204);
North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206);
South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210);
North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006);
South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024);
or the integrity or Conservation Objectives of any other European Sites
located within Dublin Bay.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 227 of 237
12.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I have considered the EIS and NIS and all submissions and
observations received which are relevant to impacts on the
environment and European Sites, inspected the site, and I have
assessed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the
development on the environment and the European Sites. Having
regard to the above, I am satisfied that the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed development on the environment and the European Sites
have been identified and described. The potential impact of the
proposed development can be adequately mitigated and is not likely to
result in a significant impact on the environment or any European Sites.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the provisions of the:
EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC),
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations, 2011,
EU Guidelines on the Implementation of the Birds and Habitats
Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones (with particular
attention to port development and dredging), 2011,
European Union Ports 2030 Gateways for the Trans European
Transport Network, 2014,
National Ports Policy 2014, Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport,
National Development Plan 2007-2013,
National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020,
Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-
made Sound Sources in Irish Water, DAH&G 2014,
Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017,
North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme 2014,
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 228 of 237
Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban
Regeneration of City Port Heritage as a Key for Sustainable
Economic, Social and Urban Development, 2011,
Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040,
9
The submissions and observations received in relation to the
likely effects on the environment, and
The likely consequences for the environment and the proper
planning and sustainable development in the area in which it is
proposed to situate the said development, and the likely
significant effects of the proposed development on a European
site, and
having regard to the presence of an existing port on the site and
subject to compliance with the mitigation measures set out in the
Environmental Impact Statement and Natura Impact Statement, and
the following conditions, the proposed development would not seriously
injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would not
be prejudicial to public health or safety and would be acceptable in
terms of traffic safety and convenience. The proposed development
would, therefore, not have significant effects on the environment or any
European Sites and would be in accordance with the proper planning
and sustainable development of the area.
CONDITIONS
1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance
with the plans and particulars lodged with the application, as amended
by the Further Information received on 18th August 2014, except as
may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following
conditions.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. The permission shall, in accordance with the application, be for a
period of ten years from the date of this order.
Reason: In order to allow a reasonable period for the completion of this
extensive development.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 229 of 237
3. The developer shall implement in full the mitigation measures
contained in the Environmental Impacts Statement and Natura Impact
Statement submitted with the application save where any such
mitigation measures relate to emissions to the environment falling
within the scope of the Waste Licence and Dumping at Sea Permit,
responsibility for which rests with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area and to ensure the protection of a
European site.
4. The construction of the ABR project shall be managed in accordance
with the Draft High Level Construction and Environmental Management
Plan and the final plan shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with
the planning authority prior to commencement of development.
Reason: To minimise emissions to the environment from the
construction phase of the development and the emissions not covered
by EPA licensing arrangements in order to protect groundwater and
surface water and the general amenities of the area.
5. The developer shall ensure that that over-spilling at the surface of the
dredger is avoided for all dredging activities within the inner Liffey
channel and to ensure that the increase in suspended sediment
concentration over the ambient does not exceed a maximum of 50mg/l
outside of the immediate dredging zone.
Reason: To minimise the levels of suspended sediment in the River
Liffey from the dredging operation.
6. The developer shall operate no more than a maximum of 3 pile driving
rigs at any one time and consideration should be given to the timing of
the operation of these rigs in relation to the breeding season for marine
mammals. Any subsequent changes to the phasing programme for
construction works, which should incorporate all of the relevant
mitigation measures contained in the EIS and NIS, shall be submitted
to the planning authority for written agreement prior to commencement
of development.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity, wildlife protection and
the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 230 of 237
7. (a) The resulting construction noise level for the entire project, and
the dredging noise level in the south western section of the River
Liffey channel located parallel to the residential areas at Pigeon
House Road and Coastguard Cottages, when measured at the
nearest noise sensitive location, shall not exceed-
(i) an LAeq1 hour value of 55 dB(A) during the period 0800
to 2200 hours from Monday to Saturday (inclusive), and
(ii) an LAeq15 minutes value of 45 dB(A) at any other time.
(b) All sound measurements shall be carried out in accordance with
ISO Recommendations R 1996, “Assessment of Noise with
Respect to Community Response” as amended by ISO
Recommendations R 1996/1, 2 and 3, “Description and
Measurement of Environmental Noise”, as appropriate.
Construction and dredging activity outside these hours, other than
works required in response to an emergency, shall require the prior
written agreement of the planning authority and shall accord with the
noise parameters set by the planning authority.
Reason: To protect the residential amenities of property in the vicinity
of the site and to ensure the protection of fauna in the area.
8. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor construction
noise levels at the noise sensitive receptor locations identified in the
EIS. Monitoring shall take place before, during and for 12 months after
completion of construction and dredging works. The results of this
monitoring programme shall be submitted to the planning authority at
regular 6 monthly intervals.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to maintain a public
record.
9. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of
surface water, shall comply with the requirements of Irish Water for
such works.
Reason: To ensure adequate servicing of the development, and to
prevent pollution.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 231 of 237
10. The proposed works at North Wall Quay Extension shall not commence
until the high voltage cables which traverse the River Liffey channel
have been relocated to a new position.
Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
11. The developer shall ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in
place to avoid disruption from dredging activities to the cooling water
intake and outfall the existing servicing power stations at Poolbeg.
Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
12. The proposed development, and any further development of the lands
in the ownership or control of the developer, shall be undertaken strictly
in accordance with the requirements of the NRA’s Corridor Protection
Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand, September
2014, including the protection of the Eastern Bypass Corridor as
indicated.
Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area and the protection of the Eastern Bypass
Corridor.
13. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit
and agree in writing with the planning authority details in relation to:
(a) All traffic management measures along East Wall Road
including the timing of the closures of existing accesses to
Dublin Port.
(b) Internal linkage arrangements for all vehicles, including HGVs
and cruise ship related vehicles, from the new ABR development
to the main Port entrance at Promenade Road.
(c) Pedestrian and cycle routes from East Wall to the Port Estate,
and in particular between the proposed cruise chip berth facility
and the Point Luas stop. Pedestrian and cycle access routes
should have regard to the route options identified in the NRA’s
Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to
Sandymount Strand, September 2014, and the planning
authorities plans for the signalisation of the Point Roundabout.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 232 of 237
Reason: In the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety and the proper
planning and sustainable development of the area.
14. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall liaise
with the National Roads Authority and the operators of the Dublin
Tunnel to prepare and agree a Construction Traffic Management
Strategy for the Dublin Tunnel for the duration of the works.
Reason: In the interests of managing and protecting the safety,
efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road
Network in the Region.
15. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit
and agree in writing with the planning authority a detailed construction
traffic management plan which provides details in relation to:
(a) The timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the
construction sites and associated directional signage,
(b) The staggering of various shift start and finish times to take
account of the main ship arrival and departure times.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety, to ensure the continued
efficient operation of the port and to protect the integrity of the Dublin
Tunnel.
16. All costs incurred by the planning authority, including any repairs to the
public road and services necessary as a result of the development,
shall be at the expense of the developer. Work in the public road may
only be carried out by the planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
17. In relation to marine mammals:
(a) All of the measures contained in the Guidance to Manage the
Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish
Waters (2014) shall be fully implemented including a1000m
exclusion zone for piling and a 500m exclusion zone for
dredging.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 233 of 237
(b) The developer shall employ more than one suitably qualified
marine mammal observers for the duration of piling and dredging
in order to avoid fatigue and ramp-up operations shall
commence during day light hours with adequate visibility.
(c) An acoustic monitoring programme shall assess the potential
impact of the proposed development on marine mammal
populations in Dublin Bay which shall be carried out through the
construction and dredging phases and for a period of 24 months
after the completion of all works.
(d) The developer shall deploy a minimum of four hydrophones in
Dublin Bay to assist in the detection of marine mammals within
the 1000m and 500m exclusion zones for piling and dredging,
which should be used in combination with all of the measures
referred to in (a) and (b):
i. A minimum of two real time passive acoustic monitoring
system (PAMs) shall be deployed in Dublin Bay at the
approaches to Dublin Port to provide information on the
presence of marine mammals.
ii. A minimum of two static acoustic monitoring systems
(SAMs) shall be deployed at the dump site to the west of
the Burford Bank and within Dublin Bay to provide
information on the presence of marine mammals.
(e) Potential noise impact zones should be mapped for Dublin Bay
and the River Liffey and its tidal extent to Islandbridge in
accordance with the 500m and 1000m exclusion zones for piling
and dredging and in relation to the European site boundaries
which lie within these zones. These zones should include each
species and their known usage of and range within Dublin Bay
and the River Liffey and the maps shall be submitted to the
planning authority to maintain a public record.
