DUBLIN Port chief executive Eamonn O'Reilly is the first to admit that you can't please everyone. As an ambitious €500m draft masterplan for Dublin Port is formally unveiled today, residents living in nearby areas -- such as well-to-do Clontarf -- have already voiced their concerns. They have issues surrounding the potential visual and environmental impact of plans to nearly double the port's handling capacity over the next three decades.
But notwithstanding the arguments from both sides about why expansion and land reclamation at Dublin Port may or may not be necessary to fulfil future requirements, there is no escaping the fact that if the facility is to continue being the primary point of entry and exit for goods into the country, then it needs continued investment.
"Of course, we would have liked a higher level of engagement," says O'Reilly, partic- ularly in relation to the Clontarf residents.
"At the end of the day, we're all citizens, but you're not going to get perfect consensus. However, I think what people will see with the draft masterplan is that there have been some very significant changes -- or maybe a more explicit enunciation -- of policy by the board."
That more "explicit enunciation" includes an undertaking that intended land reclamation "could and should" mark the final incursion of the port into the bay area. Any need for additional capacity would, he says, require investment in alternative ports on the east coast.
It's probably safe to say that the most contentious issue will be plans to reclaim up to 40 hectares of land at the port.
A previous planning application to reclaim 21 hectares was ultimately rejected by An Bord Pleanala earlier this year, but for environmental reasons to do with the potential impact on wetland habitats for birds, rather than any objection to expansion of the port per se. That has left the door open for Dublin Port to lob in a further application -- something that O'Reilly says it will do in time.
"We didn't adequately set out the impact it would have on the environment. That's something that's addressable."
Despite the economic environment here, which has seen the level of imports shrink significantly, a slide in Dublin Port's throughput has reversed as exports rallied. Last year, nearly 29 million tonnes of goods were shipped through the port -- nearly as much as in 2008. It handles slightly over 46pc of all the country's exports.
O'Reilly and his team have based their masterplan on the assumption that the port's volumes will grow by about 2.5pc per year over the next 30 years, but accept that this could happen as soon as 15-20 years.
He also maintains that the masterplan is just that -- a plan -- and not all the elements of it might necessarily proceed over the course of its projected timeline. From a financial point of view, he says it can be done in "bite-size chunks", enabling it to be easily funded, without having to expose the company to high levels of debt.
"We've got a perverse benefit from the economic downturn," he says, explaining that when the recently rejected reclamation plan was initially put before An Bord Pleanala, it appeared likely that the extra capacity it would bring would be required by the port within five to 10 years.
That time horizon was extended as the country descended into recession. New berths built on reclaimed land would enable the port to handle a new breed of superferries that are as long as 250 metres and can carry 300 freight vehicles and 230 cars. O'Reilly says the port is conscious of optimally using its existing footprint.
"We have 260 hectares here and some of those lands are not directly under our control because they're subject to long-term leases with clients and 30 acres have oil tanks sitting on them (they won't be moved). The focus is really on using the lands that we have."
Examples of how the port intends to do this include shifting an open storage area for imported vehicles that is beside the port's head office to a 4.3-hectare site across the road, which is currently disconnected from the main port area as a result of the construction of the port tunnel. A bridge will be built across that road to link the two areas and a planning application is close to being filed by Dublin Port.
It's intended that the new site will accommodate up to 2,300 cars. That will free up space beside the head office for additional roll-on roll-off capacity. A number of other areas within the existing facility can also be in-filled to provide extra operating space, while the port wants to be more "city facing", reintegrating with the capital.
It hopes to move cruise ship berths up towards the East Link and build an interpretative centre there.
O'Reilly reckons that if the total masterplan was implemented, it would cost in the region of €400m to €500m. In the past decade, about €250m has been invested in upgrading facilities. There's currently enough capacity for container traffic for the next 10 years.
As boss of a semi-state, he is subject to a €250,000 salary cap imposed by the last government and ignored most recently by the appointment of Pat Doherty as chief executive of the ESB -- he'll receive €318,000. O'Reilly, meanwhile, receives €185,000 a year -- less than his predecessor.
"I want to be paid as much as I can get," says O'Reilly. "That's not much different from how anyone thinks.
"The Government is in a very difficult position though, when there's 400,000 people unemployed. In my last job (boss of Portroe Steverdores, owned by the Cork-based Doyle Group), I took a 20pc pay cut because I had to make people redundant."
He thinks that the right people need to be employed for the right jobs and that if the salary cap has to be breached on occasion, then it should be.
"You need to have the right number of people employed with the right skills at the market price. If that involves someone being paid more than €250,000, so be it," he adds.
"We had mad excesses of earnings in banking in particular. There was colossal incompetence and people were royally rewarded for it. There's naturally a reaction to that. Everyone gets tarred with that same brush at the level of this job."
Meanwhile, O'Reilly says he has a good relationship with Transport Minister Leo Varadkar, who has already made it clear that any of the state-owned ports that can't pay their way won't be able to avail of any state funding to bail them out.
Most recently he placed Dundalk Port under the control of Dublin Port, which then contracted out its operation to a local crane operator. For now though, the Dublin Port masterplan is a priority for O'Reilly.
But he won't be working at Dublin Port even when many initial elements of the masterplan might be implemented. He's 52 and took up his job last year. It has a seven-year tenure and he's fairly certain he'll be moving on after it.
"I'm on the eighth gig of my career," he explains. "I'm on a contract that has a tenure of no more than seven years. I will move on. My ambition is to go out with 10 gigs under my belt."
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label dublin port planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dublin port planning. Show all posts
Friday, 4 November 2011
Monday, 16 May 2011
Residents complain about night-time noise
DUBLIN PORT Company’s public consultation on its 30-year masterplan has been described as a “PR stunt” by local residents who say they cannot sleep because of night-time noise from the port’s main container terminal.
The Coastguard Station Residents Group, on Pigeon House Road, said: “Dublin Port promotes expansion but disregards planning legislation, local residents and local environment for their own gain – and still the noise continues three to four nights a week.”
Residents’ spokesman Alexander Downes had complained to Dublin City Council that three huge gantries at the Marine Terminals Ltd (MTL) container port opposite their houses did not have planning permission. This was confirmed by the council last March.
However, because the development was carried out in 2002, the council’s planners said they were “statute-barred” from taking any enforcement action against MTL due to the elapse of time as such action could only be taken within seven years.
The residents maintain the development is still illegal “and the net result is that we are being deprived of our sleep” by the noise that emanates from the terminal, which was found to be in excess of guidelines set by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
A recent WHO report said noise pollution “is not only an environmental nuisance but also a threat to public health [and] leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution”. It recommended strengthening limits on night noise.
At a meeting with Kevin Humphreys TD (Labour, Dublin South East), port company chief executive Eamon O’Reilly said it wanted to “resolve the noise issue” as it “has potential to create a bad reputation” for the port, according to minutes seen by The Irish Times.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The Coastguard Station Residents Group, on Pigeon House Road, said: “Dublin Port promotes expansion but disregards planning legislation, local residents and local environment for their own gain – and still the noise continues three to four nights a week.”
Residents’ spokesman Alexander Downes had complained to Dublin City Council that three huge gantries at the Marine Terminals Ltd (MTL) container port opposite their houses did not have planning permission. This was confirmed by the council last March.
However, because the development was carried out in 2002, the council’s planners said they were “statute-barred” from taking any enforcement action against MTL due to the elapse of time as such action could only be taken within seven years.
The residents maintain the development is still illegal “and the net result is that we are being deprived of our sleep” by the noise that emanates from the terminal, which was found to be in excess of guidelines set by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
A recent WHO report said noise pollution “is not only an environmental nuisance but also a threat to public health [and] leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution”. It recommended strengthening limits on night noise.
