3. National Roads Authority (NRA) submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 SUBMISSION BY THE NAllONAL ROADS AUTHORlfY TO AN BORD PLEANALA ORAL HEARING FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF urn BWthre NdisiOnta ALEXANDRA BASINDUBLIN PORT ~&nol Roods Autho~ity

INTRODUCTION My name is Tam Spain, Senlor Poliey Adviser (Planning) with the National Roads Authority and I will be ztsslsted at this hearing by Eoin 6 Cathdifl of Roughan & O'Donwan Consulting Engineen, who will addm issues with regard to the project and national road &ems.

The National Roads Authority was established on the 1" January 1994 under the provisions of the Roads Act, 1893 and was given the remit of overall responsibility for the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads. As the Board is aware, the National Roads Authority is charged with the construetlon and maintenrrnee of a safe and flcient natlonal road network. Aligmd to this function, the NRA as a statutay consultee, and, in accordanw with the DoECLG Spatial Planning and National ReGuldslines QOlZ), considers there is a critical ndto assess, rnmate and plan for ths interface betwesn potsnth1 development proposals, and the national road network to ensure development is &red for in a manmthat Is complementary to and mistentwith the stmteglc transport function of the national mad network in this am.This function includes the safeguarding of the delirabiltty of future stramie schemes.

With ward to this development and thls hearing, the National Roads Authotity wishes to reiterate our position as stated In our submission remains. However, we propose to pmsent a short pmpamd brief which Is In two parts as follows:

A. General Issue&with respect to the interface between the proposal and the national roads network 1.9. Dublin Tunnel (formerly known as Dublin Port Tunnel), designated as the MSO Motorway;

6. [Future] Dublin Eastern Bypass Motofway, which will pr0~ld8a complementary southern access route to the Port area, connecting to the Dublin Tunnel to complete a 48krn orbital motorway of Dublin.

For inspection purposes only. A. DUBLIN TUNNEL Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. The Dublin Tunnel is one of the largest and most complex Inhstructural projects to have been undertaken in the history of the State. The Tunnel provides direct access to Dublin Port for HGV traMc from the national road network and, in conjunction with Dublin City Council's HGV management strabegy, provides for a significant reduction in the number of HGV movements on Dublin's streets. The Nationat Roads AutWis charged with managing the opmtbn and maintenance of the Dublln Tunnel, an im-nt aspect of which Is managing Its capacity to cater for current and Mure transportation citywide demands.

I. Functlon of Dublln Tunnel The Authority notes the statement on Page 8-34 of the EIS which states that the Dublin Tunnel was constructed to accommodate tdcto /from Dublin Port. As outllned in this submission while this is tnre in the short term, the Dublin Tunnel is an important aspect of both existing and Mure planning and transportation pollcy for the entire Ci and Region. This is especially true with respd to the future Eastern Bypaw and therefom this future function of the Dublin Tunnel must be reoognised and protected.

II. Capacity of Dublln Tunnel The Authority is concerned with the assumptions and methodology used for calculating the =pacity of Dublin Tunnel in the US. In particular, the Authority strongly disagrees with the asserted capacity of the Dublin Tunnel of 172,800 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic).

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 It is noted that the oapac'e asserted in the EIS is the equivalent of one vehide per lane seconds over a 24 hour period. The Authority advises that this very signitieantly Dublin Tunnel's capacity.

Firstfy, it is a distortion to calculate capacity over a 24 hour period. While there is a certain justification in the aeof Port traffic, which can k& managed to some dq~eby the timing of shjp arrivals and deparkures, it is not applicable to the many other traffic types that use the tunnel. Secondly, even for a surface motomy, the figure of 3.800 vehicles per direction per hour (for 2 lanes) applies to cars only* Conversion factow should be applied to larger vehicles to account for the greater amount of road space they occupy. Capacity is also affected by gradient6 due to the effect of targer vehicles [and it Is easily obmnrd travelling through the Dublin Tunnel that larger vehldes slow down on the uphill sections].

Thirdly, and most impodantly, the capacity of a tunnel is not equivalent to that of a surface road and is conatrained by, inter alia:

Dublin Tunnel B~e-taws.Minimum vehicle spacing requimments specified In the Dubln Tunnel Bye - Laws - affeded by chevrons in the Dublin Tunnel. Them is a requirement for headway spacing of:

150m (4 chevrons) for dangerous goods vehicles; 100m (3 chevrons) for heavy goods vehicles; and 50m (2 chevrons) for cars.

These equate to headways of 6.75~,4.5sand 2.25s respectively, considerably greater than the 2s headway assumed in Me EIS;

Ventilation and ememsncv access I escaPe related concerns. Fire Safety considerations require the capacity of funnels to be carefully managed. New EU requirements were introdwad in 2004 on foot of the Mont Blanc Tunnel fire and several other tunnel fires. Risk reduction measums implemented on foot of this Directive include the maintenance of good standads of traffic flow at all times through the Dublin tunnel. That is to say, congested trfic conditions cannot be tolerated within the tunnel extents. It is noted that the capacity asserted in the ForEIS inspection for the purposes proposed only. development would represent a 24 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. hour constantly saturated trafic environment on a surface motorway. Downstmam traffic canaclty limitations. Downstream congestion cannot be allowed to propagate back into the tunnel because of the increased incident risk in the tunnel. The safety case of the Dublin Tunnel requires that tmfRc is prevented from entering a tunnel bore once congestion oc~ursonly to re-open on- freer flow resumes. Taking the above into cornidemtion, the actual mpacity of the Dublin Tunnel is a fraction of that asserted in the EiS and varies based on the composition of traffic flow and the capacity d the downstream network to receive the trafftc flows. From this analysis and In view of the dear dependency of the Port on the Dublin Tunnel, it is strongly recommended that the Dublin Port Company liaise directly with the NRA with respect to any transport modelling and mitigation measures for the development of the Port Company Masferplan with a view to identifying an appropriate means of quantifying and managing the capacity implications for the Dublin Tunnel.

The Authority requests that, should the Board be minded to grant permission for the proposed development, that the following cundition be added:

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 *. , , Condition: A scheme of specific demand management measurns for the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012 - 2040 shall be prepared by the Developer in consuitation with the Natbnal Roads Authority pdbr to the commencement of development. The final agreed scheme ofspecific demand management measures including Implementation schedule shall be submitted the planning authorrty for appmval prior to the operational phase of the development.

Reason: In the interests ofmanaging and protecting the safety, @efficiencyand capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road Network in the Region'

111. lmpIications of Proposal Construction Trafnc In the Dubiln Tunnel. The Authortty understands that the primary access route for construction traffic to the proposed development would be via the Dublin Tunnel. Appropriate measures should be defined and required to prevent the deposkion of constnrction dirt or dust in the Tunnel.

The Authority requests that, should the Board be minded to grant permission for the proposed development, that the following condition be added:

Condition: Prior to the commencement of any development, the Developer shall Iiaise with the Natfonal Roads Aufhonfy and the operators of the Dublin Tunnel to prepam and agree a Consfnrction Traffic Management Strategy for the Dublin Tunnd for the duration offheWorks,

Reason: In the interesfs of managing and protecting the safety, efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road Network in the Region. B. EASTERN BYPASS The key strategic objective in fhe development of the Eastern Bypass Is the delivery of a north south linkage on the eastern side of Dublln City to alleviate increasing congestion on north- south routes through the city, to provide congestion relief to roads in the southern eastern quadrant of the city and to provide an ajternative to the heavily trafficked M50 rnoionrvay on the west side ofthe city. The Dublin Eastern Bypass would complete a full ring motorway for the city for strategic traffic by closing the 11km long gap that exists on the south-eastern side between the Dublin Tunnel and the M50. The completion of a full orbital motorway will provide far greater flexibility and resilience In Forthe inspection Dublin's purposes national only. road network, benefiting both the Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. city and the region. The Eastern Bypass would also address the long term access requirements of Dublin Port, and would avoid singular dependency on the Dubln Tunnel, which has limited capacity to accommodate its multitude of cwdefunctions.

In addition, the Eastern Bypass, if proceeded with, can provide national road connectivity to servlce the expansion and redevelopment of the Poolbeg peninsula I South Port area, which would otherwise be entirely dependent on the existing local road Infrastructure in the area

Various feasibility studies were cornmlssioned on the Eastern Bypass throughout the 1980s and 19gOs. The NRA commissioned a major study on the Eastern Bypass in 2001 with a view to progressing the project to €IS and pfanning stages. This study was suspended In 2002 and reactivated in 2005. The study culminated in the preparation of a Feasibility Report, which was delivered to the Minister for Transport in 2007. The Government has not yet made a decision whether or not to further advance the project since the completion of the Feasibility Study.

The MRA issued Corridor Protection Studies to the relevant planning authorities in 2009. The purpose of Corridor Protection Studies Is to define a set of appropriate guidelines for developments near or adjacent to the proposed route corridors wlth a view to permitting certain

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 :r. development of the adjacent lands without undermining the future deliveraMt~jlof fie motaway scheme. "3s The Corridor Protection Study for Sector A of the Eastern BYP~Maddresses the section of proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass that would lie within the Dublin Port amftm the existing 'a Dublin Tunnel to the southern shoreline of the Palkg Peninsula. me current Dun Lawhaire ~athdmCounty Development Plan includes s reservation for the section of the proposed Dublin Eastern mass located within iQ j~tbdMi~n. 1. statutory Policy The need for a Mum Eastern Bypass of Dublin is mqnised in the main ptanning poliw documents governing the development stmtegy for the city and region, in particular:

The Regional Planning Guidelines; DMNTA 2030 VWon (Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 201 1 - 2030) w Dublln City Development Plan 201 I - 2017 Wispecific regard to the Dublin City Development Plan 201 1 - 26117, the Author@ notes the current wording of the Plan: states

?A nunher of key road cspacity impmvaments erre mquired to faclifate ihe susta!irablw movement of goods and pew@throughout the city and to ensum ease of access.

