An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge.

1 Introduction

1.1 An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by City Council in respect of the above bridge development pursuant to Section 50 of the Roads Act 1993 and Article 8 (b) of the Roads Regulations, 1994. 1.2 Dublin City Council wrote to the Board, in September 2008, in accordance with Section 51 (1) (c) of the Roads Act 1993, Bord Reference 29NHD00011, seeking a direction in relation to the preparation of an environmental impact statement in respect of ‘Marlborough Public Transport Priority Bridge. The Board gave a direction that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. 1.3 In accordance with Sections 215 and 267 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, matters in relation to this development, which were to be determined by the Minister, are now to be determined by An Bord Pleanála. 1.4 Under Article 6 of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2000, the Board decided to hold an Oral Hearing in this case. 1.5 The Oral Hearing was held at the Board’s Offices, Marlborough St., Dublin on the 22nd June 2009. Ms. Dolores McCague Senior Inspector conducted the Hearing. Mr. Danny O’Connor, another Senior Inspector with the Board, is advising on matters relating to hydrological and traffic aspects of the proposal, and he attended the Hearing and participated in relevant discussions, at the invitation of the presiding inspector. 1.6 The proceedings were recorded by a stenographer and appear in a typed volume accompanying this report.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 21 1.7 A summary of the hearing is referred to at the relevant sections of this report. One document was submitted at the hearing, a print out of the ‘Powerpoint’ presentation which was presented at the hearing; and it is attached as appendix 1 to this report. 1.8 Mr Danny O Connor has prepared a written report on traffic and hydrological related issues and this is attached in the separate volume of appendices to this report. This is referred to in this report as ‘Mr O’Connor’s report’ 1.9 I inspected the site on the 18th June 2009. Photographs taken at the time of inspection are attached at the end of this report. 1.10 It is my view that all statutory requirements appear to have been complied with.

2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 This proposal relates to a proposed bridge across the in Dublin City centre, to be located between O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge, linking Marlborough Street and to Hawkins Street and Burgh Quay. 2.2 The link that the bridge will provide, between Hawkins Street and Marlborough Street, will be beneficial locally and to the wider city, providing for buses and as well as pedestrians and cyclists. 2.3 The bridge will accommodate two bus lanes, one southbound light rail (Luas ) track, two footpaths and two cycle tracks. 2.4 Initially the bridge will be utilized to carry diverted traffic which will use the bridge in a northbound direction during the proposed Metro construction works in the vicinity of O’Connell Bridge. 2.5 Purpose of the project: Objectives include to: Provide an architecturally sensitive priority bridge linking Marlborough Street and Eden Quay to Hawkins Street and Burgh Quay, Meet the traffic, layout structural and environmental requirements of the public transport priority bridge, Meet the architectural requirements and complement the existing O’Connell Bridge, Butt Bridge and quay walls which are all listed structures, Provide two southbound bus lanes, one southbound light rail (Luas) track, two footpaths and two cycletracks (one northbound and one southbound).

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 21 2.6 Description of the quays: 2.6.1 The River Liffey is approximately 46m wide at the location of the proposed bridge. The river has an approximate tidal range of +1.75 mOD to -1.75mOD Malin Head at this location. 2.6.2 The quays, which are not parallel in plan, carry highly trafficked roads and footpaths Many of the buildings along the quays are of historic interest with some being listed. The quay walls on either side of the river are of masonry construction and date from circa 1663 to the early 19th century. A boardwalk of approximately 3.5m width is cantilevered from the north quay wall. Both quays are tree lined on the river side of their respective roads. 2.6.3 Eden Quay carries two eastbound traffic lanes and a contraflow westbound bus lane in the vicinity of the proposed bridge location. An eastbound cycle lane is also provided north of the eastbound traffic lanes. Pedestrian crossing facilities are provided crossing Eden Quay to the west of the Eden Quay / Marlborough Street Junction. 2.6.4 The Eden Quay / Marlborough Street Junction is a left in / left out junction for both buses and regular vehicular traffic although it also accommodates a right turn for buses trying to use the existing westbound bus lane. An eastbound cycle lane is also provided north of the eastbound traffic lane. 2.6.5 Burgh Quay carries two westbound traffic lanes and a westbound bus lane in the vicinity of the proposed bridge location. These two traffic lanes branch out to become three lanes just west of the proposed bridge site. On Burgh Quay a westbound cycle lane is also provided south of the westbound bus lane. Pedestrian crossing facilities are provided for crossing Hawkins Street at the Burgh Quay / Hawkins Street Junction. 2.6.6 Burgh Quay / Hawkins Street junction allows entry only to Hawkins Street from Burgh Quay. Bus entry is split from general traffic entry by a traffic island however these two traffic lanes merge south of the junction. 2.6.7 There are currently no cycle facilities on either O’Connell Bridge or Butt Bridge. 2.6.8 Pedestrian crossing facilities are currently provided at O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge, however long waiting times and heavy volumes of traffic are associated with these crossing points. The pedestrian crossing facility at Butt Bridge does not provide for pedestrian movement on all arms. 2.7 Description of the proposed development 2.7.1 The description of the development in the EIS states that: The design is a single span concrete structure, 65m long and 26m wide, which forms abutments at the quay walls. It is a shallow mid span concrete structure, forming a shallow parabolic curve which tightens before reaching the quay walls, where there are abutments. The parabolic curve, which the underside of the