At a meeting with Kevin Humphreys TD (Labour, Dublin South East), port company chief executive Eamon O’Reilly said it wanted to “resolve the noise issue” as it “has potential to create a bad reputation” for the port, according to minutes seen by The Irish Times.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Dublin Port wants to infill more of Dublin bay
DUBLIN PORT is considering “options” to infill a significantly larger area of the bay than previously proposed under its latest masterplan to cater for a projected doubling of throughput over the next 30 years.
An “issues paper” prepared by Jacobs Engineering also envisages infilling part of the Liffey estuary to provide more berthage as well as relocating the port’s cruise liner terminal to North Wall Quay.
It says the sequencing of development “has not yet been decided” and would be influenced by many factors, including cost and the need to minimise impact on port business and the environment.
Environmental studies, site investigations, planning approval and other consents – such as a dredging licences and foreshore permission – would all be required, and could take two years.
Two new berths for cruise liners are proposed at the western end of the port, near East Link Bridge, so that ships and their passengers would be closer to the city. This would require dredging to provide a “berthing pocket” for the liners. A new visitor centre of “good architectural quality” is envisaged for North Wall Quay.
The options paper also includes a second bridge, or tunnel, to link the north and south quays. A tunnel is favoured as its spoil “could be used in some of the proposed reclamation works within the port”.
Dredging of Alexandra Basin is flagged as requiring a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency as “it is known that the basin bed material is heavily contaminated”, according to the authors.
It is also proposed to build a high-level bridge over East Wall Road linking this area of the port with a proposed car import storage compound and the existing oil storage area, which is being retained.
New rail spurs to serve unitised freight yards are also envisaged as the authors anticipate that transfer of freight to rail “will increase steadily through the 30-year plan”.
An area of infill, roughly twice the 21 hectares (50 acres) proposed under the port’s controversial “Dublin Gateway” scheme, is included in the plan to provide six “ro-ro” (roll-on, roll-off) berths.
This would be “much less intrusive” than the scheme turned down by Bord Pleanála as none of the new berths would be located at the eastern end, significantly reducing the impact on wading birds.
On the south side of the river, the “lo-lo” terminal used by Marine Terminals Ltd would be retained and its throughput “enhanced” by investing in new container-handling equipment.
A large area of infill to the east of it would require the relocation of two tern colonies to a new site downstream from the port , where a wildlife observation platform is also proposed.
Planning consultants MacCabe Durney Barnes, in their “issues paper”, say the port’s masterplan “provides an ideal means...to influence future planning policy” by setting out the rationale for its existence.
They suggest the State-owned port company should seek to have its expansion “designated as being of over-riding national importance” to overcome issues relating to further infills of the bay.
“The port’s location in Dublin Bay raises difficult ecological issues”, the planning consultants concede, referring to the impact of conservation designations in the Tolka Estuary under the EU habitats directive.
Noting that 24-hour port activity is “not compatible with residential use”, they say the port “really has no option but to firmly resist the incursion of residential” into the Pigeon House Road area.
The public consultation process continues until May 31st. See www.dublinport.ie/Masterplan/
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
An “issues paper” prepared by Jacobs Engineering also envisages infilling part of the Liffey estuary to provide more berthage as well as relocating the port’s cruise liner terminal to North Wall Quay.
It says the sequencing of development “has not yet been decided” and would be influenced by many factors, including cost and the need to minimise impact on port business and the environment.
Environmental studies, site investigations, planning approval and other consents – such as a dredging licences and foreshore permission – would all be required, and could take two years.
Two new berths for cruise liners are proposed at the western end of the port, near East Link Bridge, so that ships and their passengers would be closer to the city. This would require dredging to provide a “berthing pocket” for the liners. A new visitor centre of “good architectural quality” is envisaged for North Wall Quay.
The options paper also includes a second bridge, or tunnel, to link the north and south quays. A tunnel is favoured as its spoil “could be used in some of the proposed reclamation works within the port”.
Dredging of Alexandra Basin is flagged as requiring a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency as “it is known that the basin bed material is heavily contaminated”, according to the authors.
It is also proposed to build a high-level bridge over East Wall Road linking this area of the port with a proposed car import storage compound and the existing oil storage area, which is being retained.
New rail spurs to serve unitised freight yards are also envisaged as the authors anticipate that transfer of freight to rail “will increase steadily through the 30-year plan”.
An area of infill, roughly twice the 21 hectares (50 acres) proposed under the port’s controversial “Dublin Gateway” scheme, is included in the plan to provide six “ro-ro” (roll-on, roll-off) berths.
This would be “much less intrusive” than the scheme turned down by Bord Pleanála as none of the new berths would be located at the eastern end, significantly reducing the impact on wading birds.
On the south side of the river, the “lo-lo” terminal used by Marine Terminals Ltd would be retained and its throughput “enhanced” by investing in new container-handling equipment.
A large area of infill to the east of it would require the relocation of two tern colonies to a new site downstream from the port , where a wildlife observation platform is also proposed.
Planning consultants MacCabe Durney Barnes, in their “issues paper”, say the port’s masterplan “provides an ideal means...to influence future planning policy” by setting out the rationale for its existence.
They suggest the State-owned port company should seek to have its expansion “designated as being of over-riding national importance” to overcome issues relating to further infills of the bay.
“The port’s location in Dublin Bay raises difficult ecological issues”, the planning consultants concede, referring to the impact of conservation designations in the Tolka Estuary under the EU habitats directive.
Noting that 24-hour port activity is “not compatible with residential use”, they say the port “really has no option but to firmly resist the incursion of residential” into the Pigeon House Road area.
The public consultation process continues until May 31st. See www.dublinport.ie/Masterplan/
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
First port of call for capital
FRIDAY INTERVIEW: Eamonn O'Reilly, chief executive, Dublin Port
IT MIGHT not be the sexiest job title in the world, but being the boss of Dublin Port offers a prime view of our capital city. From Eamonn O’Reilly’s fourth-floor office in Port Centre on Alexandra Road, the new Aviva Stadium can be seen in all its glory, with the Wicklow mountains providing the backdrop.
To the right is the O2 concert venue and Harry Crosbie’s big wheel, while the ESB chimney stacks at Poolbeg frame the view to the left.
“It’s magnificent . . . wait until you see this,” O’Reilly says, before eagerly opening the blinds to reveal the view across the port from the other side of his office.
It’s mostly cranes and gigantic oil tanks, but it’s impressive none the less.
It’s a definite perk of the job and must have been distracting as he was doodling a new master plan for Dublin Port in recent months.
Launched this week, its aim is to chart the development of Dublin Port out to 2040 to allow for a doubling of trade volumes.
This might sound like a hare-brained scheme to some, given the depressed nature of the economy at present, and the fact that no-one – other than the IMF and European Commission – wants to lend us a brass farthing at present. But with Irish exports thriving in the recession, O’Reilly is one of the few chief executives in the country operating in a growth industry.
The master plan is framed around the assumption that trade will grow to 60 million tonnes by 2040. This would be roughly twice the level of today and imply an average annual growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
“We think it entirely likely that it will at least double over the next 30 years,” O’Reilly says matter-of-factly.
If anything, this forecast might be too conservative. The volume of trade put through Dublin Port last year rose by 6.1 per cent to 28.9 million tonnes. Roughly three-quarters of that growth was exports.
While its below the 2007 peak of 30.9 tonnes, it marked a turnaround for the port business after a couple of tough years affected by the recession.
Encouragingly, this trend has continued into 2011, with volumes rising by about 6 per cent in the first two months of this year.