It Q the policy of Dublin City Council:

"NIB To suppod the pmvisbn of a link between north Dubiin M and the Southem Cm&outh Eastern Motoway via an eastem bypass ofthe cny, In conjunctton and e operation with offiertmnsport Bodies, the N-al Roads Auth* afld lmI authorities. The pre- method is by means of e bored tunnel and the pMrred mute Is under Sandymourrt and Meprlon Strand end Boder&wn Marsh. Howevet; the route and detailed design of the IInk mad will Be subjed to en Envir#nm8ntal Impact Assessment and all stdutoty mquirements, including a public mnsurtation process, by the relevant aufhmihs. An Apprqpriate Assessment of the proposed project for the entim mute is ah0 mquimd in ammdance wkh the Habitats Directive*"

For inspection purposes only. The Dublln City Council DevelopmentConsent of copyright plan ownermap required includes for any other an use.indlcatlve route. However, the current wording in the City Development Plan is not, in the Authority's view, fully compatible wlth the Authority's recently publjshed Corridor Proteetion Study.

2. Eastern Bypaas & Alexandra Basln Redevelopment Project The Authority broadly supports Dublin Port Company in its development aspirations Aich will support ongolng economic development in the re@on. HOwWer, ths Author@ must have regard to its own abIigatIons to adguard the existing and future national road network The Authority has particular concerns in relalion to tk Eastern Bypass, which will be one of the largest and most complex infmtructural undettaklngs in the history of the State. It is -Mat that the future deliverability ofthls scheme be ensured to benefd the Dublin city and wider region.

The Authority notes the content of the Appendix 4 to the Pbnning Report far the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project (Alexandra Bash Redevelopment Project and a Possible Future Eastm Bypas@ and weimmes Dublin Port Company's statemant of support for the construction of an Eastern Bypass. The AuthMity further notes reference the pmcthre engagement that has taken place betwgen the Authority, Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council to identify a technically feadblrs mute cowidor for the Eastern Bypass that would permit the prior advancement of the Alexandra minRedevelopment Project.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Pfirnary pedesfrian and cycle access should be amended to access the LUAS Plaza /Terminus noflh of the 3 Arena,

In the interests of fhe protection of the Eastern Bypass Corridor.

As outlined in this submission, the National Roads Authority will continue to take all reasonable measums to protect the capacity of Dublln Tunnel and also a route corridor for the Eastern Bypass, in line with national regional and local planning policy.

The Authority considers that a technically feasible route corridor has been identified for the Eastern Bypass that would allow the s~heme'6delivery after the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. Confimafion of statutory protection for this revlsed corridor has not been concluded.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 . fore, in the opinion of the Authority, pending the outcome of this collaborathrs process, fie- policy outlind in the NRA Dublin Eastern Bypars Corridor Pmtedion Study fye ublin Port funnel to Sandymount Strand March 2009 and City Development Plan will and rernaln in place until the appropriate statutory protection for this newly identihd corridor PisDULto fl asencompleted. /as b -ever, if the Board is minded to grant parmission for the proposed development, that the rQllovuruving conditions be added: f fizs:",Yofspeoific demand management measures for the Dublin Port Company MastepIan - 2040 shall be prepand by the Developer in consultation with the National Roads %& Mly. pdor lo the commencement oldeusloprnent The find sgmd scheme dspeC endmanagement rneasures induding implementation schedule shall be submitted the dEflins authority for approval prror to the operational phase of the dsvelqpment. P on: In the interests of managing and protecting the safety, efficiency and capacity ofthe ~snTunnel and the N~tional Road Network in the Regfon' D

"priofl to the commencement of any development, the Developer shall IIaise with the Nationel poa&s AuthonYy end the opemtws ofthe Dublin Tunnel to prepare and agree a Consfnrctbn wff*-G Management Strategy for the Dublin Tunnd for the duration of the W&sn ~ea@O"' ,,,,tn e intemds of managing and pmtec~ngthe sate&, etWency and capacdy of the Dublin el and the Nationsl Road Newm the Rwh' ' Tun- Con&ition: uj%e proposed development, and any further development of lands in the ownersh$ or control ofDoblin Port Company, shaU be undertaken strictly in acmdance dth the requirements of l~etionaiRoads Authorilyk Conidw ProfecfimStudy Sedor A: Dublin Tunnel to S8ndymount Strend September 2014, including he profeetion of the Eastern Bypew Conidor in di~ated. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. ~-5~~: tm e in fewO' pmper planning end sustainable development '

sty pedeW8n adcyde mssshouid be amended to access the LUAS PIBIB /reminUS north dthe 3 Arena.

trusts that the foregoing comments prove of assistance to the Board in dealing

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21

4. Dublin City Council submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 Submlsrion to the Onl Hearing for the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Beas 52 and 53, Dublin 1 - submitted under Section 37 E(4) of the Plannlng and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006

TRii submission on behalf of the Planning Authority does not include the full content of the original report which generally welcomed the proposals to redevelop Alexandra Basin. Instead, it provides a brief overview of the CiCouncil's posklon, a summary of the Planning Authoritfs comments in relation to the additional information requested on 7" July and submitted on 18'" August and highlights some outstanding issues.

Polcy Context

As Indicated in the earlier submission to An Bord PlesnaIa, there is a strong policy context to support the development proposal which I think should be reiterated.

Dublln City Development Plan 201 1-2017

7he Dublin City Development Plan is supportive of Dublin Port, recugnising the important mle it plays in the economy and development of Dublin Ci and Region. Thls positlon is expressed in sewral policies and objectives of the Development Plan. The general context is sat out in chapter 4 which states that Dublin Clty Couna7 firlly supporfs and recognises the important national and reglionel I& of Dublln Port m the ecomIcI/& of the city and the mgion and the consequent need in economic mmpetltlveness and employment terms to fadifate port actMswhich may h&8 port development or relocatb in dhe longer term. Dublin Port Wil have a slgnkant mk to play h the futum development and growth of the city and it i8 conshmd prudent to plan the sfnrctum of this part of the My, Including the For inspection purposes only. proposed public hnspd netwlw9GConsent to of&I& copyright integrate owner required with for anythe other developing use. new city strueturn and character, while having regard to the Dublin Cliy Council Study, uD~bIinBay, An Integrated Economh, Cultural and Social Vislon for Sustainable Development (2007)".(4.4.1.2)

The Plan goes on to state in Claapter 8 that as the capital dty, it it VRBI that Dublin continues to grow and operate on an internatha1 scale ...... ,.. and develops as a dynamic clty region with su8fdent &tical mass in order to compete at an intemaHond level and fuMl it8 deas the national gateway and key economic driver of growth for the Greater Dublin t~glon and the country as 8 whole.

In this respect, it mrcst be achawledged that the development of a modem, efficient, accmible and highly connwtd port is essential for the growth of the economy of hedty, the city region and the country as a whole.

The development plan also acknowl~esthat .... The National Spatial Sratew (NSSJ end=$ msolidath, investment in public tmnspoft, and the need to supporf the nationel roles of Dublin Airpat and Dublin Port (8.0).

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 Land Use Zoning Objective - 27

The land use zoning objective also supports the development and expansion of port related activity, The lands associated with the proposed development are covered by the 27 zoning objective which seeks to provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses, and facilitate opportunities for employment creation. The Development Plan indicates that most of the 27 lands are located in the port area and that port related industries and facilities are permitted uses on these lands.

Natural Heritage I Dublin Bay

However, while, the proposed development may be permitted under the zoning objective and supported by the core strategy of the Plan and other policies and objectives, it is acknowledged that any assessment must also have regard to all relevant policies and objectives of the development plan (and legislation) including those seeking to profeet and enhance the city's rich natural environment as well as built heritage. In this respect, the Development Plan rewgnises that Dublin Bay is a major resource for the city desenring of appropriate management, containing three internationally recognised biodiversity designations. A report enfiled 'Dublin Bay - An lntegrafed Economic, Cultural and Soda/ Vision for Sustaina bk Developmenf' was produced by the Council in 2007, and Dublin Bay Task Force was established in 2008 to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Dublin Bay. This plan is still awaited, in the meantime, it is the policy of the City Council to:

GC23 To m-operate with Dublin Bay Task Force (DBTF) to work towards developing a framework for Coastal Zone Management Plan for Dubln Bay, developing a detailed masterplan, and identifying new opportunities for enhancing Dublin Bay as a resource

GC24 To seek the continued improvement For inspection of water purposes only.quality, bathing facilities and other Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. recreational opportunities in the coastal, estuarine and surfacewaters in the city and to protect the ecology and of Dublin Bay.

The Development Plan also identifies Dublin Bay as a major resource for the city desenring of appropriate management. There are four special designations of sites which apply to different parts of Dublin Bay, including Bull Island under National and European legislation: (i) Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive to support populations of birds of parttcuiar spedes; (ii) Candidate Special Area of Conservation wildlife consewation areas to support habitats and piant and animal species and; (iii) Proposed Natural Heritage Area of nationally important natural or semi-natural habitats, landforms or physical features, wild plant and animal species or a diversity of these natural attributes;(iv) Bull Island is also designated as a nature reserve, Ramsar site, wildfowl sanctuary, Unesco biosphere resenre and Special Amenity Area.

Relevant policies in the development plan relating to these designations and to their protection are GC23, GC25, GC28, GC27.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 Other Relevant Policies10bjectives

Them are also other relevant policies and objectives in the development plan which should be taken into consideration including:

St19 :To support the provision of a link between north Dublin Port and the Southern CrosslSouth Eastern Motoway via an eastern bypass of the city, in conjunction and co- operation with other transport bodies, the National Roads Authority and local authorities. The preferred method is by means of a bored tunnel and the preferred route is under Sandymount and Merrion Strand and Booterstown Marsh. However, the route and detailed design of the link road will be subject to an Environmenhl Impact Assessment and all statutory requirements, including a public consultation process, by the relevant authorities. An Appropriate Assessment of the proposed project for the entire route is also required in accordance with the Habitats Directive

RE016 :To examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the Poolbeg area and Dublin Port, including a review of the current disembarking point and its connectivity with the city and the development of tour options for visitors within the city and set out recommendations.

Objective RE016 is also supported in a number of other plans, including;

The Cruise Traffic and Urban Regenedon Project

The Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration project was established under the URBACT II Ell programme and provides for the development of local integrated strategies (Local Action Plans) for cruise tourism opportunities connected to the sustainable development and regeneration of deprived or under-Wised areas on the waterfront.