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 21 bridge follows, is achieved by making the in-situ abutments integral with the post- tensioned concrete deck. The bridge will act as a portal frame, carrying horizontal and vertical loads into the overburden and rock below and therefore, will be designed so as not to exert longitudinal loading on the existing quay walls. The proposed bridge will tie into the existing quays located to the north and south. Due to the limitations on the geometry of the Luas rails and the navigational requirements in the river, the vertical alignment of the bridge deck requires a build up of levels on the existing quays. The levels in the vicinity of the new bridge will be raised by approximately ½ m. These will be designed to tie in with the existing roads and footpaths. It is not envisaged that the frontage of the existing buildings on the quays will be affected by the raised level of the bridge approaches. 2.7.2 At the intersection with the river bed the abutments form a double–bulge on plan. This allows the structure to pass either side of the existing inverted siphon drain located in the riverbed, creates a sinuous spread-water through its geographical resolution and also limits the protrusion of the abutment into the river. As the abutment rises, the double curvature gradually flattens out and becomes a gentle single curve underbelly of the bridge. The choice of abutments considered the need to achieve a laminar flow close to the bridge to minimise turbulence, because of proximity to other bridges in the area. 2.7.3 The abutments are to be of reinforced concrete construction and are to be integral with the superstructure. The back face of the abutment will be set at a sufficient clearance from the quay walls to ensure that longitudinal loads are not transferred into the walls. The void between the abutments and the quay walls is to be filled with a compressible material. 2.7.4 The location of the abutments on the riverside of the quay walls has the added benefit of minimising any disruption to traffic and pedestrians during the construction phase. 2.7.5 Lighting and pylons to support the Luas are not located on the bridge. Two poles positioned at each of the two thresholds provide lighting and further public lighting is integrated into various bridge elements. Existing quay walls above existing road level have to be removed; and footpath levels raised at the four corners, requiring additional courses of stone in the quay walls at these locations to provide walls of sufficient height relative to the footpaths. 2.7.6 Footpath widths on the bridge have been considered in some detail. The analysis recommended a minimum width of 2.67m. The 3m width provides for increased usage with time due to increases in population, proximity of Luas stops, and the potential for commercial development of Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street. The footway will serve recreational users as well as goal-orientated users, and in addition to the walkway of 3.0m a width of 1.0m is provided for seating. 2.7.7 Footpath are formed with granite paving inlaid with flush stainless steel strips that divide the paving into zones associated with the rhythm of the balustrades, seating and planters along the flood wall. Surfaces are accessible to all, slip resistant and

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 21 non-reflective. Tactile paving will be introduced at points where pedestrian crossing points are located. 2.7.8 The concrete upstand that divides the pedestrians from the traffic on the bridge doubles up as seating and planting to allow people to stop, sit on the bridge and enjoy views up and down the river. 2.7.9 The seating is arranged in bays that correspond to the rhythm of both the paving and balustrades, with the back of the seats formed in granite paving returned up from the deck surface below. 2.7.10 The stainless steel strips that are formed in the paving will extend up and form the balustrades to carry a continuous handrail that extends along the top edge of the concrete up-stand and prevents walking in this surface. 2.7.11 A 700mm high reinforced concrete upstand will be located between the footways and cycle lanes. The upstand will provide flood protection to the cycle ways and bus lanes and the Luas line. In the event of flood the footways would be submerged while the flood waters would be contained by the upstand and a series of Dutch dams at both ends of the bridge. 2.7.12 The upstand requires an additional 0.5 m width to be provided in both cycle lanes. The cycle lane on the west side of the bridge may be contra-flow and therefore a 0.5m raised kerb will be provided between it and the neighbouring bus lane in accordance with recommended best practice and in order to future proof the bridge. The cycle lanes are 2.5m wide on the west side and 2.0m wide on the east side. 2.7.13 The east bus lane is of 3.5m width while the west bus lane is 0.25m wider to provide sufficient clearance between turning buses and the Luas and to allow the centreline of the bridge to coincide with the centreline of the Luas. Both lanes will be for southbound traffic. 2.7.14 A width of 2.7m is provided for the Luas line in accordance with Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) requirements; an additional 0.3 m is provided adjacent to the west for the Luas swept path and a line side path is also provided for maintenance, of 1.2m width. 2.7.15 Navigational Requirements - The minimum headroom required is dictated by the existing navigational requirements of the River Liffey – that the existing navigational channel is maintained. The soffit levels of O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge are 3.37mOD and 3.4mOD respectively while the soffit level of the proposed bridge is 3.3mOD. However the soffit level of Matt Talbot Bridge, downstream of the location of the proposed bridge is 3.21mOD. Thus the existing navigational channel will not be restricted. 2.7.16 All the seating and planted areas are located to one side of the main pedestrian foot-way and will not impede visually impaired users of the bridge. Seats are finished with hardwood slats. The seating has a stainless steel support structure which includes for integrated lighting on the underside.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 21 2.7.17 The balustrades and guarding will not dominate the bridge when viewed from a distance, but when on the bridge will provide a comfortable, secure and safe environment for the users. 2.7.18 The balustrade infill for the bridge is formed with high-quality stainless steel cables that extend continuously and horizontally across the bridge. This is effective and durable way to establish guarding, whilst making the balustrade visually transparent. 2.7.19 The cables are threaded through elegant stainless steel balustrade up-rights that in turn support a cast metal handrail. These are angled away from the walkway and protected by the handrail to prevent climbing on the cables. 2.7.20 It is the intention that both the handrail and the balustrades will have integrated lighting and that the handrail is of a form and finish that is comfortable to touch and lean against, thus enhancing the users experience of the bridge.