So the 30-year vision of growth could be on the low side. Then again, given our experience of the Celtic Tiger years, it’s probably no harm to err on the side of caution.
“Last year’s growth [in trade] suggests to me that we need to get our planning caps on and get a solid and robust master plan in place,” O’Reilly says.
If past experience is anything to go by, getting the green light to expand the port will be far from plain sailing for O’Reilly.
A plan promoted by O’Reilly’s predecessor Enda Connellan that involved the reclamation of 21 hectares of Dublin Bay was finally rejected by An Bord Pleanála last year.
“We ticked nearly every box,” O’Reilly says without flinching.
“We do live in a democracy and there were alternative arguments. The only issue we didn’t succeed on was relating to birds.
“That was a scientific issue and we didn’t get over that hurdle.”
O’Reilly’s iteration is somewhat more ambitious. It would involve reclaiming between 31 and 40 hectares of the sea to expand its existing 260-acre footprint.
There will also be an intensification of freight and cargo activity in certain parts of the port and a new berth closer to the city for cruise liners, which bring about 130,000 visitors to the capital each year.
Reclaiming land is always a contentious issue with environmental and conservation groups and plans to relocate a tern colony will no doubt spark a robust debate.
Local residents will also be nervous about the impact an expansion might have on their daily lives.
On the latter point, O’Reilly stresses that the plan is currently at the consultation stage and Dublin Port will fully engage will the local community on the issues involved before producing a final proposal, probably in November.
“Ports are utilitarian by their nature. They tend to be a wee bit grey.
“The interface from East Wall Road, for example, is not particularly attractive. It’s a dirty old wall. But we are working very hard on that.
“We do have to soften the edges of the port and we have to integrate it better.”
As regards reclaiming parts of Dublin Bay, O’Reilly insists there is no alternative.
“There’s no project that I know of for port expansion that doesn’t involve reclamation,” he explains.
“All of the 260 hectares here is reclaimed. There are even swathes of Trinity College’s campus that are reclaimed land.”
“If we approach our challenge of expanding the port in a different way to the way we did it in the past, I think we can get over the planning hurdles.”
Some might argue that there’s no need to expand Dublin Port, especially when there is a proposal – from Drogheda Port Company and an associate of Treasury Holdings – for a new port up the coast at Bremore.
“We’re running Dublin Port and we’re more than happy and confident that the customers who use this port want to continue to use this port.
“That’s where trade wants to come through. Dublin is the right location,” he says, referencing an Indecon report from 2009 commissioned by the Department of Transport.
“Of all the options they looked at, the one with the best net present value was the maintenance of Dublin Port. And they advised that nothing should be done at a policy level to restrict the growth or expansion of Dublin Port.”
Financing the project will be another kettle of fish.
O’Reilly won’t say how much the expansion plan will cost. But he is adamant that Dublin Port Company won’t have any problem raising the money, despite the fact that most finance house wouldn’t touch Ireland with a barge pole at the moment.
It has debts of €30 million – less than one times its Ebitda – and already spent €280 million upgrading the port since 1997.
“If we had a project today could we get funding? I actually think we could because Dublin Port is a very solid story from an investment point of view for a banker,” he says confidently.
“We’ve a solid track record. We’ve had Irish and foreign banks in here to talk to us, I’d say about every three weeks and we’re not inviting them in. They are coming to talk to us. Solid utilities, ports in particular, are a very good play.”
O’Reilly comes from an engineering and management consultancy background but has been working at the port in one capacity or another since 1988.
He took the reins at Dublin Port last August, after several years working with the Doyle shipping group.
Dublin Port’s 2010 results haven’t been published yet but it has annual revenues of about €65 million and its Ebitda in 2009 amounted to €32 million.
“We had a good year,” O’Reilly said, adding that its Ebitda increased in 2010.
It also coughed up a €5.5 million dividend to the Government.
What odds, then that economist Colm McCarthy might put Dublin Port Company near the top of his list of State assets that could be sold off to raise cash for the exchequer?
O’Reilly has met McCarthy and made a submission stating that it is an important strategic asset that should be retained in State ownership.
He argues that Dublin Port is already effectively privatised, given that the various terminals there compete with each other for trade.
Dublin Port is akin to a management company in an apartment block.
So why not sell it? Especially as some believe the price tag could be more than €400 million.
After a long pause, O’Reilly offered this view: “We think that the investment decisions that need to be made will be made in a more timely way by a public-sector owner than by a private-sector owner.
“If this place was bought, the first thing they [a new owner] would look to do is get a return on that investment.
“They would wait until there’s a queue of trucks from here to Belfast before investing in new infrastructure.
“That’s what I would do if I was running it. But is that necessarily the best for the country?”
Colm McCarthy will provide the answer to that question.
ON THE RECORD
Name: Eamonn O’Reilly
Job: Chief executive, Dublin Port Company
Age : 52
Family: Wife and four children
Hobbies: “I’m a keen Leinster fan.”
Something we might expect : “I took the ferry last April to the UK and took the motorbike up to the Highlands in Scotland. It was fantastic. The year before I went over to London and down to Biarritz. So I do use the ferries. Ferries are fantastic.”
Something that might surprise: He only took to motorbikes in 2001, buying a scooter. “I came to it late and went for a big bike as soon as possible. It’s a 1200cc mid-life crisis.”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
IT MIGHT not be the sexiest job title in the world, but being the boss of Dublin Port offers a prime view of our capital city. From Eamonn O’Reilly’s fourth-floor office in Port Centre on Alexandra Road, the new Aviva Stadium can be seen in all its glory, with the Wicklow mountains providing the backdrop.
To the right is the O2 concert venue and Harry Crosbie’s big wheel, while the ESB chimney stacks at Poolbeg frame the view to the left.
“It’s magnificent . . . wait until you see this,” O’Reilly says, before eagerly opening the blinds to reveal the view across the port from the other side of his office.
It’s mostly cranes and gigantic oil tanks, but it’s impressive none the less.
It’s a definite perk of the job and must have been distracting as he was doodling a new master plan for Dublin Port in recent months.
Launched this week, its aim is to chart the development of Dublin Port out to 2040 to allow for a doubling of trade volumes.
This might sound like a hare-brained scheme to some, given the depressed nature of the economy at present, and the fact that no-one – other than the IMF and European Commission – wants to lend us a brass farthing at present. But with Irish exports thriving in the recession, O’Reilly is one of the few chief executives in the country operating in a growth industry.
The master plan is framed around the assumption that trade will grow to 60 million tonnes by 2040. This would be roughly twice the level of today and imply an average annual growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
“We think it entirely likely that it will at least double over the next 30 years,” O’Reilly says matter-of-factly.
If anything, this forecast might be too conservative. The volume of trade put through Dublin Port last year rose by 6.1 per cent to 28.9 million tonnes. Roughly three-quarters of that growth was exports.
While its below the 2007 peak of 30.9 tonnes, it marked a turnaround for the port business after a couple of tough years affected by the recession.
Encouragingly, this trend has continued into 2011, with volumes rising by about 6 per cent in the first two months of this year.
So the 30-year vision of growth could be on the low side. Then again, given our experience of the Celtic Tiger years, it’s probably no harm to err on the side of caution.
“Last year’s growth [in trade] suggests to me that we need to get our planning caps on and get a solid and robust master plan in place,” O’Reilly says.
If past experience is anything to go by, getting the green light to expand the port will be far from plain sailing for O’Reilly.
A plan promoted by O’Reilly’s predecessor Enda Connellan that involved the reclamation of 21 hectares of Dublin Bay was finally rejected by An Bord Pleanála last year.
“We ticked nearly every box,” O’Reilly says without flinching.