The overall goal of the local Area Plan Foris toinspection develop purposes a only. strategy for the development of cruise Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. traffic and urban regeneration of city port heritage as a key for sustainable economic, social and urban deveiopment. The Objectives of the Local Action Plan are:

To transform, regenerate and adapt the physical and environmental components of the Port area in order to improve connectivity between the port and the city centre To rnaxlmise the potential of cruise traffic and port heritage as a tool to achieve social and economic regeneration 8 To plan and manage thecruise development within a global city project

The C.T.U.R. LAP also contains the following Specific Objective I and Action 1.1:

Specific Objective 1: To transform, regenerate and adapt the physical and environmental components of the port. a Action 1.1: To prove a cruise terminal and improve connectivity between the port and city.

The development of cruise tourism is also supported by:

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 The North Lotts & Grand Canal Dock PlannIng Scheme 2014

The North Lotts & Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme, a statutory planning scheme, recognises the importance of cruise tourism in Section 4.9.4.6

Taking advantage of the cruise traffic from Dublin Pod

.I- -- Crur'se tourism fs one of the fastest growing sectors of world travel and DUB~as a destination has increased significantly in the last decade with record cwise vessels numbers in 2010. Despite the current challenges to the economy, the number of cruise vessels visiting Dublin City continues to grow. An esslinafed 7.7rnl/lion ferry and cruise paSS8ngerS pass through Dublin Pot7 every yeaK The SDZ area is at the door step of this traffic and should position Itself so as to provide variety of tourism offeting for visitors

The Planning Scheme includes the following objectives:

TL5: To facilitate the cruise trafficcoming into Dublin and encoumg8 the timing of planned events and festivals to.wincide with cruise ship calls at Dublin Port

PR~2:'To support the provision of a suifable feminaj for cruise liners and other passenger vessels For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. with Dublin Pod

Finally, in relation to the more general policy context and in addition to the development plan and other plans identified above, the Planning Authority also acknowledges the relevance of other local and national glans including

The Dublin Port Masterplan- 2012-2040 - a non-statutory plan b

The National Port Policy 2013

National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 (NSS)

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 Planning Assessment

General PIanning

The current proposal to increase capacity at the Port complies with the stated aims of the City Development Plan, as well as the National Development Plan. The proposed development is also in compliance with the zoning objective, as it provides for port related facilities and activities which are permitted uses, The Planning Authority also recognises that the current proposal which wlll facilitate an increase in the capacity in the port will ultimately enhance the economic life of the city which is a core aim of the City Development Plan. The proposal to focus this phase of development on an area historically associated with port based activities is also welcomed, as critically, it will minimise the extent of any physical impacts on the character and amenities of the coastal xonelbay and will also allow for greater physical connectivity with the city and the reuse of existing resources.

In respect of the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Schema and the CTUR LAP, it would appear that the primary objective to grow cruise traffic can be realised as a result of the proposed developrnant, whereby an increase in cruise traffic together with improved connectivity between the port and city can be achieved. However, it is noted that the proposal does not provide for a cruise terminal buildingimulti-functional building, and the lack of any details indicating how the proposed development would impact upon the future delivery of such a structure are not fully addressed. The Planning Authority, therefore, would still request that this matter be addressed in the event of permission being granted or at least ensure that the implementation of the Part X application, if permitted as proposed, would not prejudice the future development of a cruise terminal building, or a multi-functional building which could operate as a reception building of cruise ships and would be required to agree the designation of an area which could accommodate guch a facilrty and safely provide access, vehicular routes and parking for buses, taxis, etc., which would senre the cruise

ships, For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

In summary on this issue, Ithink that it is important to emphasiss that Dublin City Council considers the ongoing expansion of cruise tourism as being of vital importance to the further development of Dublin as a significant tourist destination and major contributor to the growth of the city's economy.

Consewatlon and the Built Heritage

The Planning Authority recognises that Alexandra Basin and the North Quay Wall extension whigh terminates in a steel lighthouse is a receiving environment of considerable industrial heritage value and an illustration of significant engineering woks. Within the basin, the YA Graving Dock is also of considerable heritage value. While it is acknowledged that Dublin's North Wall Quay is a protected structure (ref: 5835 - 'Granite ashlar quay walls, stone setts, mooring rings, steps, bollards, lamp standards and machinery). It must be emphasised that the North Wall Quay Extension is not designated in

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:21 the Record of Protected Structures. There are no other structures in the development area on the Record of Protected Structures including any machinery or the lighthouse.

The Planning Authority accepts that the modem economic unit of sea transport is a large vessel of deep draft and that it is a prerequisite of a modem port that the channel is of sufficient depth to enable large vessels to enter and leave in safety at all stages of the tide. In the same context, it recognises the requirement for ample berthing facilities for mooring, loading and unloading for vessels of escalating size. The Planning Authority acknowledges that the port of Dublin is continuafly evolving and that in the past, this evolution has been marked by significant engineering achievements, As always, the major challenge lies in managing this change in such a way that allows for the retention of character and special interest, always a primary aspiration of good heritage consenration.

In this case the strategic importance of the port and its capacity to continue to fulfil its role must be balanced against the demolition of a section of the North Wall Quay extension, a structure of some significance, Therefore, in order to facilitate the development of a modern and efficient port that supports the economy of the crty region and the country, the Planning Authority accepts the necessrty for the demolition of part of the quay wall white welcoming the following works which will provide some mitigation on the consenration front:

Improved access toEwihin the working port which will be a means for developing awareness of cunural heritage and the historic role of the port.

Restoration of Graving Dock I,constructed in 1860 of Dalkey granite which will be excavated and exposed. A conservation proposal for the pump Rouse has been included as part of the proposals. The consawatlon of the jib cranes as examples of industrial heritage. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. The salvaging and placing in a publicly accessible position beside the new interpretative centres of an intact 350 tonnes Bindon Blood Stoney concrete caisson.

The creation of consewation zones three metres wide and capped with open mesh flooring are to be left within the upper level of the steel wall structure to permit views of the original construction.

The relocation and opening up of the lighthouse structure life as an interpretative zone on the newly shaped North Wall Quay Extension with the original granite blocks re-used to face the adjacent quay front.

The salvaging of granite setts which will highlight the consenration areas along the quay wall.

The retention of modem Industrial heritage of technical interest such as the caissons designed by an engineer Mallagh within a deeper quay facing.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Roads and Traffic

As already indicated in the original report submitted to An Bord Pleanala, the Roads and Traffic Planning Division has assessed the proposaf and is supportive of the proposed development and the Masterplan for the overall consolidation and growth of Dublin Port.

The strategic objectives of the Masterplan in so far as they relate to movement are consistent with DCC policies and objectives. In relation to integration of the port with the city these objectives include the achievement of dose integration with the City and people of Dublin through a commitment to respect soft values associated with the location, operation and impact of the Port; the promotion of movement linkages in the form of pedestrian and cycle routes and the enhancement of the general aestheticstvisual impact of the Port around the interface wjth the City.

In terms of general movement and access the objecfives include provision for a public transport route to serve passengers and those working within the Port to improve the modal transport split; the development of a transport plan for the Port Estate in conjunction with the National Transport Authority and Dublin City Council; the promotion of non-motarised sustainable transport modes, including cycling and walking; the maximisation of the use of rail transport for goods to and from the Port; the promotion of the provision of future transport infrastructure that facilitates shipping and related Port activities and the enhancement of existing infrastructure to provide dedicated accesslexxit routes to Port facilities.

While supportive of the proposed development there are aspects of the proposal that will require further agreement with Roads & Traffic Department. Specifically the timing of the closures of the accesses from East Wall Road and traffic management measures at this location. It is acknowledged that the proposed closure of the accesses from East Wall Road will reduce port traffic along this route. Roads & Traffic Division will have to be satisfied that the internal network is capabia of accommodating the additional traffic before the proposed access closures. In this respect, the Planning For inspection purposesAuthority only. recommends that a condition be Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. attached to the permission if granted requirfng the timing of the closures to be agreed with DCC.

Work is advancing on the preparation of plans for the signalisation of the Point roundaboutljunction with North Wall Quay including the provision of pedestrian facilities. However, It Is considered that It would not be appropriate to concentrate pedestrian and cyclist access to the port at this location until such time as improved facilities are available. Again, it is recommended that a condition be attached to permission if granted requiring the applicant to agree details of the final pedestrian and cycle routes from East Wall Road with Roads & Traffic Department. Eastern By Pass The submitted documentation indicates that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of delivering the Dublin Eastern By Pass in the medium to long term and facilitates a potential alignment along the western boundary of the port,

The Dublin City Development Plan 201 1-2017 shows an indicative alignment only for the Eastern By Pass. Dublin City Council has been party to discussions regarding the emerging 7

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 alignment for the Eastern By Pass. The focus of discussions was to identify a technically feasible corridor for the by pass that would not preclude the development of the Alexandra Basin. The technically feasible corridor identified in the Engineering and Urban Design study lies to the west of, but does not conflict with, the indicative alignment as shown in the City Development Plan Map.

DCC is aware of the Draft Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand which indicates the latest alignment of the Eastern Bypass Corridor prepared by the NRA. It is the Council's understanding that this identifies a technically feasible route corridor that would allow the scheme's delivery after the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project.

In summary on this matter;

The submitted documentation indicates that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of delivering the Dublin Eastern By Pass in the medium to long tern and facilitates a potential alignment along the western boundary of the part.

The Planning Authority considers that the corridor review carried out by the NRA gives greater clarity to the alignment of the potential corridor.

It is not considered that this proposed corridor constitutes a material change to the development plan which indicates that the alignment as shown Is indicative only. Any proposal for the route will be subject to a full separate planning process which will include the preparation of an EIA which will determine the exact alignment and detail of the Eastern Bypass and will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment.

Environment I Ecology

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. The following comments are from the Parks Services of Dublin City Council.

Marine Mammals

The Parks Service notes from the applicant's own assessment that the potential impacts on marine mammals may be severe and include potential fatality (due to collision), behaviour disruption including breeding patterns, feeding resources being limited and navigational patterns being disrupted during feeding.