3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 3.1 The EIS was completed in January 2009 and was submitted to the Board on the 22 January 2009. It is presented in two volumes Volume 1 includes a non- technical summary which is also presented as a separate Volume; Volume 2 is a book of maps. 3.2 Volume 1 comprises a non technical summary and 15 chapters under the following headings: Part 1 Background Information and General Description Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Background to the Proposed Development Chapter 3 Description of the Proposed Development Chapter 4 Alternatives Considered Chapter 5 Traffic and Transportation Part 2 Environmental Effects and Proposed Ameliorative Measures Chapter 6 Human Beings Chapter 7 The Natural Environment Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual Analysis Chapter 9 Material Assets Chapter 10 Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Chapter 11 Architectural Heritage

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 21 Chapter 12 Construction Phase Chapter 13 Interrelationships Chapter 14 Mitigation Measures The various chapters address the mandatory topics required by regulation, and three alternative bridge designs are considered. The EIS includes a non-technical summary. 3.3 A summary of the salient points of the EIS is given in Appendix 3. 3.4 Assessment of the EIS:

In part 1 deficiencies were noted in relation to the background information on hydrology and the existing traffic and transportation context. In part 2, in the chapter: Human Beings - In relation to Human Beings – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. The Natural Environment – in this chapter the main impact of significance which arose was in relation to the potential for bird collision with the bridge and its attendant structures. It is considered that the proposal, to provide lighting for the bridge at night time to avoid collisions occurring, is adequate mitigation. It is considered that the section on hydrology was not sufficiently explored, particularly in light of submission from the OPW, referred to below, and this became the subject of further information by the Board which I have identified in Chapter 5 of this report. Landscape and Visual Analysis – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Material Assets – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Architectural Heritage – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Construction Phase – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Interrelationships – It is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are not any outstanding issues. Mitigation Measures – Subject to the concerns raised above it is considered this section to be satisfactory. There are no other outstanding issues. 3.5 Overall the EIS largely complied with the requirements of Article 14 of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. Where inadequacies were perceived these were dealt with either by way of a further information request or by way of address at the oral hearing

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 21 3.6 The scale of the drawings, accompanying the EIS, is quite small, in particular Figure 3.3 at a scale of 1:400, presumably to allow the information to be presented in A3 format. It would have been desirable to have had portions of that drawing shown at a larger scale. It would have been desirable to have had details of the junction of the proposed bridge with the quay, indicating quay wall alterations and the proposed dutch dams, shown on plan and elevation at a scale of 1:100.

4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 4.1 Two submissions were made by the closing date of 9 March 2009. These submissions were from the Office of Public Works and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 4.2 The Office of Public Works submission raised objections as follows:  There is no reference in the EIS to any hydraulic modelling that may have been carried out, to determine the impact that the proposed bridge and its ancillary works would have on flood levels;  Likewise, there is no reference to the interference and impacts that the construction phase would have, and the measures that would be put in place to remove these impacts, should a flood actually occur during construction;  On the basis of the information provided it is unlikely that the soffit of the bridge would have the required clearance above floor levels to gain the approval of the OPW that would be required under Section 50 of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. It would appear that the bridge would need to rise by a very significant amount. (This could be accompanied by raising of the roads at both ends of the bridge. We note that some properties at both ends of the bridge have several steps leading up to their front doors.)  The OPW is the Government appointed lead agency for flood risk management in the State. They also have a statutory role in relation to approval of bridge developments under Section 50 of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. They are concerned that the bridge as proposed could lead to an increase in the risk of flooding of the River Liffey. Any flooding of Dublin city centre could cause substantial economic damage, especially as many properties in the area have basements. There could also be significant risk to public safety under these conditions.’ 4.3 The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government submission states that the Department:  Concurs with the recommended archaeological mitigation measures as outlined in paragraph 10.4 – noting that a full underwater archaeological assessment is being carried out of all areas of riverbed or quay wall disturbances – and that they await the results.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 21  They consider that no particular assessment is offered on the actual impact on structures of architectural heritage merit.  That the new location of the Sheahan Memorial is an outstanding matter which might be clarified in due course.