“We do live in a democracy and there were alternative arguments. The only issue we didn’t succeed on was relating to birds.
“That was a scientific issue and we didn’t get over that hurdle.”
O’Reilly’s iteration is somewhat more ambitious. It would involve reclaiming between 31 and 40 hectares of the sea to expand its existing 260-acre footprint.
There will also be an intensification of freight and cargo activity in certain parts of the port and a new berth closer to the city for cruise liners, which bring about 130,000 visitors to the capital each year.
Reclaiming land is always a contentious issue with environmental and conservation groups and plans to relocate a tern colony will no doubt spark a robust debate.
Local residents will also be nervous about the impact an expansion might have on their daily lives.
On the latter point, O’Reilly stresses that the plan is currently at the consultation stage and Dublin Port will fully engage will the local community on the issues involved before producing a final proposal, probably in November.
“Ports are utilitarian by their nature. They tend to be a wee bit grey.
“The interface from East Wall Road, for example, is not particularly attractive. It’s a dirty old wall. But we are working very hard on that.
“We do have to soften the edges of the port and we have to integrate it better.”
As regards reclaiming parts of Dublin Bay, O’Reilly insists there is no alternative.
“There’s no project that I know of for port expansion that doesn’t involve reclamation,” he explains.
“All of the 260 hectares here is reclaimed. There are even swathes of Trinity College’s campus that are reclaimed land.”
“If we approach our challenge of expanding the port in a different way to the way we did it in the past, I think we can get over the planning hurdles.”
Some might argue that there’s no need to expand Dublin Port, especially when there is a proposal – from Drogheda Port Company and an associate of Treasury Holdings – for a new port up the coast at Bremore.
“We’re running Dublin Port and we’re more than happy and confident that the customers who use this port want to continue to use this port.
“That’s where trade wants to come through. Dublin is the right location,” he says, referencing an Indecon report from 2009 commissioned by the Department of Transport.
“Of all the options they looked at, the one with the best net present value was the maintenance of Dublin Port. And they advised that nothing should be done at a policy level to restrict the growth or expansion of Dublin Port.”
Financing the project will be another kettle of fish.
O’Reilly won’t say how much the expansion plan will cost. But he is adamant that Dublin Port Company won’t have any problem raising the money, despite the fact that most finance house wouldn’t touch Ireland with a barge pole at the moment.
It has debts of €30 million – less than one times its Ebitda – and already spent €280 million upgrading the port since 1997.
“If we had a project today could we get funding? I actually think we could because Dublin Port is a very solid story from an investment point of view for a banker,” he says confidently.
“We’ve a solid track record. We’ve had Irish and foreign banks in here to talk to us, I’d say about every three weeks and we’re not inviting them in. They are coming to talk to us. Solid utilities, ports in particular, are a very good play.”
O’Reilly comes from an engineering and management consultancy background but has been working at the port in one capacity or another since 1988.
He took the reins at Dublin Port last August, after several years working with the Doyle shipping group.
Dublin Port’s 2010 results haven’t been published yet but it has annual revenues of about €65 million and its Ebitda in 2009 amounted to €32 million.
“We had a good year,” O’Reilly said, adding that its Ebitda increased in 2010.
It also coughed up a €5.5 million dividend to the Government.
What odds, then that economist Colm McCarthy might put Dublin Port Company near the top of his list of State assets that could be sold off to raise cash for the exchequer?
O’Reilly has met McCarthy and made a submission stating that it is an important strategic asset that should be retained in State ownership.
He argues that Dublin Port is already effectively privatised, given that the various terminals there compete with each other for trade.
Dublin Port is akin to a management company in an apartment block.
So why not sell it? Especially as some believe the price tag could be more than €400 million.
After a long pause, O’Reilly offered this view: “We think that the investment decisions that need to be made will be made in a more timely way by a public-sector owner than by a private-sector owner.
“If this place was bought, the first thing they [a new owner] would look to do is get a return on that investment.
“They would wait until there’s a queue of trucks from here to Belfast before investing in new infrastructure.
“That’s what I would do if I was running it. But is that necessarily the best for the country?”
Colm McCarthy will provide the answer to that question.
ON THE RECORD
Name: Eamonn O’Reilly
Job: Chief executive, Dublin Port Company
Age : 52
Family: Wife and four children
Hobbies: “I’m a keen Leinster fan.”
Something we might expect : “I took the ferry last April to the UK and took the motorbike up to the Highlands in Scotland. It was fantastic. The year before I went over to London and down to Biarritz. So I do use the ferries. Ferries are fantastic.”
Something that might surprise: He only took to motorbikes in 2001, buying a scooter. “I came to it late and went for a big bike as soon as possible. It’s a 1200cc mid-life crisis.”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Port plan rejected by Bord Pleanála
THE PROPOSED development of Dublin Port which would have increased its capacity by 50 per cent has been rejected by Bord Pleanála.
The Dublin Port Company’s plans to infill 21 hectares (52 acres) on the eastern extremity of the north port area at Alexandra Road would have a detrimental impact on the south Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary pSPA (proposed special protection area) designated under the EU Birds Directive, the board found.
Insp Brendan Wyse also recommended that Dublin Gateway, as it was called, should be rejected on the basis that it constituted unsustainable development and would further entrench Dublin Port’s dominance at the expense of regional ports. However, those recommendations were not accepted by the board.
The saga relating to the infill of Dublin Bay stretches back to 1972 when it was first proposed to infill large swathes of the area. The latest proposal rejected by Bord Pleanála was first put forward in 1999.
The port company argued during lengthy public hearings that the development was essential as it was nearing capacity. It also claimed the expansion would give it deep-sea berthing facilities for the larger container ships which were coming on stream.
The proposal envisaged four new berths for roll-on, roll-off ferries with 600 parking places, new access roads and a rail link.
A short statement from the company noted the decision, and said it was reviewing it in detail before making any comment. However, a company source said they were “stunned”.
“This was a very robust application by the company and it went into huge detail from a ecological point of view. It embraced the process fully and was focused on getting all the information out there,” the source said.
The company had hoped that the evidence of ornithologist Richard Nairn that the site was not a key part of the habitat used by birds in Dublin Bay or in the pSPA would be enough to persuade Bord Pleanála to grant planning permission.
However, the planning inspector found the proposal did not “adequately establish that the proposal would not adversely affect both the integrity of this SPA and the natural heritage of Dublin Bay”.
BirdWatch Ireland’s policy officer Siobhán Egan said it welcomed the acknowledgement that even a small part of the bay constituted a “vital refuge” for birds.
The decision was welcomed by campaigners, local people and politicians, almost all of whom were opposed. The chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, Fine Gael councillor Gerry Breen, said he hoped it would be the end of the “40-year folly” by the port company .
Clontarf Residents Association spokeswoman Deirdre Tobin said the decision was a “day of great celebration”.
“We really hope that this has been the final attempt to gain planning permission for a development that has no support among residents and environmental groups surrounding Dublin Bay.”
Politicians from all the mainstream parties opposed the development. Minister for State Seán Haughey said the decision would be “warmly welcomed” by all who cared about the bay.
Senator Ivor Callely also welcomed the rejection, as did the local Green Party.
However, the Irish Exporters Association said the decision showed a “worrying lack of understanding of the economic needs of exporters”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The Dublin Port Company’s plans to infill 21 hectares (52 acres) on the eastern extremity of the north port area at Alexandra Road would have a detrimental impact on the south Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary pSPA (proposed special protection area) designated under the EU Birds Directive, the board found.