Furthermore, it appears from Section 3.4.3 of the NIS report that the NPWS Guidelines (20131, which require exclusion zones of 500m for demolition and dredging activities and 1000m for piling activities, will necessitate inclusion of several Nafura 2000 sites within the exdusion area. Based on Table 2.1 of the NIS, these include: Site 4006 - North Bull island SPA which is 0.4 km from Dublin Port and is used daily by harbour and grey seals for breeding and haul-out. Site 4024 - South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA which is 0 krn from DuMin Port and is used by seals and harbour porpoise. 8

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Site 3000 - Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC which includes the Burford Bank disposal site and is designated for Harbour Porpoise.

DCC is also aware of usage by seals of the LifFey Estuary and its tidal extent to Islandbridge.

Therefore in light of the above. DCC reauesfs that the ~otenfialnoise im~actzones should be mamed h accordance with the distances stated in the assessment and in relation to fhe Natura 2000 site boundaries, so that it can be clearlv shown where the key impacts are to pccur with reaard to the Natura 2000 srtes of Dublin Bey. These zone mam should include gach saecies and their known usaae of and ranae within Dublin Bav.

The Applicant has proposed to adhere to guidelines from the NPWS (2013) to minimise risk of direct injury to marine mammals. These state that 'noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring.. . has been achieved' (NIS p. 59). In order to address potential issues of MMO Fatigue and as recommended by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group,

DCC wests that davfime hours are dearlv defined in terms of when olaeratlons can commence q~dcease mataM mrtiuafron.. * measures should be ~naccordance wrth Guidance to Manaae the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in lrish Waters IJanuan, 20141.

Since there would also be major benefd for the provision for the timely publication of MM0 reports.

. * *. BcC rmuests that the record of mondom which 1s subm Med to ihe NPWS (NfSD. 57) be pubjished ~ubliclvby the Amlicant and tbat the A~~iicantshall submit the data to the NBDC for the Mafine Mammal Datdbase, in the national interest.

For inspection purposes only. Harbour Porpolse Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

In regard to harbour porpoise, DCC is concerned to ensure the preservation of a nationally important site at Dublin Bay for the species protected under the Habiats Directive. As the species most likely to be impacted and of the greatest concern of cetaceans is the harbour porpoise. This is because Dublin Bay is a site of national importance for the species. It is protected under Annex I1 and IV of ffie Habitats Directive. The species is sensitive to shipping disturbance and so dredging activity will impact upon it potentially.

Seals (Response to Section 4.7 of RFI)

No comprehensive survey of seals has been done for Dublin Bay, which has been excluded from the NPWS national sunreys. Since the data is sporadic, it is not possible to make any scientific statements on usage of the Bay or North Bull Island. The Irish Seal Sanctuary holds their own data on the populations at North Bull Island which has not been included in heassessment but would be useful for reference. The Parks Service also recommends that that the! applicant have regard to the City Council's Management Plan (2008) for the North Bull Island National Special Amenity Area. This stated that 3040 seals were observed 9

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 regularly using the site as a haul-out and that it is a location for breeding. The following is an excerpt from the SAAO Management Plan: 'There are regularly between 3040 seals (mixed group with Common Sea0 that haul out at the tip of the island or on sandbanks that are exposed at low tlde in this area. Grey Seals are breeding at this location (Brendan Price, Irish Seal Sanctuary, pers. comm., 20081, Both Grey Seals and Common Seals (also known as Harbour Seal) haul out at the tip of North Bull lsland in a mixed group. Common Seals are more common during the summer. Common Seais also breed at this location (Niall Harmey, NWVS, pers. comm., 2008). The conservertion status of Grey Seal and Common Seal in Ireland has been assessed as favourable. Excessive disturbance at key breeding and haul-out sites is listed as a signfieant negative impact (NPWS 2008). One notable issue is that North Bull lsland is not included in any of the recent population censuses of both these species (Lyons 2004, Cronin et a/. 2004, O'Cadhla ef a!. 2007). It is recommended that NPWS includes this site in any future censuses of Seal populations on the east coast of Ireland.'

Therefom, the usage of north Dublin Bay and beyond for breeding must be fully taken into account. With regard to the information provided by Mr. Pat Corrigan, DCC Parks Services, he wishes to clam to the Board his remarks as quoted in the RFI. The report states that 'up to 30 seals regularly use the site to haul out'. Mr. Corrigan ernphasises that the regular population is 30 seals, and that this is not the maximum numkr. He also wishes to emphasise that North Bull lsland is definitely a breeding site, not just a haul-out. The RFI states only that he 'recorded tvhiie coats' (pups)'. The site is used continuously for breeding for over the past 15 years, based on Mr, Corrigan's observation in his work. It is also used by the trish Seal Sanctuary, in agreement with DCC, for seal rescue.

It is also noted that the seal survey at North Bull lsland took place on one day only, in August 2014, which is inadequate to assess usageFor inspection of purposesthe site. only. The site has had consistent usage by Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. seals as a haul-out since the publication in 1914 of the Rothschild report.

The Parks Service also haa concerns about linking seal numbers or presenm with just tidal states. DCC surveyed recreational disturbance during psak summer months in 2014 and found that there is quite a bit of disturbance by dogs off lead and by humans in the zone nearest the haul-out site. The disturbance levels are seasonal, with peak summer months being busiest on the Island. We need to assess this further. However, it is evident that factors other than tides may influence seal presence at the site throughout the day and year. Having regard to the concerns raised above,

DCC muests that: The rnonitorim of Bull Island as nut forward bv the consultant marine emjoaist to the Aad lic b a effectiveness of mitkatio~measures it is mmmmended that the AmIicd underfakes monthly m~niton'naof seal haul out sites be camed ouf at Norfh Bull

Iaf an ' ce ta as fwo wars nost-consfruction in lit?&with best infematbnalloractice. ' The Alao!icant Is

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 to aqree fhe ~ro~osedmoniton'na methodoloav and duration of the survey with DCC Parks Sewices and the NPWS. The monitoring for harbour and arev seal should be further extended to include executinq a survey of Dublin Bay within the zones of influence 8s defined bv the EiS- auld be a reviwv DCC and N PWS of the mithation sfmteuv follo W~QQ mm~letionof the surveys at each stage of com~letion,.

Reason: To ensue com~/iancewilh the Habitats Directive. Benthic cornmunlties

It is reasonable to accept that the type of benthic communities in Dublin Bay can have a quick recovery rats. It is importantto note the areas where the gravels occur, as they may be more in the order of 2-3 years or more to recover (Newetl, 1998). DCC's concern is that the impacts on fish biomass could directly impact on the food supply for the birds. There is a demand by over 20,000 wintering waterbirds annually. No detailed sunrey or data exists for the prey resourn for Dublin Bay or its usage by the protected species. The sedimentation plumes seem to be directed toward North Bull Island's waters and also Totka Estuary. These are during high storms. Storm events may increase in frequency and Intensity in the coming years due to climate change effects.

According to the coastal modelling, the seabed levels are increased in Tolka Estuary, the Parks Sewice, therefore queries Row this will impact on the SPA feeding resource.

Piling Operations

The proposed piling schedule is described as phased. However, the RFI states that 3 of the 5 phases are potentially simultaneous. Proposed Piling Schedule for Alexandra Quay (based on content of the RFI, p. 18) For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Phase Timing Location Comments ---- 9 Nov. 2015 -May 2018 West of Berth 29

2" May 2018 - Feb. 2017 Berths 32-34, Ocean Pier Za* Feb. - Dec. 2017 Berths 29-31 3 Jan. 2018 - Jan. 201 9 North Wall Quay extension 4* Sept. 201 7 - Apr. 2018 Marina Wall Total 38 months

"simultaneous periods of piling

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 DCC marrests clan'fication on tho aro~osedahasina of the 8iIina schedule and as fo how m ch it will o erl concern.

As outlined in Tabk A? the preliminary programme dates are for piling to commence in October 201 5 and cuntinue until January 201 9. The number of piling rigs that will be active at any one time will vary over this period of time, with initially only one rig being active (i-e. October 2015) reaching a maximum of 5 in accordance with the programme (e.g. January 2018).

It is recommended that consideration be given to not just the number but the liming of the operations of these rigs in relation to the breeding season for cetaceans (e.g. seals in October-March), autumn and spring migration of lamprey (present in the River tiffey) and returning salmon. All of these species are protected under the Habitats Directive and present in the Liiey Estuary. All of these species are sensitiie to water pollution. Lamprey breed in the Dublin City extent in the Liyand we have recorded them at Chapeliod, The €IS (Vol. 1, 5-80) notes fhe presence of lamprey here but the risk to them is not possible to quantify.

Therefore.DCC reauests thaf monitmna for Iamarev af the relevant location at Alexandra n and durinn end aRer the relevant phase of dredqina (one seasonl.

Dredging

The report states that: 'It is expected that the new channel will require maintenanm dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channei' (EIS,Voh 1, Section 9.8.2) based on the model simulations. fable 10.3 of this regart excludes the maintenance Matrix For inspectionas purposesdegree only. dredging from the Impact Consentinsofar of copyright the owner required forof any impact, other use. although it classifies the potential impacts (without mitigation) as: suspended sediments, sedimentation, and pollution from contaminated sediments for sections of the Navigational Channel and the Alexandra Basin. Table 10.4 shows the residual impacts (with mitigation) for the operational maintenance requirements and that mitigation is achieved by implementation of the Port's Environmental Management Plan. It is queried whether the maintenance requirements of the proposal during the post-construction phase should also be induded in any screening for Appropriate Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Termtrial Ecology Bats

DCC notes (in Vol 1 of the EIS, page 5-43) that the assessment of the bat potential of four structures for demolition took place in January 2014. This is not the appropriate time of the year for assessment, as bats are in a state of torpor. The structures should be sumeyed and measures adopted as per the NPWS response of 7 May 2014 if any bats are found and required to be moved,

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 DCC reauesfsthat fhe bur sfmctures nmmsed for demdifron be re-suweved nor to demolition for bats when fhev are active, durina Mav-Se~tember,in accordance whfh best practice widellnes ISmith, et d 2010 fir the Heritaae Councill.

The Applicant considers it likely that otter is using the site for foraging (in Vo11 of the EIS, page 5-55). DCC has records of use of the River Tojka by otter continuousfy from Ballybough through the Fingal County Council adrninisirative area. Therefore, it should be considered that the Tolka Estuary is critical for otter connectivity.