5 BOARD CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Additional Information 5.1.1 On the basis of the observations received from the OPW, the Board wrote to the applicant on the 2 April 2009 requesting additional information as follows: i) Details of any hydraulic modelling studies carried out to determine: a) Impacts on flood levels in the river Liffey from the proposed development, including: b) Any interaction between the proposed development and flood levels in the river during the construction phase ii) If hydraulic modelling studies were not deemed necessary, please indicate why not, given that there would appear to be inadequate clearance between the soffit of the proposed bridge and flood levels in the river, which could potentially give rise to increased risk of flooding from the river within Dublin City Centre, and consequently increased risk to public safety. iii) Details of any mitigation measures deemed necessary in the context of (i) and (ii) 5.2 Response 5.2.1 The response to the additional information request was received 20 May 2009 by way of a copy of a document stated to be an Office of Public Works Section 50 Application. 5.2.2 That report provides an assessment of the catchment contribution of the River Liffey at the proposed bridge location and an analysis of the hydraulic impact of the proposed bridge, through:  Estimation of flow in the River Liffey for a design return period of 1 in 100 years,  Tide levels for various return periods,  Estimation of existing and proposed channel capacities,  Estimation of Bridge Opening Ratio,  Estimation of the depth of flow in the design event and  Estimation of the afflux caused by the proposed structure.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 21 5.2.3 The River Liffey with a length of 138km and a catchment of 13,000k2 has been heavily controlled by the development of 3 hydro-electric schemes between 1937 and 1949. There are 3 reservoirs in the catchment at Pollaphuca, Golden Falls and Leixlip. 5.2.4 The flow in the lower stretches of the Liffey is an accumulation of: the flows as controlled by Leixlip Dam, the Ryewater River, the Griffen Rivcer and the Camac River. Available flow level data were used to extrapolate design flood with a return period of 1 in 100 years. 5.2.5 A hydraulic model of the River Liffey was developed over a length of 150m between O’Connell Bridge upstream of the proposed crossing and Butt Bridge downstream. 5.2.6 The proposed bridge was modelled under various combinations of flow and tide level: 5.2.7 Table 4.2 shows results for:  1 in 100 year fluvial flow, 1 in 2.33 tide level (tide excluding climate change)  1 in 100 year fluvial flow, 1 in 100 year tide (tide excluding climate change)  1 in 100 year fluvial flow, 1 in 200 year tide (tide excluding climate change)  1 in 100 year fluvial flow, 1 in 200 year tide (tide including climate change)  1 in 100 year fluvial flow, long term extreme tide level. 5.2.8 In the last two scenarios surcharging of the bridge occurred at 3.4mOD and 3.98mOD, respectively. 5.2.9 The proposed bridge is compared with the existing structures on the river, in terms of the existing and proposed channel capacities; and the bridge opening ratio. 5.2.10 A description of the proposed flood protection is included. A 70mm high reinforced concrete upstand will be located between the footways and cycle lanes. This will provide flood protection to the cycle lanes, bus lanes and Luas line, and allow the footway to become submerged. 5.2.11 Among the conclusions of the report are that: 5.2.12 As water levels in this reach of the River Liffey are heavily influenced by the tide, the proposed structure will have a negligible, (<50mm afflux in all scenarios modelled), impact on the existing hydraulic regime of the river. 5.2.13 The proposed bridge will provide protection for the long term extreme tide level through the use of Dutch Dams and concrete upstands.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 21 5.2.14 It is worth noting that the scale of some of the drawings is quite small, some are not well annotated, the information thereon being difficult to discern; and the report does not refer in any detail to said drawings.

6 THE ORAL HEARING 6.1 An oral hearing was opened at 9:30 a.m. on Monday on the 22nd June 2009 at the Boards offices, in Marlborough Street and concluded on the same day.

The parties were the local authority, Dublin City Council, The Office of Public Works, Dublin Bus and the Railway Procurement Agency.