Insp Brendan Wyse also recommended that Dublin Gateway, as it was called, should be rejected on the basis that it constituted unsustainable development and would further entrench Dublin Port’s dominance at the expense of regional ports. However, those recommendations were not accepted by the board.
The saga relating to the infill of Dublin Bay stretches back to 1972 when it was first proposed to infill large swathes of the area. The latest proposal rejected by Bord Pleanála was first put forward in 1999.
The port company argued during lengthy public hearings that the development was essential as it was nearing capacity. It also claimed the expansion would give it deep-sea berthing facilities for the larger container ships which were coming on stream.
The proposal envisaged four new berths for roll-on, roll-off ferries with 600 parking places, new access roads and a rail link.
A short statement from the company noted the decision, and said it was reviewing it in detail before making any comment. However, a company source said they were “stunned”.
“This was a very robust application by the company and it went into huge detail from a ecological point of view. It embraced the process fully and was focused on getting all the information out there,” the source said.
The company had hoped that the evidence of ornithologist Richard Nairn that the site was not a key part of the habitat used by birds in Dublin Bay or in the pSPA would be enough to persuade Bord Pleanála to grant planning permission.
However, the planning inspector found the proposal did not “adequately establish that the proposal would not adversely affect both the integrity of this SPA and the natural heritage of Dublin Bay”.
BirdWatch Ireland’s policy officer Siobhán Egan said it welcomed the acknowledgement that even a small part of the bay constituted a “vital refuge” for birds.
The decision was welcomed by campaigners, local people and politicians, almost all of whom were opposed. The chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, Fine Gael councillor Gerry Breen, said he hoped it would be the end of the “40-year folly” by the port company .
Clontarf Residents Association spokeswoman Deirdre Tobin said the decision was a “day of great celebration”.
“We really hope that this has been the final attempt to gain planning permission for a development that has no support among residents and environmental groups surrounding Dublin Bay.”
Politicians from all the mainstream parties opposed the development. Minister for State Seán Haughey said the decision would be “warmly welcomed” by all who cared about the bay.
Senator Ivor Callely also welcomed the rejection, as did the local Green Party.
However, the Irish Exporters Association said the decision showed a “worrying lack of understanding of the economic needs of exporters”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Haughey suggests moving oil storage tanks out of Dublin Port
DUBLIN PORT Company should consider moving its landmark oil storage tanks out of Dublin Port to create the extra space the company claims it needs for expansion, instead of attempting to reclaim 52 acres of the bay, Minister of State Seán Haughey told a Bord Pleanála hearing yesterday.
Mr Haughey, TD for Dublin North Central and a Minister of State for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, said he believed the planning board could reject the infill plan on economic, environmental and social and recreational grounds.
Giving evidence before the planning inquiry into the project yesterday, Mr Haughey said portions of the port company’s land bank may be underutilised, including lands which he said were given over to non-port businesses which included the ESB.
Other parcels of land might be put to more efficient or better use and he added: “If consideration was given to moving oil storage facilities off-site, this may impact positively both on capacity and traffic volume within the port.”
The Minister told senior An Bord Pleanála planning inspector Brendan Wyse it appeared “entirely feasible” to retain Dublin Port in its current state “while accommodating any requirements for additional facilities in the development of a new port outside the city at an alternative site – Bremore for example.” Further capacity was also available at Greenore or Arklow, he added.
The developers of Bremore Port on the north Dublin/Meath border also spoke at the inquiry, citing objections to Dublin Port Company’s expansion plans.
A spokesman for Waterford Port told the inquiry it would not be in the interests of balanced regional development that Dublin be allowed to expand to a point where all of the State’s increase in damand over coming years could be accommodated in Dublin alone.
Consultant planner John Spain, for Bremore Port, said Dublin Port Company had not properly considered alternatives to the infill. He said the plan was premature in that it predated the publication of a strategic plan for Dublin Bay and he maintained the recent Indecon report on port capacity concluded there was “no imminent need or demand for the project”.
However, in a cross examination by Paul Gardiner SC for Dublin Port, Mr Spain acknowledged the Indecon report had concluded Dublin Port would run out of capacity by 2018. Mr Spain said he had been referring to the Indecon report’s finding that the State would not need additional capacity until about 2025.
Mr Gardiner also asked if it was the case that Bremore Port was located “at least 14km” farther away from target delivery premises around the M50 motorway, than Dublin Port.
Mr Gardiner also asked if the parent company of Bremore’s private sector partner was still in a position to finance the development; if Bremore had concluded a deal with Iarnród Éireann for rail access; and if it was intended to compete with the port of Belfast as well as Dublin.
Mr Spain said the issue of the stability of financial backers for Bremore was not relevant to the Dublin Port application. He said negotiations were in place with Iarnród Éireann over rail access and he agreed that Bremore Port would be farther from the M50 than Dublin Port. But he said Bremore would be competing with all ports serving the island, and was very well placed to compete with both Belfast and Dublin.
The hearing continues today.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Haughey, TD for Dublin North Central and a Minister of State for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, said he believed the planning board could reject the infill plan on economic, environmental and social and recreational grounds.
Giving evidence before the planning inquiry into the project yesterday, Mr Haughey said portions of the port company’s land bank may be underutilised, including lands which he said were given over to non-port businesses which included the ESB.
Other parcels of land might be put to more efficient or better use and he added: “If consideration was given to moving oil storage facilities off-site, this may impact positively both on capacity and traffic volume within the port.”
The Minister told senior An Bord Pleanála planning inspector Brendan Wyse it appeared “entirely feasible” to retain Dublin Port in its current state “while accommodating any requirements for additional facilities in the development of a new port outside the city at an alternative site – Bremore for example.” Further capacity was also available at Greenore or Arklow, he added.
The developers of Bremore Port on the north Dublin/Meath border also spoke at the inquiry, citing objections to Dublin Port Company’s expansion plans.
A spokesman for Waterford Port told the inquiry it would not be in the interests of balanced regional development that Dublin be allowed to expand to a point where all of the State’s increase in damand over coming years could be accommodated in Dublin alone.
Consultant planner John Spain, for Bremore Port, said Dublin Port Company had not properly considered alternatives to the infill. He said the plan was premature in that it predated the publication of a strategic plan for Dublin Bay and he maintained the recent Indecon report on port capacity concluded there was “no imminent need or demand for the project”.
However, in a cross examination by Paul Gardiner SC for Dublin Port, Mr Spain acknowledged the Indecon report had concluded Dublin Port would run out of capacity by 2018. Mr Spain said he had been referring to the Indecon report’s finding that the State would not need additional capacity until about 2025.
Mr Gardiner also asked if it was the case that Bremore Port was located “at least 14km” farther away from target delivery premises around the M50 motorway, than Dublin Port.
Mr Gardiner also asked if the parent company of Bremore’s private sector partner was still in a position to finance the development; if Bremore had concluded a deal with Iarnród Éireann for rail access; and if it was intended to compete with the port of Belfast as well as Dublin.
Mr Spain said the issue of the stability of financial backers for Bremore was not relevant to the Dublin Port application. He said negotiations were in place with Iarnród Éireann over rail access and he agreed that Bremore Port would be farther from the M50 than Dublin Port. But he said Bremore would be competing with all ports serving the island, and was very well placed to compete with both Belfast and Dublin.
The hearing continues today.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
'No option' over infill decision
An Bord Pleanala has no option but to refuse planning permission for a 52-acre infill in Dublin Bay, a planning hearing was told this afternoon.
In a legal submission on behalf of Dublin Baywatch and the Clontarf residents’ Association barrister Donal O’Laoire submitted the infill was contrary to the requirements of the EU Birds Directive, the EU Habitats Directive, the directive on Environmental Impact Assessments, as well as proper planning and development.
