ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – DIRECTION CASE

Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge Local Authority: City Council

INTRODUCTION I have read the contents of the file reference number 29N.HD0011 and I inspected the site on 13 th October, 2008. The purpose of this assessment is to advise on whether or not An Bord Pleanála should issue a direction to Dublin City Council (the Council) under Section 50(1)(b) of the Roads Act 1993 to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the above proposed road development.

REQUEST FOR DIRECTION UNDER ROADS ACT By letter of 3 September 2008 the Council requested “the permission of An Bord Pleanála to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment” for the proposed bridge. The Council wish to carry out an EIA due to the historical and architectural sensitivity of the location adjacent to O’Connell Bridge and the city quay walls. The Council’s request was accompanied by a 35 page Design Options Study Report and a 16 A3 page book of drawings. The Report does not directly address the screening issue although it does contain an element of scoping of an EIS.

There is no legislative provision for the Board to grant “permission” to carry out an EIA and the request is being treated as a request for a direction under Section 50(1)(b) and (c) of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended).

THE PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT There are a number of alternative designs indicated for the proposed bridge but the recommended option is for a single span prestressed concrete bridge.

The proposed bridge alignment is from the quay end of Hawkins Street to the quay end of Marlborough Street. The bridge would have a span of approximately 46 metres and have a 23 metre cross section. The bridge would provide two southbound bus lanes, one southbound light rail track, two footpaths and two cycletracks (one northbound and one southbound). The bridge would be required to carry northbound diverted traffic during the Metro North

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 9 construction works in the vicinity of O’Connell Bridge prior to the bridge’s use for southbound bus lanes and light rail. The 23 metre cross section is illustrated in drawing 012 and is made up of: • Two footpaths of 3 metre width plus 1 metre for planters and seating i.e. 4 metre width each; • Two cycle lanes each of 1.6 metre width; • Two bus lanes each of 3.5 metre width; • One line 3.3 metre width along the centre line of the bridge; • One 1.5 metre island alongside the Luas line. In addition there will be two concrete upstands of undefined width and height separating the footpaths from traffic lanes and also having structural and flood protection purposes.

The vertical alignment rises to a crest curve of 700 metres over the river with the southern (Burgh Quay) end slightly higher than the northern () end. The works will require the removal of the quay parapet walls at both ends of the bridge and will result in the loss of two trees on Eden Quay and one tree on Burgh Quay. The works will also require the relocation of a memorial at the junction of Burgh Quay and Hawkins Street. The board walk may be removed on the Eden Quay end of the bridge and approach lengths along the quay. The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) require a temporary road bridge before this bridge opens – possibly downstream. (Report p35) Drawing 012 indicates that piling will be required for the bridge abutments.

Inspector’s Note : The proposed Bridge is described as a “public transport priority bridge” and the two non-Luas lanes are described as “bus lanes”. The Design Options Report” appears to assume bus only use of the traffic lanes and I have assumed this to be the case. However, the use of the word “priority” in the title would seem to create some ambiguity and it is normal for bus lanes to be open to other motor traffic at some periods of the day.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 9

DESCRIPTION OF SITE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS The immediate surroundings of the proposed bridge site are described below with the aid of photos taken on my site visit. Figure 1 attached, based on submitted Drawing 001 – “Existing Condition”, shows the approximate location and direction from which the photos were taken.

The proposed single span bridge is located between O’Connell Bridge (a protected structure) to the west and , and the Loop Line railway bridge to the east. Both O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge are three span structures. Photos A and B are taken looking downriver to the site from O’Connell Bridge and upriver from Butt Bridge respectively. O’Connell Bridge would be largely obscured by the proposed bridge (see Drawing 014). On both Eden Quay and Burgh Quay the quayside is lined by mature deciduous trees three of which would have to be removed. On Eden Quay there is a board walk on the river side of the quay wall. It is not decided yet whether the Board Walk will be disrupted or “run through” the proposed bridge. The photomontages show one option in views down river and the other in upriver views (Drawings 013 and 014).

Photos C and D show views from O’Connell Bridge looking towards the junctions of the Quays with Marlborough St. and Hawkins St. respectively. On Eden Quay the 4 buildings west of the Marlborough St. corner are protected structures as are three of the four buildings east of it. On Burgh Quay the Sheahan memorial at the junction of Hawkins St is a protected structure as are the four buildings adjoining the junction eastward.