3.1 Appearances on behalf of Local Authority:  Mr. Michael Phillips, City Engineer and Director of Traffic, representing the City Manager.  Mr. Tom O’Shee, Law Agent for Dublin City Council.  Mr. Tony Dempsey, Roughan O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers – who gave a general outline of the scheme.  Mr Joe Kelly, Roughan O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers, project manager – gave evidence in relation to hydraulic modelling  Mr. Barry Corrigan, Environmental Scientist, Roughan O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers – who gave evidence in relation to relocating the Sheehan memorial.  Mr. Brendan O’Brien, Traffic and Streets Department, Dublin City Council – who gave evidence on the role of the bridge as an integral feature in the city transportation network.  Mr. Gordon Rowland, Senior Engineer Dublin City Council  Ms Mary Conway, Senior Planner, Dublin City Council

Appearances on behalf of The Office of Public Works:  Mr. Michael Caden Office of Public Works  Mr Tim Joyce, Engineer, Office of Public Works gave evidence on hydrology

Appearance on behalf of Dublin Bus  Mr Derry O’Leary – who gave evidence on the Dublin Bus, bus network.

Appearance on behalf of The Railway Procurement Agency  Mr Jim Kilfeather managing the line BXD project – who expressed support for the project

6.2 A full transcript of the Oral Hearing accompanies this report. 6.3 The oral hearing was specifically convened to address the following issues which formed an integral feature of the development.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 21  The hydrological modelling with particular reference to the rationale for omission of bridges up and downstream of proposed Marlborough Street bridge.

 The role of the proposed bridge as an integral feature of Dublin’s transportation system.

 The impact of the bridge on the public and private transport network of the city 6.4 The issues which came up for discussion at the oral hearing could be summarised as:  The bridge height / design and hydrology.  The role of the bridge within Dublin’s transportation system and the impact on the transport network of the city  Update on other issues which were included in the EIS.

6.5 The bridge height / design and hydrology 6.6 Design Constraints 6.7 Evidence was given on behalf of Dublin City Council that in terms of navigation the proposed soffit level is +3.3mOD. 6.8 The top height was constrained by the rail level of the Luas to allow for smooth comfort and running and to tie in with the geometry of the RPA’s alignment. The proposed height requires Burgh Quay and Eden Quay to be raised by approximately ½ m. The planning authority wanted to minimise interference with the quay walls. The Liffey Syphon was also a constraint. 6.9 A single span bridge allows for as much conveyance as possible. The ratio of open area to restricted area is 0:90; the abutments take up 10% of the area available with no bridge. The planning authority have looked at the effect of the existing structures that there are on the River Liffey. O’Connell Bridge is a three span masonry arch structure, with a ratio of 0:64; about 36% of the area is actually taken up by the structure. The ratio in relation to Butt Bridge downstream is 0:91. 6.10 The structural depth has a depth to span ratio, in the order of 1:100, which pushed the boundaries of bridge engineering. The upstands, as part of the structure of the bridge, serve numerous functions including increasing the structural depth of the bridge: they give structural rigidity to the very slender mid span section.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 21 6.11 Hydraulic modelling 6.12 Referring to the information submitted as further information, the proposers consider that in relation to hydraulic analysis they have used a very conservative approach in that the Liffey design flows are highly controlled on the river. There are three reservoirs which control the flows. 6.13 It was agreed at a meeting in March with the OPW that the peak design flows emanating from Leixlip down should be used as the design flow for the Liffey. The various hydrometric stations were the Rye Water River, the Cammock and the Griffeen River which were used to extrapolate the peak design flows for those three rivers. In determining overall flood design flows they used peak from all four rivers, which the proposers considered very conservative. 6.14 Tidal effects were determined in consultation with input and historic data and again extrapolated to the extreme tidal event. Regarding existing structures – upstream they assumed that there were no existing structures upstream and therefore the peak flows are sustained by Marlborough Street Bridge, so there is no controlling effect. In fact O’Connell Bridge will present an hydraulic control for flood coming through. Thus they considered they had taken a conservative approach. Downstream flows – the OPW Section 50 application, when they looked at the water levels for the long term extreme tidal flooding event of 3.98mOD against other extreme events; the extreme tidal flooding superceded any fluvial flow. 6.15 They modelled various scenarios - 1;100 year fluvial flow, one year tidal and 300mm freeboard; one year fluvial flow, 200 year tidal and no freeboard; and thirdly 100 year fluvial 200 year tidal and no freeboard; with and without climate change. 6.16 In all scenarios they determined that the anticipated afflux was significantly less than 20mm. In fact in all events other than the 100 year fluvial flow and the long term extreme tide event it was significantly less than 10mm, so they consider that there is negligible impact. 6.17 The OPW representative, although happy with how the hydrology has been handled, disagreed that the approach was conservative because since the river is contained between walls, there is really no storage that is brought into play. Because of surcharging of the bridges upstream there is full flow at the proposed bridge and therefore they are designing correctly but not conservatively. 6.18 The OPW representative confirmed that he had no issue with the narrowing of the channel because at this location it is somewhat wider than at the area of O’Connell Bridge. 6.19 The OPW representative confirmed that he was happy to see the deck as high as it is and would have liked to see it higher if that was possible, having regard to risk and the impact of any flooding at this location. Referring to the Section 50 application he said that he would like to get sight of all of the hydraulic analysis