Dublin Port company is seeking permission to develop the 52-acre infill in the north port to cater for larger cargo ships requiring deep water berths. The company claims the facility is of strategic national importance and vital for economic development.
But Mr O’Laoire told the hearing “the primary submission of Dublin Bay Watch and of the Clontarf residents is that this application falls to be considered under the strict regulatory regime of the Birds Directive, without amendment”.
He insisted “the planning permission must fail as it offends against the requirements of the Birds Directive”.
But he added that “even if this is not accepted by An Bord Pleanala, the application equally fails under the requirements of the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment directives, and because it does not constitute proper planning and sustainable development”.
Liam O Dwyer of Dublin Bay Watch accused the port company of using its rail links to the national network as a smokescreen. He described the proportion of rail cargo at the port as a “tiny 1.75 per cent share” and added that most of this was accounted for by Tara Mines, one customer.
Mr O’Dwyer also argued an already present risk of flooding in Clontarf, Sandymount and Ringsend would be exacerbated by the infill plans.
Citing a range of expert opinions including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2003 report entitled “Climate Change, Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland” Mr O’Dwyer said the planting of 52 acres of “hard material” in Dublin Bay represented a “considerable flooding risk” in addition to that posed by climate change and rising sea levels.
He told senior inspector Brendan Wyse the range of expertise arrayed against the Port Company’s plan was extensive. He cited from research carried out by the EPA, UCC in collaboration with the Hydraulics and Marine Research Centre, as well as the intergovernmental panel on climate change, to emphasise the risk of more intense storm events occurring more frequently.
Dublin, he said was cited in a number of studies as being a low lying coastal area which was he said, “very seriously at risk” from flooding.
Detailing that risk fellow Baywatch member Peter Bailey said the EPA report had concluded the impacts of “sea level rise will be most apparent in the major cities of Cork, Limerick, Dublin and Galway” and that this was a serious problem where strategic infrastructure was located.
“It is unthinkable that such a massive infill could be counternanced in close proximity to low lying residential areas which have suffered severe flooding in recent years, Clontarf, East Wall, Sandymount and Ringsend…and the banks of the Tolka and the Dodder rivers.”
He said “the fact that Dublin city council manned the shore last year putting in sandbags and keeping a 24 hour watch on the bay during the spring tide season testifies to the threat posed by the sea….”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
In a legal submission on behalf of Dublin Baywatch and the Clontarf residents’ Association barrister Donal O’Laoire submitted the infill was contrary to the requirements of the EU Birds Directive, the EU Habitats Directive, the directive on Environmental Impact Assessments, as well as proper planning and development.
Dublin Port company is seeking permission to develop the 52-acre infill in the north port to cater for larger cargo ships requiring deep water berths. The company claims the facility is of strategic national importance and vital for economic development.
But Mr O’Laoire told the hearing “the primary submission of Dublin Bay Watch and of the Clontarf residents is that this application falls to be considered under the strict regulatory regime of the Birds Directive, without amendment”.
He insisted “the planning permission must fail as it offends against the requirements of the Birds Directive”.
But he added that “even if this is not accepted by An Bord Pleanala, the application equally fails under the requirements of the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment directives, and because it does not constitute proper planning and sustainable development”.
Liam O Dwyer of Dublin Bay Watch accused the port company of using its rail links to the national network as a smokescreen. He described the proportion of rail cargo at the port as a “tiny 1.75 per cent share” and added that most of this was accounted for by Tara Mines, one customer.
Mr O’Dwyer also argued an already present risk of flooding in Clontarf, Sandymount and Ringsend would be exacerbated by the infill plans.
Citing a range of expert opinions including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2003 report entitled “Climate Change, Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland” Mr O’Dwyer said the planting of 52 acres of “hard material” in Dublin Bay represented a “considerable flooding risk” in addition to that posed by climate change and rising sea levels.
He told senior inspector Brendan Wyse the range of expertise arrayed against the Port Company’s plan was extensive. He cited from research carried out by the EPA, UCC in collaboration with the Hydraulics and Marine Research Centre, as well as the intergovernmental panel on climate change, to emphasise the risk of more intense storm events occurring more frequently.
Dublin, he said was cited in a number of studies as being a low lying coastal area which was he said, “very seriously at risk” from flooding.
Detailing that risk fellow Baywatch member Peter Bailey said the EPA report had concluded the impacts of “sea level rise will be most apparent in the major cities of Cork, Limerick, Dublin and Galway” and that this was a serious problem where strategic infrastructure was located.
“It is unthinkable that such a massive infill could be counternanced in close proximity to low lying residential areas which have suffered severe flooding in recent years, Clontarf, East Wall, Sandymount and Ringsend…and the banks of the Tolka and the Dodder rivers.”
He said “the fact that Dublin city council manned the shore last year putting in sandbags and keeping a 24 hour watch on the bay during the spring tide season testifies to the threat posed by the sea….”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Dublin port hearing to reopen
Bord Pleanála is to reopen its oral hearing into plans by Dublin Port Company to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay.
The hearing was adjourned last September after it was revealed that the Bord's advisor on hydrogeology, HR Wallingford Ltd, had previously worked for Drogheda Port Company.
Drogheda Port Company is seeking to develop a rival port to Dublin Port, at Bremore near Balbriggan in north County Dublin. Drogheda Port Company is also a party to the Oral Hearing on the infill project.
Last month Bord Pleanála rejected any suggestion of bias on the part of HR Wallingford but announced it would change its advisor.
The new advisor is to be Anthony Cawley of Hydro Environmental Limited. He will act as the specialist consultant to assist the Inspector Brendan Wyse and advise the board.
The board said Mr Cawley was being given time to read himself into the brief and the oral hearing would resume on November 30th in All Hallows College, Drumcondra.
News of the reopening of the hearing was welcomed by opponents of the plan, Dublin Bay Watch, which said it looks forward to having its objections heard.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The hearing was adjourned last September after it was revealed that the Bord's advisor on hydrogeology, HR Wallingford Ltd, had previously worked for Drogheda Port Company.
Drogheda Port Company is seeking to develop a rival port to Dublin Port, at Bremore near Balbriggan in north County Dublin. Drogheda Port Company is also a party to the Oral Hearing on the infill project.
Last month Bord Pleanála rejected any suggestion of bias on the part of HR Wallingford but announced it would change its advisor.
The new advisor is to be Anthony Cawley of Hydro Environmental Limited. He will act as the specialist consultant to assist the Inspector Brendan Wyse and advise the board.
The board said Mr Cawley was being given time to read himself into the brief and the oral hearing would resume on November 30th in All Hallows College, Drumcondra.
News of the reopening of the hearing was welcomed by opponents of the plan, Dublin Bay Watch, which said it looks forward to having its objections heard.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 12 October 2009
Dublin port land infill hearing to reopen
AN BORD PLEANÁLA is to reopen a planning hearing into Dublin port proposals to infill 52 acres of Dublin bay.
The hearing was suspended last month after it emerged the board’s advisers HR Wallingford, had undertaken work on plans for Bremore port which is a potential rival for Dublin’s port’s expansion plans.
In a letter received by the parties to the hearing yesterday, the board said it did not accept there was a conflict of interest.
However, the board said it would be changing its advisers and dispensing with the services of HR Wallingford.
The hearing will reopen when new advisers read themselves into the brief.
The issue of conflict arose after it emerged during the inquiry that HR Wallingford had provided advice in 2004 to Drogheda Port Company which is planning a deep water port at Bremore, in north Co Dublin.
In deciding there was no conflict of interest the board noted the HR Wallingford adviser assigned to the case commenced employment with the company only in 2007. It also noted that in recent years HR Wallingford had also worked directly or indirectly for both Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council.