The EtS notes that habitat and species surveys ware undertaken with reference to key legislation, including the Flora Protection Order. This legal instrument is proposed to be revised by the Minister (DAHG) imminently as the Flora Protection Order 2014 and the Minbter has notifled DCC of the changes, which include the addition of new species of bryophytes, including 5 species recorded at North Bull Island SAC. The NIS (p. 30) lists one of these species, Petalwort (Pefalophy/lumralfsi~). It is noted that the EIS did not record any bryophyie, although the presence of Bryum marrati was assessed but not found (549). lnvasive Alien Species (IAS)

It is noted that the EtS (Vol. 1, 550) states that none of the invasive species of flora and fauna designated In the Bird and Habitats Regulations (2011) were found during the site sunrey. The recently-adopted EU lnvasive Species Regulation (2014) necessitates the identification of pathways for lnvasive alien species. Ports worldwide are major vectors for them. The EIS should consider the increased risk of occurrenoe of IAS as a direct impact of the proposed works to the Port and the likelihood of increased traffic and transport from long-distance shipping. The upgrading and ~evelopmsntof the Alexandra Basin may have urmrelcome consequences nationally For inspection if it provides purposes only. a vector for such species. The new Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. EU Regutation requires Member States to ensure adequate risk assessment and prevention in developments whereby the risk of transfer of tAS between borders in increased. Introduction of new !AS by boat either during the construction works or during the operation of the new Port facilities could pose economic and social impacts nationally. In this regard, prevention is deemed cost-effective to the State and to Dublin City Council's administrative area. Under the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, Ireland has adopted the provisions of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. The European Commission urges compliance with the International Maritime Organisation's Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling*

Therefore. DCC requests that in the event of ~ermissionbeing wanted that the A~pticantbe alien saecies to be umd for the duration of the ~m~ased~ruiect in accordance wiih the EU Regulation 1211 -1 41 and the Birds and Habitats Reau/atiarrs (20 1 11.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Proposed Planting In addition to its other comments, the Parks Service has also requested that positive consideration be given by Dublin Port to increasing the proposed planting and softening of the Port perimeter, as the current proposal is too narrow for significant impact on ecological function. Any additional planting should also address the fragmentation of the green areas. The viability of the proposed UNESCO Biosphere extension relies on a meaningful terrestrial buffer zone, and it is advised by UNESCO that this zone, especially adjacent to the Tolka Estuary, needs to be enlarged to promote green infrastructure. Community Gain Proposal

DCC welcomes the proposal by the Applicant in section 7 of the Community Gain report to meet the requirements of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act (2006). The proposal will benef8 the community and also the long-term management of the North Bull Island, an internationally important site for nature conservation for IOQ years. The Idand is designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (the only one entirely in a capital city in the world network), an EU Natura 2000 site for both Habitats (SAC) and Birds (SPA), a National Special Amenity Area, a National Nature Resenre, a RAMSAR wetland, an Important Bryophyte Area, a Biogenetic Reserve and a public park. The proposed suppori for the feasibility study will enable DCC to examine how to Improve public awareness of this resource in the capital and to enhance interpretation and visitor management throughout the Island. DCC welcomes the support of the Applicant as a stakeholder in Dublin Bay. DCC also welcomes the proposed payment by the Applicant to DCC of a further sum of f1,000,000, on an agreed basis, towards the provision of any services or facilities to implement the feasibility study/ proposed masterplanlSAA0 Management Plan. DCC agrees to independently prepare a feasibilrty study and, fo!lowing on from this, a master pfan for North Bull Island which will seek the input of all stakeholders, including the Applicant, to provide a facility which is For reflecting inspection purposes the only.international importance of the Island Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. and secures its long-term sustainable development and management.

DCC accepts and will facilitate the intention of the Applicant to maintain rights of a-ss to the North Bull Wall to facilitate maintenance on essential ship navigation assets such as the North Bull LigMhouse. This does not affect the Applicant's ownership and rights regarding the North Bull Wall itself or the wooden bridge access.

mfDCC uests hat th ro landsof owned No fhs /and transfer is to romvide for~ublicepiovrn~nf - subied to fulfilment ofthe Conservation nd

Infrastnrcturel Act 1201161. aDCc U8 a a SfS f SfrafeaicInfrersfructure1 Act I20063. 14

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 further sum of €1.000.000, on an aamd basis. towards the mvision of anv services or facilities to irn~lemenfthe feasibilifv s ud / ed the ABR Pmieci havina been secured bv the A~nIjcant.Reason: Communitv Gain under eL

It is the opinion of the City Council that the proposed development which aims to provide increased capacity at the Port by increasing the depth and navigability of the access channel and providing more multi-purpose berths is in accordance with the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan 201 1-2017 and ofher relevant plans. Furthermore, the intention to deliver the project by redeveloping existing infrastructure and by increasing the productivity of existing port lands and without any major reclamation works (in contrast to previous proposaIs) is welcomed by the City Council.

In summary, it has concluded that the proposed development providing for the Port's growth is well supported by the Dublin Clty Development Plan 201 1-2017, whIch recognises that the Cify Council fully supporfs and recognises the imporfant nafional and mgional tale of Dublin Port in the economic life of the city and the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and employment ferns to facilrZate part activifes which may indve port development Mom specifically, the proposal is considered to be fully compliant with the 27 zoning objective which specifically permits port related facilities.

Furthermore, the planned development will not campromise or inhibit the delivery of other core objectives of fhe Plan such as the Eastern By-Pass. It must also be acknowledged that the proposal to increase the capacity of the Port while remaining within its existing footprint will also help reduce the potential impact of the development on the highly sensitive natural environment within Dublin Bay and environs. The proposed development will also help For inspection purposes only. realise the goals of local plans includingConsent of copyright the ownerCruise required Traffic for any other and use. Urban Regeneration Local Action Plan to develop cruise traffic and improve connectivity between the port and the city centre. It is also acknowledged that the proposal Is in accordance with national and government policy including the National Ports Poticy which states that the continued development of Dublin Port is a key strategic objective of National Ports Poticy?

It should be noted that while the proposed development as amendedlclarified by the Additional lnformation submitted on f 8' August is in accordance with the principles of the relevant policies and objectives of the City Council, there are a still numbr of issues which the Planning Authority would like to be clarffied or in the event of permission being granted would request to te conditioned to ensure that the development is mrried out in accordanm with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. I have already highlighted these issues in the report. The Planning Authority would also request that the mcommendations of the E1S and Natura Impact Assessment would be carried though in any grant of permission in order to safeguard the character and amenities of the River Channel, Dublin Bay and reduce any potential impacts on the site of the development and adjoining lands.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

5. Irish Underwater Council submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 DUBLIN PORT

ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAMM1NG NO. PL29N.PA0034

ORAL HEARING OBSERVER STATEMENT

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

DR TIM BUl7ER IRISH UNDERWATER COUNCIL

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name b Tim Butter. I am the Scientific OfRcer for the lrish Underwater Council. 1.2 I have a BSc Honours degree In Marine Biology, and Mk and PhD In Environmental Engineering all fmm the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I therefore have a bmad undemanding of issues relating to marine ecology, oceanography, water quality, analytical chemistry, and plume dispersion models.

13 1 am an Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management {CIEEM).

PA 1 have over 23 years working as a professional scientist In areas such as fisheries research, the development of wastewater treatment systems, marine blotoxin monitoring, drinkfng water quality assessment, and ecological habitat surveying. 1.5 1 have been scuba dMng since 1999, with the vast majority of these dives taking place in lrish waters. 1 regularly undertake scuba surveys to record marine biodiwrsky and habitats. 1 have been Scientific Officer for the Irish Underwater Coundl since September 2012.

?he Irih Underwater Coundl and Dhrlng in Ireland 2.1 The Irish Underwater Council (usually abbreviated to CCFT from the lrish Comhairle fo-fhuinn) is the national governing body for scuba divins snorkelling, and related acthriies In Ireland. The organisation has around 80 clubs throughout the isrand of Ireland, with approximately 2000 diver members.

2.2 Around one third of our members are based In the greater Dublin area and woutd therefore use Dublin Bay as a dive location. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 2.3 Whilst diving activity peaks during the summer months, it k stressed that recreational diving is a year-round activity with many divers remaining active throughout the winter months (when weather permits),

2.4 - Whilst not suggesting to represent divers from other organisations, it is pertinent to note that there are also many dlvers in Ireland who are certffled with other organlsati&s such as PAOi and BSAC.

2.5 The main concerns that CFT had raised with regard to the ABR project related primarily to diver safety. Two potential issues were highlighted: I) Underwater noise.

2) Increased jevels of suspended solMs In the water due to dredge disposal operations, which may reduce underwater visibility.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 operations In Dublln Bar. It is possible that this ls correct, but the statement should nevertheless be corroborated with a scientific reference that quantifies the Impact of suspended solids concentration on underwater dslbility.