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 21 and would normally look for actual water level recorders, having been put in place, to be dealing with a fully calibrated model in the location. 6.20 Dublin City Council clarified that the soffit level of the bridge is not the ultimate design flood level. The design flood level is linked in with the quay walls (dutch dams height) 4.25m not 3.3m (soffit level) and is therefore significantly higher than the soffit level of the bridge. 6.21 In response to questions the OPW representative stated that at historic bridges, such as O’Connell Bridge, the road levels on the quays rise as you approach the bridges to allow the soffit level of the bridge to be raised; and the quay walls are higher along by the bridges to help take into account any surcharging. 6.22 He also stated that there is more impact from restricting height than width. The impact of water reaching deck level in fluvial flow is that the whole underside of the bridge starts to resist the flow and it is at that point in particular that you get significant surcharging of a bridge. You can get 0.6m depending on the energy of the river. You can get significant change in level, simply because the water touches the deck. The afflux, i.e., rising up of level, is more of a consideration in fluvial flow which normally has more energy, more velocity than tidal flow. If the tidal flow is controlling levels, you would expect only a minor change in level or afflux.

6.23 Flood protection 6.24 Citing the OPW requirements as 100 year fluvial flow, one year tidal and 300mm freeboard; one year fluvial flow, 200 year tidal and no freeboard; and thirdly 100 year fluvial one year tidal and no freeboard. 6.25 The upstands provide flood defence in conjunction with Dutch dams. These will be installed at the four corners of the bridge. Over the 120 year lifetime of the structure, in the event of an extreme flood event, the walkways may be flooded, but the remainder of the bridge will not be. Dutch dams are already installed at certain locations on the boardwalk. Dutch dams are a mechanical device activated here by human control, e.g. a box in the footpath, which has a key mechanism that you unhinge and it unfolds; the rising water pushing it into place. Pedestrians are excluded from the area if there is the forecast of certain high tides or certain weather conditions. Use of Dutch dams is not new to the City Council and they are devices which can be maintained by the City Council. 6.26 The flood defence is provided to a level of 4.25, by the Dutch dams, the quay walls will be raised to 4.45, compared to the existing quay wall levels of between 4.25 and 4.3. 6.27 Dublin City Council, in conjunction with the OPW have done a lot of work in relation to flooding, following the floods of 2002. A lot of work is being carried out the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka to mitigate against flooding.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 21 6.28 Dublin City Council have built a model of Dublin Bay and, in conjunction with Met Eireann and certain programmes working in the UK Met Office, they are able to forecast and monitor high tides. They have specific staff who forecast what those high tides are for coming events, and whether special precautions need to be taken. 6.29 The extreme tidal event of one in one thousand year annihilates any fluvial flow, the presence or absence of the bridge is irrelevant in such circumstances. 6.30 The role of the proposed bridge within Dublin’s transportation system 6.31 Two main transport services are provided for: The proposed Luas line BDX, this will be its north to south return path, with the south to north route over O’Connell Bridge and up O’Connell Street. Buses can use this bridge to go directly from Marlborough Street to Hawkins Street.Buses from the north quays can on crossing the bridge, exit the city via the south quays. At the moment, buses on the north quays coming from the west, come down the north quays, cross O’Connell Bridge, travel south on D’Olier Street, turn into Westmoreland Street and then make their turn back into the south quays, causing congestion. Those who turn right at Capel Street Bridge, into Parliament Street, turn left into , down Westmoreland Street and again left onto the south quays. An important function of this bridge is to remove some of the buses from D’Olier Street and Westmoreland Street. For buses that currently use the contra flow on Eden Quay to O’Connell Bridge and either into D’Olier Street and some then turn back into Westmoreland Street and down the south quays, and some head around Trinity College – these buses will be able to go via Hawkins Street into College Green or Townsend Street or up the south quays. Up to a hundred buses per hour, including Dublin Bus and others, will be removed from the major congested triangular area of D’Olier Street and Westmoreland Street. 6.32 It will provide an additional pedestrian bridge. O’Connell Bridge has very heavy pedestrian traffic. Butt Bridge does not have the best pedestrian linkages. The proposed bridge will have pedestrian crossings either side and will have a good route for pedestrians. 6.33 The bi-directional cycle track means that there is another linkage in the city centre cycle network. For example, for the , a whole series of cycle networks are being planned to link this with the rest of the city. The proposed bridge provides increased options; rather than having to take cyclists into the very heavy traffic areas. 6.34 There will be another set of traffic signals which need to be linked together. Regarding the north to south movement; during the time that O’Connell Bridge north to south and south to north is running there is no traffic that can turn onto Eden Quay at the moment – this is dead time when no traffic can come down the quays. That would be the time when Marlborough Street would be able to