The board said it will now appoint a new expert to replace the adviser but will reconvene the oral hearing under inspector Brendan Wyse as soon as feasible.
Welcoming the news, chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, Gerry Breen, said it was ‘‘keen to put our side of the argument to the hearing”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The hearing was suspended last month after it emerged the board’s advisers HR Wallingford, had undertaken work on plans for Bremore port which is a potential rival for Dublin’s port’s expansion plans.
In a letter received by the parties to the hearing yesterday, the board said it did not accept there was a conflict of interest.
However, the board said it would be changing its advisers and dispensing with the services of HR Wallingford.
The hearing will reopen when new advisers read themselves into the brief.
The issue of conflict arose after it emerged during the inquiry that HR Wallingford had provided advice in 2004 to Drogheda Port Company which is planning a deep water port at Bremore, in north Co Dublin.
In deciding there was no conflict of interest the board noted the HR Wallingford adviser assigned to the case commenced employment with the company only in 2007. It also noted that in recent years HR Wallingford had also worked directly or indirectly for both Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council.
The board said it will now appoint a new expert to replace the adviser but will reconvene the oral hearing under inspector Brendan Wyse as soon as feasible.
Welcoming the news, chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, Gerry Breen, said it was ‘‘keen to put our side of the argument to the hearing”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Dublin Port warns on cost of goods if expansion blocked
DUBLIN Port needs to be expanded to allow large freight ships to dock or people will be forced to pay more for consumer goods.
The Dublin Port Company warned yesterday that if bigger ships were not accommodated, the costs of importing goods would rise.
The company wants to fill in 53 acres of Dublin to create a new freight terminal.
Yesterday chief executive Enda Connellan, told a public hearing that a new €150m terminal was needed to ensure that Dublin Port would be viable into the future.
An Bord Pleanala was told that the port, the sixth largest in the EU, had seen a four-fold increase in traffic in the past decade, and now handled two-thirds of all consumer goods entering the country.
"Ireland depends more than any other country in the world, with the exception of the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg), on international trade for growth in GDP," Mr Connellan said.
"The free and efficient movement of tradeable goods into and out of this country is essential for our national economic well-being. In light of the fact that trade will be carried by larger and more efficient ships, it is critical that we have the strategic port infrastructure and deepwater facilities in place to service these vessels.
"Otherwise, we will be confined to servicing smaller and less efficient vessels which will ultimately result in higher freight costs.
"This will have cost and competitive consequences for the national economy and consumers," added Mr Connellan.
This is the third time that the port company has made a planning application to create new land from Dublin Bay.
Two attempts in 1999 and 2002 were rejected, but this proposal is being processed through the Strategic Infrastructure Act which means that An Bord Pleanala, and not Dublin City Council, will decide if permission should be given. There are over 200 objections to the plans, with opponents saying it could cause flooding in Clontarf.
Chairman of Dublin Baywatch, Cllr Gerry Breen (FG), said the infill was neither "warranted nor desirable".
The hearing is expected to last at least two weeks, and will hear that the Department of the Environment is to extend the special protection area for wildlife in Dublin Bay, which includes the area covered by the port expansion.
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
The Dublin Port Company warned yesterday that if bigger ships were not accommodated, the costs of importing goods would rise.
The company wants to fill in 53 acres of Dublin to create a new freight terminal.
Yesterday chief executive Enda Connellan, told a public hearing that a new €150m terminal was needed to ensure that Dublin Port would be viable into the future.
An Bord Pleanala was told that the port, the sixth largest in the EU, had seen a four-fold increase in traffic in the past decade, and now handled two-thirds of all consumer goods entering the country.
"Ireland depends more than any other country in the world, with the exception of the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg), on international trade for growth in GDP," Mr Connellan said.
"The free and efficient movement of tradeable goods into and out of this country is essential for our national economic well-being. In light of the fact that trade will be carried by larger and more efficient ships, it is critical that we have the strategic port infrastructure and deepwater facilities in place to service these vessels.
"Otherwise, we will be confined to servicing smaller and less efficient vessels which will ultimately result in higher freight costs.
"This will have cost and competitive consequences for the national economy and consumers," added Mr Connellan.
This is the third time that the port company has made a planning application to create new land from Dublin Bay.
Two attempts in 1999 and 2002 were rejected, but this proposal is being processed through the Strategic Infrastructure Act which means that An Bord Pleanala, and not Dublin City Council, will decide if permission should be given. There are over 200 objections to the plans, with opponents saying it could cause flooding in Clontarf.
Chairman of Dublin Baywatch, Cllr Gerry Breen (FG), said the infill was neither "warranted nor desirable".
The hearing is expected to last at least two weeks, and will hear that the Department of the Environment is to extend the special protection area for wildlife in Dublin Bay, which includes the area covered by the port expansion.
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Bremore no replacement for Dublin Port, says town planner
A PROPOSAL that Dublin Port divert its container services to a new deep-water port at Bremore in north Co Dublin, as opposed to infilling 52 acres of Dublin Bay, was based on the misconception that a port at Bremore actually exists, An Bord Pleanála was told yesterday.
Addressing a planning inquiry into Dublin Port Company’s plans for the infill in Dublin Bay, architect and town planner Terry Durney said the choice of Bremore on the north Dublin coast was significantly inferior to Dublin Port.
The switching of Dublin Port traffic to Bremore either in its entirety or simply as a move to add extra capacity has been suggested by a number of opponents of the infill proposal. But according to Mr Durney, Bremore was not a natural harbour and would require large-scale engineering works, and even then he claimed it had been suggested the port “could be vulnerable in northeasterly winds in the same way that Rosslare is”.
Mr Durney maintained concerns had also arisen about the archaeology of the north Co Dublin/east Meath coastal region and he pointed out that Bremore headland is the location of several unexcavated Neolithic burial sites protected by the Fingal Development Plan.
He also said another issue was the visual impact of the Bremore development “in an area of pristine plain and coastal landscape”. Other aspects which he said needed to be considered included the absence of road infrastructure in the area, particularly a road link to the M1 motorway.
He also mentioned the absence of a rail connection. Mr Durney said the Dublin Bay infill proposal was “the best option in environmental and operational terms”.
Dublin Port already had a good connection to the M1 and M50 motorways and was “at the hub of the railway system and is strategically placed to offer connectivity to a more sustainable form of transport that is likely to increase in future years”.
Mr Durney also said Dublin was the most suitable site for an expansion of the State’s unitised container handling capacity.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Addressing a planning inquiry into Dublin Port Company’s plans for the infill in Dublin Bay, architect and town planner Terry Durney said the choice of Bremore on the north Dublin coast was significantly inferior to Dublin Port.
The switching of Dublin Port traffic to Bremore either in its entirety or simply as a move to add extra capacity has been suggested by a number of opponents of the infill proposal. But according to Mr Durney, Bremore was not a natural harbour and would require large-scale engineering works, and even then he claimed it had been suggested the port “could be vulnerable in northeasterly winds in the same way that Rosslare is”.
Mr Durney maintained concerns had also arisen about the archaeology of the north Co Dublin/east Meath coastal region and he pointed out that Bremore headland is the location of several unexcavated Neolithic burial sites protected by the Fingal Development Plan.
He also said another issue was the visual impact of the Bremore development “in an area of pristine plain and coastal landscape”. Other aspects which he said needed to be considered included the absence of road infrastructure in the area, particularly a road link to the M1 motorway.
He also mentioned the absence of a rail connection. Mr Durney said the Dublin Bay infill proposal was “the best option in environmental and operational terms”.