4.4 The current computer model is bawd on disposal of the dredged sediment at an exactly even mte, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout each dredging campaign. The Burford Bank Is wholly within the Rockabill to Dalky Island Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC has only two qual'iing interests - rocky reef habitat and the harbour porpoise (an EU Habitats Directive Annex II species). Since there are no rocky reefs near the I3urFord Bank, it must be concluded that this area is located within the SAC due to the presence of the only other qualifying interest, the harbour porpoise. The EIS and NlS both contain a llst of mitigating measures to minimhe impacts of the ABR project operations on harbour porpoise (and other marine mammals). Central to thls b the use of Marine Mammal Obsmers (MMO) to provlde a visual check that no marine mammals are present during operations. As this Is a visual check, it can only be undertaken in daylight hours and with wind speed of Force 3 or lei(due to wave height increasing at higher wind speeds). This clearly restrictsthe tlme avaliable for disposal of a fixed volume of material, meaning that it will have to be disposed of faster than currently modelled, and thus the resulting concentration of suspended solids will be higher than currently predicted. This restriction has still not be satisfactorily addressed. Adrian Bell, in his witness statement, states fiat a passtve amustic system will be employed during the hours of darkness in order to "comply wlth the recommendations of DoAHG". The use of paassIve amustic monitoring (PAM) is indicated as a mitigating measure In either the EIS or WIS. Furthermore, the DoAHG Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine MummP.ls from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Watm

, (January 2014) actually states that "While the use of PAM h Ireland Isbroadly encouraged as a helpful and beneficialtool for detecting and monitoring certain cetacean species the Department does not believe it Is sufficiently dwebped to be regarded as the primary or sole monitoringapproach for risk management purposes. Thls is because the method in its current state of development is not yet capable of reliably detecting all marine mammal spedes in many practical ffeld

sltuatlonr (e.g. aboard a moving motorised For inspection vessel)". purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Therefore, it Is clearly incorrect to state that the use of PAM will allow night time work to comply with the DdHG recommendatiohs. It is reiterated once more that the current sediment plume modellin& which assumes night operations, is unsatisfactory. Presumably, dmilar mitigating measures have applied to previous dredging operations. Can the applicant explaln how the restrictions imposed by these mltlgating measures were managed during such opedons? 4.5 CIT raised concerns that a 2D wmputer graphic of the suspended solids concentration at the disposal site wnnot be used to illustrate the complex 30 dispersion characterfstim of the resulting plume of suspended sollds. Furthermore, the 2D graphics show the average concentration of suspended solids across the whole water column. Potential zones of high suspended dIdsat certain depths are therefore not apparent because the data Is averaged o&. In response to these observatbns, Adrian Bell, in his witness statement, states that ?fie waters around the licensed dump site are well mixed so the use of a depth averaged hydnullc model Is appropriate". The term "well mlxed" does not appear In the €IS. It Is a subjective, unquantified term with no scientific meaning. With regards the dispersion of sllt maf+rtal, which stays in suspension, Mr 8ell adds that "material which stays in suspension will be relatively quickly dispersed throughout the depth of the water column". Agaln, the term "relatively quicklv is a subjecthe, unquantified term with no scientific meaning. It Is not quantified and has no scientific meaning-it could be seconds;days, wecksoryears. It Is suggested that for greater clarity, graphics are produced showing the concentration of suspended

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 3.1 A survey on undenvater noise has now been completed (Appendix A of Response to Request for tnformation). This report indicates that the nolse from piling could not be detected above normal background underwater noise at points on Howth Head and near Dun Laoghaire (probably the nearest recognised dive sites to Dublin Port).

3.2 Whilst the results of the sunrey on underwater noise must be accepted on face value, it is . noted that this report (Appendix A) contains repeated systematk errors relating to the numbering of figures and tables. In addition, the graphs in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 (referred to as Figures 3.1 and 3.2 in the W) have no labels on the axes and are therefore meaningless. Whflst these obsenratIons may . seem pedantic, this report is the only evidence we have b order to judge the quality of the work undertaken in the fdd. Science and engfneering are fields where attention to detail are essential in ail stages of work from collection of raw data, through data analysfs and modelling and finally to prepamtlon of the final report. These errors do not reflect well on the procedure in thls case.

4 Suspended Solids 4.1 .The proposed ABR project incorporates a mnslderable dredging element, with 6.3 million cubic metres of sediment to be removed from the Liffey channel. This Gdlment is scheduled for dIspcrsal on the licensed disposal sire on the Burford Bank, When the dredged material 1s released from the barge, a three dimensional plume of suspended solids wjll develop as the partrcles sink to the sea bed. The EIS contains graphic outputs from a computer model that indicate the predicted concentmtion of suspended solids in thls plume. CFT has raised concerns regarding the modelling of the dispersion of the pfume. These concerns have stilt not been suitably tesohred.

4.2 Computer modelling Is a useful predicthe tool. However, computer models do not always predict accurate results. Conslder the various weather forecasting apps that one might have an a For inspection purposes only. mobile phone. If these are comparedConsent for of copyright the same owner requiredplace, for date any other and use. time, there are frequently quite

significant variations In the predicted weather forecast. Therefore, the models are sometimes inaccurate. This is because different apps use dlfkrent computer models and these process data differently, and because tie raw Input data may vary between models. Because of this, an important element of modelling is verifying the accuracy of predicted outcomes. CFT requested data from the previous dredge disposal operations that would confirm the accuraw of the computer model used in the EIS (MIKE 21) to predict sediment dispersion. This data would be derived from water samples collected at different depths around the disposal site during disposal operatfons with the suspended sediment concentration of those water samples subsequently being assessed in the laboratory, a simple procedure. Adrian Bell, in section 6.1.1 of his witness statement, states that no adverse suspended solids issues arose from the 2012 dredging campaign. The provision of the ff eld data used to substantiate this statement and thus to validate the computer model for this mmpalgn would be welcome. This data has previously been requested but has not been forthcoming. 4.3 CfT suggested that the applicant provide data correlating suspended solids concentration to undewater visibility so as to be better able to understand the impact of additional suspended solids from the disposal activity. This has not been forthcoming. In his witness statement (Section 5.2.1 iv), Adrian Bell Indicates that the sediment concentration will remain below 20 mdlitre above background. Mr Bell Is then ofthe opfnion that this Is "unlikely to have any significant fmpac?an diving

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 solids at different depths through the water cofurnn, It would then be possible to make an objective amssmefit of the mixing conditions at the disposal site. 4.6 CFT has previously indiated that t he graphics used to Illustrate suspended solids dispersal are based on theaveragesituation rather than the worst case. In the averagesituation,all the6.3 million cubic metres of dredged material is dumped absolutely evenly throughout the dredging campaign, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As already indicated in paragraph 4.4 it is not possible for operations to ~a ke place at night or on days when wind speed exceeds Fun3 (Met Eireann data indicates average wlnd speed in Dublin between October and March Is Force 4). This restricdon reduces the time available for dumping to windows of opportunity. Since there Is a flxed volume of ma&rial to be dredged and disposed, Ft must be concluded that the material will be dumped during these restrictive windows of opporlunky and that dumping will then have to take place at a faster rate than currentiy modelled, It is suggested, again, that the dispersal model be repeated to indicate suspended sollds concentradons resulting from the faster disposal rate. A great strength of the use of computer models is to predict the "worst case" situation. For example, for modelling flooding it Is common ta base the predlctbn on a one in a hundred year storm event, te. the heaviest discrete rainfall event likely to occur over a 100 year period, based on historical weather data. The flood model would not use the rainfal data from an average day. Similarly, in this ase the average data presented In the EIS ghres no indication of the possible worst case sltuatlon. It is noted that Adrfan Bell, in his wRnesssEabment, has not refuted the necessity far the model to b@ of the worst case sktiatlon. Instead, Mr Bell suggests that because the model shows dispersal at different tIdal stages and at different polnts tn the spi-ing/neap trdal cycle that all conditions are modelled. However, the variable that is not considered Isthe inputamrateofdredged material from the disposai barge, Perhapsan altema~veinthtscasewould be to review historical dredge disposal data far Dublin Port to identify the peak disposal rate and base the model on this data.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Issues arislng from Impam of underwater noise appear to be msolved. 5.2 Concerns still exist regarding the concentration of suspended solids resuklng from dlspowl of dredge material, and the potential Impact on underwater visibility.

5.3 Where! concerns exist, simple suggestions have been made in this statement for additionat data that would satisfy these reservations.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

6. An Taisce submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 An Taisce The National T17utfur. I~darsd

The Secretarj An Bord PIean6la 64 Marlborough St Dublin 1

10 October 2014

Re: Redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53 together with associated works in Dublin Port. Alexandra Road, Dublin 1. PL29N.PA0034

Dear SirlMadam.

We refer to our preliminary submission on above.

We had stated in our submission that the proposed enhanced use of the existing port area is strategically appropriate, in preference to infilling of the marine area SPA, subject to appropriate environmental mitigation. However, we raised particular concern at the displacement of silt and spoll and Its dumplng at sea on the marine eco system.

We have slnce examined the submissions made by Prescribed Bodies and concerned organisations and individuals. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. We have also examlned the information request by the Board and response made by the applicant. We note concerns raised by a number of parties on the impact: on marine mammals including seals, porpoises and dolphins.

We do not consider that the concern on marine ecology have been resolved.

Brendan Price, Director of The Irish Seal Sanctuary (ISS) has brought to our attention the following: The NIS, US, Avian Impact Assessment, Marine Mammal Impact Assessment are extremely confined in thelr scope to Dublin Port, the Shlpping Channel and the proposed Dredge Disposal Site. There are wider potential irnpa- of deposition of dredged material, in plume generated, sedjment transportation, silting, accretion, turbidity, light dllution with knock on effects for re-colonisation, recovery of benthos, flsh nurseries and up the ecosystem.

The faiW Hall, 3a& Lane, DuMln 8, Ireland IT-e: Dl454 1786 Fax: 01 453 3255 wwwrnnMss%prg CompanV fk@Hfon No: 12469 j Ckkf Refemce Mo: MY4741

WMw for a MierQuality ob LWe - Far Nmw and For hbmGendons

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 An Taisce lkN8#&mm*MaAd Adequate data is not included on the impacts of the deposition area including on marine mammals We regret that An Taisce as an environmental and herltage charity is not in a financial position to employ a marine ecologist to fully participate in the Oral Hearing and address the issue of silt and spoil displacement and deposition which Is our principle concern relatlng to this application.

Accordingly we are only in a positlon to request that An Bord Pleanela fully addresses the matter, including the securing of appropriate independent advice on the marine ecological Issues.

The legal onus is on An Bord Plean6la as a consent body for thls project under the EM Directive to address marine ecology as well as all of the other information headings set out in Artlcle 3 of the EIA Directive.

We also wish to raise the particular obligation of An Bord Plean6la in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Natura Impact Assessment process in ensuring that assessment Is provided on the adequacy of the Information provlded by the developer and mltlgation of envlronmental impacts, With regard the EIA, this has been clarified h the European Court Judgment Case c 50-09 against Ireland which cited deflclent practice in the Irish EIA project consent system and the particular and explicit obligation on the relevant consent body for a project in the EIA process.

We are also concerned that the recent contmversy and legal actions over the Mlkenny Access Scheme bridge highlights the need for more effective independent monftaring and enforcement of mltlgatlon measures on development affecting Natura 2000 sites and EIA consents under Strategic Infrastructure, and for Local Authority and Publlc Body projects, as An Bod Pleanila has no enforcement role In the projects which it consents.