(f) A log of the marine mammal observer operations shall be
submitted to the NPWS, the planning authority, and the NBDC
for the Marine Mammal Database, following completion of these
works to maintain a public record.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 234 of 237
18. The developer shall undertake monthly monitoring of seal haul out sites
at the North Bull Island and adjacent areas before, during and after
construction for a minimum of 2 years in line with international best
practice. The proposed monitoring methodology and duration of the
survey shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to
commencement of development. Monitoring for harbour and grey
seals shall be further extended to include a survey of Dublin Bay within
the zones of influence as defined in the EIS. The results of the surveys
at each agreed stage of completion shall be submitted to the planning
authority for a review of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures
and to maintain a public record.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
19. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor the movement of
River Lamprey in the Liffey Channel in the vicinity of Alexandra Basin
West before construction commences and before, during and after the
relevant phase of dredging for one full season. The results of the
surveys at each agreed stage of completion shall be submitted to the
planning authority for a review of the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures and to maintain a public record.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
20. The developer shall carry out further bat surveys of the structures
scheduled for demolition prior to demolition during May to September,
in line with best practice, when the bats are active. Detailed measures
in relation to the removal of bats shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing with the planning authority, prior to commencement of
development. The removal of bats shall be carried out only under
licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and details of any
such licence shall be copied to the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
21. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor the movement of
winter wetland birds in the adjacent European sites at the South Dublin
Bay and River Tolka SPA. This monitoring programme shall continue
throughout the construction phase and for a period of 3 years after the
completion of such works, with monthly surveys from October to March.
The results of this monitoring programme shall be submitted to the
planning authority at 12 monthly intervals to maintain a public record.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 235 of 237
22. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor the movement of
Brent Geese, Black Guillemots, and Common and Artic Tern in Dublin
Port. This monitoring programme shall continue throughout the
construction phase and for a period of 3 years after the completion of
such works. The results of this monitoring programme shall be
submitted to the planning authority at 12 monthly intervals to maintain a
public record.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
23. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit
and agree in writing with the planning authority, a risk assessment and
a strategy for a management system for invasive alien species which
shall be used for the duration of the proposed works.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
24. The developer shall liaise with the National Roads Authority in relation
to the location of the proposed Interpretative Pavilion located within
Interpretative Zone 1 at the entrance to North Wall Quay Extension
which lies within the protection corridor for the Eastern Bypass. Any
amended location for this feature along North Wall Quay Extension
shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to
commencement of development.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
25. The historic blocks recovered from demolition works at North Wall
Quay Extension shall be stored in a safe and secure location within
Dublin Port. Any future use of these blocks shall be agreed in writing
with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.
Reason: To ensure the management industrial and engineering
heritage within Dublin Port and in the interest of the proper planning
and sustainable development of the area.
26. The developer shall facilitate the preservation, recording and protection
of archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site.
The areas requiring testing are outlined in the EIS. In this regard, the
developer shall –
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 236 of 237
(a) Notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to
the commencement of any site operation including hydrological
and geotechnical investigations relating to the proposed
development,
(b) Employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all
site investigations and other excavation works, and
(c) Provide arrangements, acceptable to the planning authority, for
the recording and for the removal of any archaeological material
which the authority considers appropriate to remove.
(d) In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter
shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.
Reason: In order to conserve the underwater archaeological heritage
of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains
that may exist within the site.
27. The developer shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for the Port
perimeter which should enhance the visual appearance of the Ports
interface with the City and contribute to biodiversity. Details shall be
submitted to the planning authority for written agreement prior to
commencement of development.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.
28. In relation to community gain:
(a) Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall
transfer ownership of 10.5ha of lands owned by Dublin Port
Company at North Bull Island to the planning authority to provide
for public enjoyment and subject to compliance with the
Conservation Management objectives of the North Dublin Bay
cSAC (site code: 000206) and to the protection of the North Bull
Island SPA (site code: 00400).
(b) Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall
pay to the planning authority a sum of €1,000,000 (one million
Euro) on a basis to be agreed in writing with the planning
authority, toward the provision of any services or facilities to
implement the feasibility study, proposed Masterplan and/or
SAAO Management Plan within 10 years from the date of this
order being signed.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49
___________________________________________________________________________________
29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála Page 237 of 237
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area and the protection of wildlife.
29. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial
contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting
development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or
intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance
with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under
section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution
shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such
phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be
subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the
time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme
shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in
default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to
determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.
Reason: It considered reasonable that a condition requiring a
contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme
made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as
amended be applied to the permission.
30. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with
the planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company,
or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion of
roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, open space and other services
required in connection with the development, together with the
reinstatement of public roads which may be damaged by the transport
of materials to the site, coupled with an agreement empowering the
local authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory
completion of any part of the development. The form and amount of the
security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the
developer or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord
Pleanála for determination.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development.
Karla Mc Bride
Senior Planning Inspector
18th December 2014
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49