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 21 discharge its traffic onto the quays and when the pedestrian crossings north/south can run. 6.35 South quays – are naturally stopped at O’Connell Bridge because it is the main O’Connell Street movement across into D’Olier Street and Westmoreland Street which is operational. Traffic signals can be discharged off the bridge and the Luas can move clean across the bridge from either Marlborough Street or from the quays into Hawkins Street or turning onto the south quays. 6.36 The SCAT traffic control system has been used to model the impact on the bridge on the general area. The impact is negligible, it fits into the shadow of the two bridges either side: Butt Bridge and O’Connell Bridge. 6.37 In response to questions the proposers stated that the Samuel Beckett Bridge will next year, reduce the amount of traffic in Pearse Street, and that turning onto this section of the south quays. 6.38 The bridge will give options as to how to route buses through this area and will interact well with other things that will happen in the future, such as Strand Street interchange or proposed developments such as Connolly Station interchange 6.39 In response to questions, it was stated that should the need arise, there is legislation available to Dublin City Council to make the brodge bus only. 6.40 A Dublin Bus representative gave information on the current bus routes which will use the proposed bridge. He received assurances that the design of the bridge allows for reverse flow: it can be used for south to north traffic. 6.41 The design also provides for full traffic loading. 6.42 A Railway Procurement Agency representative made a statement supporting the proposed development. 6.43 Update on other issues 6.44 The Sheehan Memorial will be relocated 4 to 5m from its existing location and a section 5 application has been prepared for its relocation. The family have been consulted. 6.45 Underwater archaeological surveys have been completed and were submitted to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a licence and also submitted to the Board; and have revealed nothing of note.

7 THE PLANNING CONTEXT 7.1 The National Development Plan, 2007-2013 provisions, in relation to transport, which includes increased emphasis on public transport, particularly in the Greater Dublin Area, are summarised in Appendix 4

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 21 7.2 Transport 21 – is the capital investment framework under the National Development Plan through which the transport system in Ireland is being developed, over the period 2006 to 2015. This framework has come to be referred to in its own right as Transport 21. Its includes objectives to extend the LUAS network; to develop the bus network to create a meshed network of services and reorient it to take account of rail developments; and to create a network of interchange points across the network to allow users transfer easily. The relevant provisions, of this document are summarised in Appendix 5 7.3 The Strategic Planning Guidelines for the GDA 2004 – 2016, seek to achieve a reduction in the growth in demand for transport and to place increasing emphasis in the future on transportation alternatives to the private car, particularly the rail network. The relevant provisions, of this document are summarised in Appendix 6. 7.4 A Platform for Change is The Dublin Transportation Office’s integrated transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2000 to 2016 published in November 2001 as a follow up to the Dublin Transportation Initiative. The strategy proposes that investment should be concentrated on: • developing, extending and increasing the capacity of the bus network by expanding the route network to include orbital and local routes, purchasing additional buses, providing additional Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs), extending and enhancing the existing QBCs and introducing other bus priority measures; • implementing the light rail network approved by Government in 1998 including the construction of the surface element of the proposed LUAS network from Tallaght to Connolly Station and from Sandyford to St Stephen’s Green; • exploiting much more fully the potential for development of the suburban rail network by purchasing additional rolling stock, quadrupling of track between Hazelhatch and Sallins, providing new stations and new depot facilities and resignalling between Howth and Dock; • promotion of transport integration through the provision of additional park and ride facilities and the introduction of integrated public transport ticketing and public transport interchange facilities; • completion and upgrading of the C-Ring (M50), Dublin Port Access Tunnel and national road projects; • implementation of non-national road projects of particular relevance to the achievement of DTI Strategy objectives; • provision of further cycle infrastructure and facilities; • implementation of traffic management measures (including measures to respond to the needs of mobility impaired and disabled people). 7.5 The Dublin Transportation Office is currently preparing a new Strategy to 2030 titled 2030 Vision and has completed a second round of public consultations. The relevant provisions, of the document, ‘A Platform for Change’, are summarised in Appendix 7.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 21 7.6 The Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 The Plan contained an objective to provide a pedestrian bridge from Marlborough Street to Hawkins Street. Variation (No. 27) of the Plan deleted reference to the pedestrian bridge and inserted an addition to the list of bridges under 7.8.0: ‘New Liffey bridge from Marlborough Street / Eden Quay to Hawkins Street / Burgh Quay.’ This variation was adopted 7 July 2008.

The relevant provisions, of these documents are summarised in Appendix 8.