For inspection purposes only. Having regard to: Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

1. The dredging and removal of sltt to accommodate the proposed; 2. The methodology for the treatment of this silt material; 3, The impact on lhe marine eco system including marine mammals of dumping at sea; There is an onus on the Board in this case to:

1. Provlde an Independent assessment of the methodology propod by the application for silt removal and disposal; I 2. Determine If the marine dumplng proposed by the applicant is the most appropriate treatment of displaced spoil and silt and what assessment has been carried out of a ker natives; 3. To determine if the level of heavy metals or other contaminants in the disp!aced sllt Is such that the proposed dumping at sea by the appilcants Is not appropriate; 4. If marine dumplng Is considered to be approprlate, to attach to any consent a transparent and legally enforceable independent monitoring of the approved methodology and mitigation measures, particularly wlth regard to marfne mammals. i Yours sincerely,

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Ian Lumley Built Environment & Heritage mcer builtenviranmentQantniscelo~

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 An Taisce hXn-h4TnrtfwMd Addressing Resource Consumption and Climate 1mpaet: Pn Dublin Port Development

The EIA Directive requires an applicant to assess the direct and indirect impact of any project, In any consent appllcatlon and the consent body to assess the adequacy of information provided under a range of headings and of mitigation measures proposed.

Dublin Part is proposing to double the tonnage of freight passed through the port by 2040 as well as a major accommodation of crulse Ilners.

This is part of general assumption of both the desirability and the viability of growth in material resource consumption which prevails among political and economlc declsion makers globally. This is not belng reconciled wRh the stabilising the global climate and the diversity of life on a finite planet.

There are both direct and direct national and transboundarj impacts in expanding the capacity of any port. The ease of long dlstance transport of goods is increased.

The global shipplng sector has escaped environmental regulation on climate and air quality in the use of unrefined bunker fuel which has highly pollwng particle emissions,

The cifrnate and environmental impact of cruise liners in particular is escaping International regulation. A typical cruise generates higher per capita emlsslon than a transatiantlc Wight.

It is now two decades since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro where scientists warned humanib that 'no more than a few decades remain before the chance to avert the For inspection purposes only. threats we now' confront willConsent be of copyright lost ownerand required the for anyprospecls other use. for humanity immeasurably dlminlshed' . The worldwide response to these messages from those in a position to bring about change has been almost nll.

The Livlng Planet Report published by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) finds that Ireland has the 14th highest ecoIogical footprint In global resource consumption impact on a per capita basis, just behind Tony AbboWs coal-bumlng Australla. htEo:/lwwf.panda.oraIabout our eatthlall DU~~~C~~O~S/~~V~IIUdanet rerrart/

Ecological footprint is calculated on the Individual consumption levels in each country both within Its own territorial area as well resources obtained from other countries. It assesses the use of land, fresh water, tlrnber and energy per person.

Ireland's Import of eel and household goods, fossll fuel, fertiliser, feed for animals and caged fish, sugar products, palm oil, clothes and plastlcs are linked to srgnlflcant envlronrnental degradation across the world. Clothing imports are for example resulting in the depletion of fresh water reserves in central Asia.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Goods services and materials, e.g. imported timber and feedstuffs consumed in Ireland, contributes to biodiversity loss In other countries, and thls report pub our per capita consumption rates at one of the highest in the globe.

The WWF report also flnds that global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have declined by 52% since 1970. The message is simple: the 1992 UN Convention of Biological Diversity has failed.

Yet Bord Bia and Teagasc are actively promoting the expansion of agriculture resulting in increased presure for land reclamation, fertilizer and imported animal feed, as well as increased pressure to spread slurrj on land that cannot take any more.

Meanwhile, Bord Iascaigh Mara is proposing a masslve increase in caged salmon farming and other marine exploitation In Ireland without proper prior assessment of the impact of Increases in import feedstuffs and biodiversity loss.

Wiiin its own territory, Ireland is failing to address its high per capita levels of greenhouse gases with any eWveaction, wlth a proposed ellmate Bill which has no real or meaningful targeb.

The information revealed in the WWF report Is more important than international credit ratings. It shows that Ireland is among the world's most damaglng and resource- consuming countries, owing a mounting ecological debt to the rest of the planet.

Ireland's growth and consumption-fuelled agenda is Itself driven by short-term economics. This dominant economic outlook relies on maintainjng indifference to the young people alive today, the up and coming generations who will struggle in the future unless our ' over-consumption is recognised and addressed by all of us.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. defining Climate change and bio diversity loss are the interrelated, biggest and challenges of our dme. We are currently experlendng an environmental and resource crisis that places human development at a crossroads. The consequences of climate change and fossil fuel ataction and combustion, and lost of terrestrial and marine em systems are becoming increasingly vlsi ble and are being exacerbated by unsustainable economic growth.

The effects of these challenges are, and will continue to be, multi-fam and systernlc. They will have effect on all strands of risk, economic, geopolitical, technological, soclal and environmental, as identifled. Effects Indude, for example energy price inflation, Increased flooding, Increases in the cost of resource dependent production, food shortages and other scarcities.

These challenges, and the n-ry development of policies to address them, are becomlng a reaflty wlth which society has to learn to jive. Climate change and blodhrerslty loss are sui generis - a category of risk without precedent In human history. All economic and social policies and Infrastructural proposals need to address the obvlous urgency of dlmate change as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) - FiRh Assessment Report (AR5).

Page 5 of 8

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 During the last decade the extraction of oil from conventional well sources peaked. Ireland is the seventh most oil dependent economy in the world where energy usage increased by 67% between 1990 and 2006, Further, demand for fossil fuels Is increasing, not decreasi ng .

The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, recently confirmed that peak conventlonal oll production occurred In 2006. There Is growing internattonal consensus, as expressed by Macquarie Bank, Galdman Sachs, McMnsey Consultants, the UK Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security, the UK Energy Research Council, IHS Herold, DFGEM, ASPO, Global Witness, the International Energy Agency and the Saudi Oil Minim together wlth, most recently, Lloyds Bank that the 'era of cheap oil is over' and that serious supply constraints and an oil supply crunch is likely in the short-to-medium tern. The Hirsch Report eornmissloned by the US Department of Energy in 2005 hlghllghts verj clearly that the era of plentiful, low-cost petroleum is approaching an end. World demand for oil is predicted to increase by 50% over the period up to 2025 at a tlme when Me worid oil relnres are diminishlng rapidly and will lead to mpid price inflation and scarcity. According to the IEA, in order to sustaln projected global energy demand the world will need to discover 'four new Saudi Arabias'.

Instead of investing in energy use conservation and renewable alternatives, the global trend has been to increase the extraction rate of large scale open cast coal mlning and extend oil and gas exploration Into new areas and with problematic new technologles.

This has resulted in new explorations ranglng from the Arctlc wilderness to Central Africa. Russia is promoting drilling in the AKtlc wIth the 2010 Deepwater Horlzon spill showlng the risks involved. The increased level of extradon from Canadian Tar Sands and the Nlger Delta is devastating in environmental impact and generates a much higher level of emissions that conventlonal wells. Fracking in the US has created new risks For inspection purposes only. environmental and has signiflmnt impact Consentthrough of copyright methane owner required forleakage any other use. dudng the extraction process.

Globally energy companies are in an exploration race to secure a level of fossll Fuel extraction which Is incompatible with the level of dmrbontsation required to stabillse global climate at 2 degrees average surface temperature above pre industrfal levels.

In 2012 if the Grantham Institute for Climate Change (based in Imperial College London) and the Carbon Tracker Initiative (An International NGO monitoring carbon emissions) published 'Unbumable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Asseb'. This ~veals that total fossll fuel reserves already far exceed the global atmosphere capacity to absorb the emissions generated if temperatures are not to exceed 2 degrees above preindustrial levels.

Between 60-80% of coal oil and gas reserves of publically listed companies are unburnable If the world Is to have chance of not exceeding global warming of 2ac. The Issue is now to achleve an efFedve global climate agreement and carbon tax reglme which will secure this.

Page 6 of 8

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Former President Man/ Robinwn is now taking leadership stating in September 2013: 'nee/s a global Jmlt on a safe level demfsions. mat means major foal fuel mewes must be let h the ground, mat has hwe implications for economic and sma/ &ve/opment.'

It should be remembered the economy is a 'wholly-owned subsidiary' of the environment. An unhealthy environment wlll result in an unhealthy society and economy and ultimately In collapse af the ecosystems on which society and civilisation depends. Although the link Ween sustainable economic development and natural resources has been widely ignored and eschewed by conventional economic poiicy makers, the onset of climate .change and energy xarcity is precipitating a long overdue reappraisal of thls costly rnisjudgement.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. The Economy is a subset of the Emrlronmmt and Sockty

Understandably much of the current national political and media b~usis on promoting economlc development and employment. All mainstream commentators and politicians eulogize the accepted wisdom of the virtues of a return to economlc growth [GDPIGNP) as the conventtonal solwon to our current ewnomlc, unemployment and fiscal dicuIUes. I-lamer, It should be borne In mind that there Is an inherent contmdidian between the current model of mnomic growth and environmental and resource sustainability. Our socfety k currently Iocked into an emnornlc system that has a GDP growth imperative and, as a consequence, increased energy demand, ineread greenhouse gas emissions and increased resou- throughput and depletion. Our ecological debts ate as unstable as our flnanclal dm, Newer is properly acaunted for in the relentless pursuit of consumption growth. This contradidan Is placing further pressure on the canylng capaclty of the envlmnrnmt to support society and the emnomy.

Furthermore, GDP economic growth is a highly imperfect and cuunkr-productive measure of human progress as It measures only income and does. not account for the consumptfon of natural capital (resources), soda1 inequality or the signlflcant costs of anthropogenic pollution . The Stern Report noted that dimate change Is the greatest and widest-ranging market fatlure wer sen. As can be senfrom the very high prices In Brent Crude Oil, the Psge7ofB

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 return of economic growth to the world economy has triggered an energy price splke, reducing consumption demand and further recession.

For example, a 2 per cent per annum growth in GDP would mean the carbon occasioned by each unit of econamlc output would have to be 130 times lower in 2050 than it is today othenvise we cross a threshold in terms of carbon emissions that future generations are unable to recover from, Economic growth is therefore inconsistent with the requirement to abate greenhouse gas emissions or reduce oil dependency. In any event, 2% GDP growth would mean the total size of the Irish economy wlth double every 35 years. This Is not phflcally possible in finite world and we should therefare not be planning for it.