Photos E and F show views towards the proposed bridge site from Marlborough St. and from Hawkins St. respectively. On Marlborough Street the trees on the eastern footpath are larger and more important in the streetscape then those on the quayside which would be removed. The granite quay parapet wall would, of course, be removed. On Hawkins St. the memorial would be directly on the line of the Luas and have to be relocated. Photo G provides a closer view of the memorial and the quay parapet wall on the south side of the Liffey.

The quay walls themselves, while not protected structures at this location, are important structures themselves. The south quay wall is illustrated in photo D and a close up of the north quay wall in photo I . Portions of both walls would be covered up by the proposed bridge abutments (Drawing 011).

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 9

ASSESSMENT Introduction The Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011. The site forms part of a Conservation Area and is partly within the O’Connnell St. Architectural Conservation Area. It is also within a Zone of Archaeological Interest. Protected structures within the vicinity have been referred to above. POLICY H16:It is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and reinforce the important civic design character of Dublin’s quays, which are designated a conservation area and infill development should complement the character of the quays in terms of context, scale and design. Paragraph 7.8.0 provides for a “pedestrian bridge” from Marlborough Street to Hawkins Street. Variation 27, adopted 7 July 2008 (copy attached), amended this to just “bridge”.

Transport 21 – Capital Investment Framework under the National Development Plan Transport 21 includes the Luas Line BX – Line D – St. Stephens Green to Liffey Junction. The line running south on the proposed bridge is part of Line BX. The projected completion date is given as “under review” on the Transport 21 website.

Metro North : The Metro North Railway Order application, accompanied by an EIS, went on display in the Board’s Offices on 17 September 2008. The Luas BX line and the Marlborough Bridge across the are noted under paragraph “2.18.3 Cumulative Impacts” in the NTS.

The Role of An Bord Pleanála Section 50(1)(c) of the Roads Act, 1993 requires that where a road authority considers that any proposed road development, while being below the relevant threshold for which an EIS would be mandatory, would be likely to have significant effects on the environment , it shall inform the Minister in writing and, where the Minister concurs with the road authority, he shall give a direction to the road authority [under Section 50(1)(b)] to prepare an EIS in respect of such development. This function of the Minister was transferred to An Bord Pleanála under Section 215 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 9

Under Section 50(1)(b) of the Roads Act, where the Board considers that any proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, the Board shall direct the road authority to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in respect of such proposed road development, whether or not such a direction has been requested by the road authority.

The Council requested “the permission” of the Board to prepare an EIS for the proposed bridge due to the historical and architectural sensitivity of the location adjacent to O’Connell Bridge and the city quay walls. While it would seem reasonable that the Council should be directed to prepare an EIS if they wish to do so, for An Bord Pleanála to issue the direction sought, the Board must consider that the proposed bridge is likely to have significant effects on the environment having regard to its normal criteria – the same criteria it would use if the request had come from a third party rather than the Council itself.

EIA of Sub-threshold Development The 1997 amending Directive (97/11/EC) introduced guidance for Member States in terms of deciding whether or not a development is “likely to have significant effects on the environment”. The guidance is included in the Irish regulations and is referred to in Section 50(1)(e) of the Roads Act 1993 as amended. Section 50(1)(e) requires that where a decision is being made on whether a proposed road development would or would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment, An Bord Pleanála shall have regard to the criteria specified for the purposes of Article 27 of the EC(EIA) Regulations 1989. These are set out in the Third Schedule added by SI 93 of 1999.

In August 2003 the Department issued EIA Guidance for Consent Authorities regarding Sub- threshold Development under Section 28 of the Planning Act 2000. Under Section 28 An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the guidance. The Guidance is largely based on the Third Schedule referred to above.

The main headings in the Third Schedule are a) Characteristics of the proposed development , b) Location of the proposed development and c) Characteristics of potential impacts.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 9

The proposed road upgrade is considered below under each of these headings and subheadings.

(a) Characteristics of the proposed development Size of the proposed development: The relevant characteristics include, in particular, the size of the proposed development. Size has been adopted in the Irish regulations as a major factor to determine whether or not an EIS is mandatory for a proposed road development. Where a proposed development is close to the mandatory threshold size it could be considered more likely to have significant effects on the environment.

The relevant threshold is that prescribed under Section 50(1)(a)(iii) of the Roads Act 1993. This is set out in Article 8 of SI 119 of 1994. There are two types of prescribed development set out in Article 8(a) and (b): (a) construction of a new road (other than a motorway etc) of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area. (b) construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length.

The proposed bridge falls short of the threshold in 8(b) since it has a length of approximately 46 metres – less than half the threshold of 100 metres. The total width of the proposed bridge is 23 metres – greater than the width of Butt Bridge which carries four lanes of traffic. However, width is not a factor in the threshold for a bridge. I consider the proposed bridge to be unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment based on the size criterion.