8 ASSESSMENT 8.1 In regard to the proposed development I consider that the need for the proposed public transport priority bridge has been established in that:  The proposed development will form an integral part of the Luas BXD, as its return path north to south, complimenting the south to north route along O’Connell Street. This section of Luas is an important element of the planned city wide integrated public transport system.  The proposed bridge will facilitate improvements in public bus services, in particular, it will allow for rationalisation of city centre sections of routes. Where currently buses coming from the west of the city along the north quays, must, in order to return to the west via the south quays, manoeuvre from O’Connell Bridge through D’Olier Street and Westmoreland Street to the south quays, this movement will be simplified from north quay to south quay via the proposed bridge. Other routes which currently use Capel Street Bridge, Parliament Street, Dame Street and Westmoreland Street, can similarly use the proposed bridge.  The proposed bridge will serve the needs of pedestrians by providing a direct route between Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street. A high density of pedestrian traffic in the area has been identified and this activity extends east of O’Connell Bridge. Butt Bridge is not the focus of pedestrian routes and the approaches are dominated by vehicular traffic. The pedestrian environment at the location of the proposed bridge favours pedestrians and will allow for greater pedestrian usage of the adjoining streets, focusing on the new river crossing. The provision of seating, to create amenity use of the bridge, will enhance pedestrian traffic on the bridge. The opportunity to improve the cycle network in the city centre, by providing dedicated cycling lanes, thereby making the cycling experience safer and more attractive, will encourage greater participation in cycling as a mode of transport.  The proposed bridge will potentially facilitate increased commercial development in the city centre: Marlborough Street/Hawkins Street area.  The proposed development would also I consider, provide an important addition to the sustainable transport infrastructure of the city and the

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 21 facilitation and improvement of public transport and pedestrian and cycle linkages which is an objective of all the relevant plans and policies. 8.2 Two issues which form an integral feature of the development are hydrology and transportation. An assessment of these issues has been presented by Senior Inspector Danny O’Connor with which I concur. Mr O’Connor’s report is attached as Appendix 2.

9 CONCLUSIONS 9.1 I conclude as follows:

 The EIS together with information submitted as additional information and at the oral hearing gives a comprehensive description of the proposed development which allows for an adequate Environmental Impact Assessment to take place.  The issues associated with the further information have been satisfactorily dealt with in the response provided to the request and as augmented at the oral hearing.  The Road Authority, in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement, the presentation of further information and the evidence provided to the oral hearing, has complied with all statutory requirements.  The proposed development would facilitate the achievement of the objectives set out in the EIS.  The concept of providing a bridge at this location has existed for a considerable period of time.  The proposed bridge is a necessary part of Dublin’s transportation system  The provision of Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge is provided for in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. Variation No. 27.  In the design of the bridge, the applicants have had to accommodate a number of conflicting demands including the constraints of the Luas line and the existing road levels; and that the need for flood protection has been addressed to the extent possible.  Hydraulic modelling has been carried out.  The OPW have expressed the view that the modelling, which ignores the presence of bridges upstream, represents correct but not conservative design. It is to be noted that the applicants must procure a licence from the OPW before carrying out the proposed development.  The design is acceptable in visual terms.

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 21 10 RECOMMENDATION

10.1 I recommend that the proposed road development be approved for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to a) the likely effects on the environment of the proposed bridge development as described in the EIS and in evidence tendered and submissions made prior to and during the Oral Hearing, b) to the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS as amended and updated by further information and at the Oral Hearing, c) the layout of the Luas network and the inadequacy of Dublin Bus routes in the area, d) the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 e) the provisions of the National Development Plan 2007-2013, the Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 1999, the provisions of Transport 21 and A Platform for Change it is considered that the proposed development would, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, not have significant adverse effects on the environment, and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the proposals, commitments, and mitigation measures set out in the EIS accompanying the application for approval.  Reason: To mitigate the environmental effects of the development.  A detailed method statement shall be prepared outlining the methodology of the Quay wall removal, the procedures to be undertaken from time of removal to reinstatement. A comprehensive photographic survey of the Quay walls shall be undertaken prior to the commencement of the construction of the bridge. This method statement and survey shall be submitted to Department of Environment and Local Government and shall be made available by the road authority for public inspection. a qualified archaeologist shall be

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 21 engaged at the developer’s expense to oversee the removal and reinstatement of the quay wall and its associated fixtures Reason: To ensure that best practice is observed in carrying out the works on the Quay Walls and to provide a record of the architectural and archaeological heritage of the Quay Walls.

 A liaison committee shall be set up by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development and shall continue for the duration of the development; which should include representation from the Railway Procurement Agency, Dublin Bus, the Office of Public Works, taxi drivers’ representatives and representatives of City Centre business interests as well as Dublin City Council personnel.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate consultation and that timely relevant information is available to interested parties

______Dolores McCague Senior Planning Inspector 9th July 2009

PL29NHA0022 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 21