Current national economic development pollcies demonstrate a long-term blindness to the limltatlons of the physical world, Responses to the crisis which alrn to restore the status quo are misguided and doomed to failure. Income today means nothing if it undermines the conditions upon which the prosperity of tomorrow depends.

A Physical Infrastructure Audit should Include an "Oil Vulnerablllty & Carbon Price Impact Assessment" to explore the threats fmrn inflated and voiatlle a11 prices together with the. future (shadow) price of carbon. This should be underhken for both capital and operational rnunlclpal functions (e.g. sewage treatment, water supply, road developmenEs, road repair, flood defences etc)

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Page 8 of8

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

7. Dublin Bay Watch submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Dublin Bay Watch 191 Howth Road, Killester, Dublin 5. fmail:[email protected] Mobile: 087 256781 I

An Bord PleanBla, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin I. Reference: Oral Hearina Dublin Port 29N.PA0034

1sth October 2014

Inspector, I am here representing Dublin Bay Watch.

Introduction Dublin Bay Watch (DBW) was set up in October 1999.The impatus for its establishment was the DUblin Port Company applying to infill 52 acres of the north inner part of Dublin Bay. We have worked closely with the Clontarf Residents Association and other communities around the bay. Background Over the past 15 years, Dublin Bay Watch successfully took cases to the Ombudsman, the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice concerning Duchas changing the boundary and area of the proposed For inspection purposes only. Special Protection Area (SPA)Consent ofadjacent copyright owner requiredto Dublin for any other Port. use. This change, which was not published or notified to interested bodies, would have enabled Dublin Port Company to infill part of an SPA. In 2002, as a result of our campaign, the then Minister for the Marine Dr. Michael Wwds introduced legislation which included adjoining local authorities in any foreshore planning decision process as welt as an appropriate consultation process. Comment After 40 years of failed infill attempts by the Dublin Port Company, Dublin Bay Watch welcomes the current strategic change of direction by the Dublin Port Company. We note the Port Company Chief Executive's "Commitmentto recconflgure without additional infiIl beyond the existing port boundaries". That said this current application with the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement and additional information must be interrogated carefully by An Bard Pleanhla in relation to planning, marine, environmental and national economic and competitive issues.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Port Estate All DBW previous submissions pointed to the very poor efficiency rating of Dublin port against other ~uropeanports and the present move io address the inefficient use of the existing port estate is positive. Dublin Port has been able to increase its control over some land holdings within the Port. The issue with regard to quayside optimisation is still not fully under its control given that there are numerous small terminal operators with long term leases adjacent to the quayside. Dublin Port should be supported in its goal to take back these lands. The Port Company puts forward the cruise business in all presentations for this project, yet there is no commitment to construct a cruise terminal. As a tourist city, Dublin should not be represented with the existing arrangements for cruise visitors.

Dredrrlna and Piling The Dublin Port Company is seeking permission to drive up to 2,376 piles over a period of 4 years. Dublin Bay Watch has concerns as to the noise and vibrations effects of such works on communities living near the Port and the effects on wildlife in the bay. Every year for 6 years, a million cubic metres of spoil will be dredged from the navigation channel and dumped at the boundary of the Rockabill to Dalkey Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Dublin Bay Watch is deeply concerned that this very significant continuous dredging as planned which would result in very large amounts of spoil being taken from adjacent to the For inspectionSPA purposesand only.dumped on the border of a SAC. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. There are in our view negative implications from such a physical dredge of the seibed, the removal of this enormous amount of spoil together with the impacts of the dumping of same.

Alternatives This development intends to double the annual tonnage throughput of the Port from 30 million to 60 million tonnes over a period of 0 years and would appear to reinforce Dublin Port's monopoly position among lrish Ports. Currently Dublin Port handles 70% of all Lolo and 85% of all RoRo trade in the State. This would allow Dublin Port Company to continue to dictate prices-for moving many goods in and out of the country. Over and above-this Dublin Bay Watch sees no reference to any balanced regional development strategy for Ports or enterprise in general. A competitive environment in this sector is essential for exporters and importers. We note the Competition Authority's Report 'Competition in the lrish Ports Sector* 201 3 stated:

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 "The characteristics of the pods sector in Ireland mean that competition between ports is aIways going to be limlted - principally for historical and geographical masons. " And also note that 2 of the 6 recommendations of the report relate to Dublin Port: *Recommendarion 7 - Leasing and licensing of Dublin LAOterminals The way that leasing and licensing of Dublin Lo-fo teminals is managed should be changed to substantial& reduce the duration of the leases (sometimes owr 100 yearn) and to change the way in which licence are automatically renewed. Recommendation 2 - Stevedore licensing in Dublin Pee at lewsf rw~new general stevedore licences should be issued. General stevedore licences should be granted to appllcantv on a fair, reasonable and non-disdmEnatory basis, or through a tendering process. General stevedore Ilcenms should not be eutomathlly renewable. Ports should not require applicants to demonstrate that they will amanew business to the pore. Self handling licences should be grant& by Dublin Port Company on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatorybasis. Where stevedore services are prodded aclusively by the port directly, this should be ciearlyjustlfied by the part authodties in question"

Project Splitting Exercise Dublin Bay Watch is concerned that this application forms the first stage of a number-of applications from Dublin Port which will ultimately result in a future application for infilling. Key concerns expressed by Dublin Bay Watch and other groups will be addressed in a piecemeal fashion, making it easier for Dublin Part to justify infilling at a future date. It is a fact that An Bord Pleandla has already rejected an application for developing increased capacity by means of infilling and additional dredging. We believe that this current application seeks to get For inspectionaround purposes this only. rejwtion by means of a project Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. splitting exercise. The application if approved would create a situation where Dublin Port could begin to reclaim land from the SPA in the future, with environmental issues like dredging, impacting an SPA and ignoring the Birds and Habitats directives removed. Inspector, we rely on you to take into account so many issues of this application in making your decision.

Thank you. Gerry Breen Chair

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

8. Peadar Farrell submission to oral hearing

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:22 Alexandra Basin - Dublin Port Redevelopment Project.

Observations hrnPeadar Farrell .

My problem with the Project stem from the fact that they propose to dump 6 Million Cm,which is 12 Miion Tons of excavated material (some of it being contaminated with heavy metals) inside Dublin Bay.

Dublin Bay is partially isohted from the Irish Sea by the Beaufort Bdso whatever goes into the Bay stays generally in the Bay.

The Irish Sea does not £?dlike the Adantic. If omput a plastic duck into the water in Galway it could be recovered mywhere krn the Mcto the Antarctic. If the same were done in Dublin the Duck would be lilcdy to arrive in Wales.

The meam ofwater into the Irish Sea hmthe South comes up around Wexfozd and meets the strem of water corning down from Ratl~Iinat around Clougherhead.

Should medump matdah into the Atlantic in deep water that is probably the last time that the material will be seea Dump in the Irish Sea especially into Dublin Bay and the material will be around forever.

1-0 The dumpsite is not in 20m of water as stad, Look at the dumpsite map in the RFI (Page 86) it shows the water depb on the Marine Chart to be 12 to 21 m deep and that was maybe 100 years a.before dumping started. The ].8v~hof wakr there ate most likely to be considerab1y less now.

2-0 The dumpsite is sloping sharply (10m across) into Dublin Bay so that all the sediment goes back into the Bay. ForAgain inspection see purposes Page only. 86 showing levels on Chart Depths Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. on the inner West side are 21 to 22 M while Depths on the outer East side are 12 to 13M deep. a huge slope across the site.

3-0 In the RFI doc (Page 53 to 56) these are maps showing the current flows at both directions of the tide. Going south from the dumpsite it flows directly to Sandy cove and the MugglinSllDdkey Island (home of 95% of Southside diving] Going North the flow is directly to Irelands Eye. (Home to 95% of Narth side diving).

4-0 RFI page 85 states that 15% of the dumped materials stay on the dumpsite; there are no ddlsems to dmexactly the remaining 85% go. Dumping I million cm @ year 2417 for 6 month = 6 million cm = 12 rniIlion tons. So 10 million Tons gets %blown" away mostly across Dublin Bay. Tbs capping an contanhated materid will stay on the dumpsite but the undertying materids will not, proof of this is the tiny level increase following h 2012 dumping and the survey of 2013. Response states 650,000cm were dumped in 2012, nmahing there in the 20 13 survey was 94,000cm, as stated lass than 15% of the materials stayed in place in the Dump.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:23 5-0 its not convincing A. The Dredger or Barge can lay materid in an exact potition on a dumpsite or. B. The erctual contaminated material can be covered properly with other coarser materids at a Iater time. At best only 15% of the contaminated mated will still be there. At a guess the Contaminated Matdare the muds, not the sands and this is the matmid that makes up the 85% that &sap- into the ether. (Dublin Bay) The above could be done in a Lab or in theory but in the middle of a Site Project would be next to impossible.

6-0 In the EIS (page 4-26.4-2-2) " The rate of dredging of the main ohaxme1 is dmedby the capacity ofthe disposal site to accommodate the matem7etl deposited and fhe length of the dredging season". There is no explanation for this and I can only conclude that they are dependent an the material being swept away by the tide

7-0 The response in the Rm page 38 which states that tht Dumpsite constitutes only 0.5% of the SAC area (which will be destsoyed by the duping) is "ah sure twilI be all right" answer. Only 2 million tons remain there. The 10 million Eons wilI do a lot more damage to a much greater area hideDublin Bay.

8-0 This cudd all be turned into a win win situation if the dredged mataids wm dumped outside the SAC and DubIin Bay. The E.0 (Extra Qver) cost involved will Be extremely small in the overall cost of the Project. It mybe as litt Ie cost as getting a Iarger engined dredger that wilI travel f&er to the new dumpsite 213 miIes further on. Plus a barge with a slightly tmgw carrying capacity. There is no sodeooflonGc argument that the materials -t be Etumped further out

9-0 If this dumping is aIIowed the fight will continue on when the EPA dumping ITtm~eis applied for, If that Mls it will continue on to a Petition to the EU and that's only me! Smoking in pubs, driving while dnmk, driving with no seat belt were all For inspection purposes only. dowed once upon a time, letsConsent add of dumpingcopyright owner into required Dublin for any other Bay use. to that worthy list.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:38:23