Cumulation with other proposed development As noted under Transport 21 above, the proposed bridge is required for and would accommodate part of Luas Line BX line. In addition the bridge (and a proposed temporary road bridge) is required to provide for north bound traffic diverted during construction of the Metro North line and is listed as an element of cumulation in relation to the Metro North line. I consider that there is an element of cumulation or of project splitting in the proposal.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 9

Pollution and nuisances I consider that traffic volumes, and associated pollution and nuisances, are likely to be light, at least after its temporary use for diverted north bound traffic, because of the bus lane use proposed. While even very limited pollution could be an issue in the context of a very sensitive site, this aspect is considered under the heading “environmental sensitivity of geographical areas” below. Some pollution of the Liffey is certainly possible during construction of the foundations.

The insertion of a bridge has the potential to interfere with the flow of the Liffey in times of flood and so influence flooding on the quays. In addition, the bridge would involve a break in the quay parapet walls which serve a flood protection purpose. The proposed solution for the latter is to provide Dutch Dams (removable flood barriers) to prevent flood waters entering from the bridge footpaths onto the bridge traffic surfaces and thence onto the quays. The Dutch Dams and concrete upstand would combine to form a continuous barrier around the two footpaths were the river water to rise above their level – see Drawing 003.

I do not consider the other subheadings of this section of the schedule (“Use of natural resources”, “Production of waste” and “Risk of accidents”) are particularly relevant to the proposed development.

(b) Location of the proposed development The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by the proposed development, having regard in particular to: the existing land use The total “land” area to be occupied by the proposed bridge itself is well under 0.5 ha and most of this is either over the Liffey or on existing roads or footpaths. The sensitivity of the land and surrounding land are dealt with below under absorption capacity. the absorption capacity of the natural environment paying particular attention to the following areas – areas (a) to (h). Of these types of area only (g) “densely populated areas” and (h) “landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance” could be considered relevant to the present case.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 9

(g) densely populated areas: The area surrounding the site of the proposed bridge, and indirectly affected by it, is certainly very densely populated, particularly in a non-residential sense. It is at the very centre of the capital city with high pedestrian and vehicle traffic and containing a high proportion of cultural and tourist traffic.

(h) landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance The significance of the area of the site for historical, cultural and archaeological purposes is reflected in its designations in the Development Plan noted above. The site is partly within the O’Connell St. Architectural Conservation Area; it is within the River Liffey and its quays Conservation Area and it is also within a zone of Archaeological Interest. In addition several protected structures (noted in the description above), while not directly affected, would have their settings altered. The Sheahan Memorial, a protected structure, would be directly affected and would need to be relocated.

The Design Options Report refers to the Liffey Siphon which runs under the line of the proposed bridge and is important in an historical and industrial archaeology context. It is intended to avoid interfering with it.

I do not consider the other subheading of “the relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the area” to be particularly relevant to this site.

(c) Characteristics of potential impacts extent of the impact (geographical area and size of the affected population) The area directly affected by the proposed bridge would not extend significantly beyond the area occupied by the bridge itself. However, a larger area would be indirectly affected through an alteration of the visual environment while the public transport role facilitated by the bridge would have beneficial effects over a much wider area. The indirectly affected population would be substantial including tourist visitors. magnitude and complexity of the impact I do not consider the impacts likely to be either very large or complex.

______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 9

I do not consider the other subheadings of this section of the schedule (“transfrontier nature of the impact”, “probability of the impact” and “duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact”) are particularly relevant to the proposed development.

SUMMARY ANALYSIS The Department’s Guidelines state that “a decision to call for an EIS must be taken on the basis of a global assessment of all the criteria listed in the Appendix” (Third Schedule). I consider that the proposed bridge can be considered likely to have significant effects on the environment having regard in particular to the following criteria: • cumulation with the Metro North line and the Luas BX line projects; • the high population density of the city centre area; • the architectural, historical and cultural significance of the location of the site reflected in its designation in the Development Plan as an Architectural Conservation Area and a Conservation Area and the presence of several protected structures in the immediate vicinity;

CONCLUSION Having regard to the above assessment and, in particular, to cumulation with related major projects, to the high population density and architectural, historical and cultural significance of the city centre location, to the guidance set out in Schedule 7 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance for Consent Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I consider that the proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

I recommend that An Bord Pleanála direct Dublin City Council, under paragraph (b) of Section 50(1) of the Roads Act 1993, to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of the proposed Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge.

Eoghan Brangan 1 November, 2008 ______29N.HD0011 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9