Dublin Port already had a good connection to the M1 and M50 motorways and was “at the hub of the railway system and is strategically placed to offer connectivity to a more sustainable form of transport that is likely to increase in future years”.
Mr Durney also said Dublin was the most suitable site for an expansion of the State’s unitised container handling capacity.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Cargo terminal 'would not affect views'
A new, €150m deep-water cargo terminal in Dublin Bay would not impact significantly on views enjoyed by residents of Clontarf - because it would be set against a backdrop of existing industrial facilities, particularly the ESB power station and the proposed regional incinerator, An Bord Pleanála has been told today.
The Bord is hearing an application from Dublin Port Company to infill 52 acres of the bay and add additional pontoons and jetties for larger container ships that would use the north bay area adjacent to Clontarf sea front.
Giving evidence for the Port company yesterday architect and town planner Terry Durney of McCabe Durney Barnes said existing views already included a “tank farm” and the development would include “strong mitigation action including landscaping and a screen wall which will be included along the foreshore facing Clontarf”.
He said the proposed container facility had been reconfigured to move it further away from the foreshore during the course of the design and preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Mr Durney also told the inquiry that the Environmental Impact Assessment had been prepared on the basis that the development would likely lie within a Special Protected Area – an EU designation for the protection of birds. Mr Durney said the “impacts on the SPA and birdlife will not be significant during both construction and operation phases”.
The planning inquiry which is in its second day, is expected to spend the best part of a week hearing the case for the development. A further two weeks is expected to then be given over to cross-examination of expert witnesses by opponents of the scheme.
Opponents of the scheme include the campaign group Dublin Bay Watch, Clontarf Residents’ Association, An Taisce as well as members of Dublin City Council and local TDs.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The Bord is hearing an application from Dublin Port Company to infill 52 acres of the bay and add additional pontoons and jetties for larger container ships that would use the north bay area adjacent to Clontarf sea front.
Giving evidence for the Port company yesterday architect and town planner Terry Durney of McCabe Durney Barnes said existing views already included a “tank farm” and the development would include “strong mitigation action including landscaping and a screen wall which will be included along the foreshore facing Clontarf”.
He said the proposed container facility had been reconfigured to move it further away from the foreshore during the course of the design and preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Mr Durney also told the inquiry that the Environmental Impact Assessment had been prepared on the basis that the development would likely lie within a Special Protected Area – an EU designation for the protection of birds. Mr Durney said the “impacts on the SPA and birdlife will not be significant during both construction and operation phases”.
The planning inquiry which is in its second day, is expected to spend the best part of a week hearing the case for the development. A further two weeks is expected to then be given over to cross-examination of expert witnesses by opponents of the scheme.
Opponents of the scheme include the campaign group Dublin Bay Watch, Clontarf Residents’ Association, An Taisce as well as members of Dublin City Council and local TDs.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Economic arguments should not be part of port inquiry, hearing told
ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS at the core of the Dublin Port Company’s plans to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay may not be considered by a planning inquiry into the project, An Bord Pleanála was told yesterday.
The board’s fast-track strategic infrastructure division is hearing an application by the port company for planning permission for the infill, which it said would increase unitised container traffic through the port by up to 50 per cent. The company said the expansion would be necessary to provide deep-water berths for larger ships, and was central to the economic prosperity of the State.
However, speaking at the opening of the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing into the application yesterday, barrister Donall O’Laoire said the area in question was in the process of being designated as a special protected area under the EU Birds Directive.
Mr O’Laoire, who represents Dublin Bay Watch and the Clontarf Residents Association, both of which oppose the plans, said the European Court had ruled that in circumstances where areas were candidates for protection, legislation from the birds directive applied. “This directive specifically states that economic and recreational arguments are not admissible,” he told An Bord Pleanála senior planning inspector Brendan Wyse. Mr O’Laoire was supported by barrister Ian Lumly of An Taisce, who said there were two further potential legal challenges to the inquiry.
Firstly, questions arose “over the validity of the entire hearing” because of what he maintained were deficiencies in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Secondly, the port company had refused to divulge information on the carbon emissions of the proposed development, contrary to a European directive.
Mr Wyse said he had taken the comments of both barristers into consideration and time could be allocated in the hearing to listen to full submissions on the topics raised.
The inquiry continues.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The board’s fast-track strategic infrastructure division is hearing an application by the port company for planning permission for the infill, which it said would increase unitised container traffic through the port by up to 50 per cent. The company said the expansion would be necessary to provide deep-water berths for larger ships, and was central to the economic prosperity of the State.
However, speaking at the opening of the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing into the application yesterday, barrister Donall O’Laoire said the area in question was in the process of being designated as a special protected area under the EU Birds Directive.
Mr O’Laoire, who represents Dublin Bay Watch and the Clontarf Residents Association, both of which oppose the plans, said the European Court had ruled that in circumstances where areas were candidates for protection, legislation from the birds directive applied. “This directive specifically states that economic and recreational arguments are not admissible,” he told An Bord Pleanála senior planning inspector Brendan Wyse. Mr O’Laoire was supported by barrister Ian Lumly of An Taisce, who said there were two further potential legal challenges to the inquiry.
Firstly, questions arose “over the validity of the entire hearing” because of what he maintained were deficiencies in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Secondly, the port company had refused to divulge information on the carbon emissions of the proposed development, contrary to a European directive.
Mr Wyse said he had taken the comments of both barristers into consideration and time could be allocated in the hearing to listen to full submissions on the topics raised.
The inquiry continues.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 14 August 2009
Report on the role of Dublin Port and its future published
Minister Noel Dempsey TD has published a study on the future role of Dublin Port.
The study was conducted under the National Development Plan 2007-2013 and contains important conclusions in relation to Dublin Port and the wider port sector.
Speaking on the publication of the report, Minister Dempsey said - “The future of Dublin Port has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. The future of this port is not just a local or regional matter - it is of major strategic importance to the country as a whole. The National Development Plan recognised this fact by providing for this study.
"As a trade dependent island nation we are reliant upon our ports to facilitate economic growth. Notwithstanding the current downturn and its associated effects in terms of decreased traffic volumes, the ports sector is one that demands long-term forward planning and analysis.
"This report is an important analysis - not just of the future of Dublin Port, but also provides a useful insight into the capacity challenges that face the sector as a whole.”
The study highlights the strategic importance of Dublin Port to the economy. Over 40% of national tonnage passes through the port and it plays a particularly important role in terms of fast-moving high value cargos. The port has a 75% market share for roll-on-roll-off trucks (RoRo) and 64% for lift-on-lift-off containers (LoLo). The port is also vital in terms of the State’s energy supply, handling 45% of national oil imports.
Highlights from the study include the following -
* A projection that national port throughput will continue to decline in 2009 and into 2010 and that traffic throughput will not return to 2007 levels until post 2011.
* Traffic projections have been formulated at a time of great uncertainty, but this does not impact on the key conclusions reached.
* There is a need to develop significant additional port capacity by 2025 - 2030 as a result of future capacity constraints in existing port facilities.
* There are two significant projects at different stages of the planning process at present. Dublin Port’s proposed expansion is currently with An Bord Pleanála and the proposal for a new port at Bremore is at the pre-planning stage. The study identifies considerable uncertainties with regard to both projects. It concludes that nothing should be done at a policy level to hinder either.
* The cost benefit analysis of seven different future scenarios identifies potential benefits relating to the relocation or partial relocation of Dublin Port in terms of city sustainability issues arising out of increased urbanisation, greater usage of public transport and a related reduction in congestion.
However, the costs of such a relocation are very significant in terms of the capital costs of building alternative capacity, the inevitable business disruption caused by such a relocation and increased traffic movements.
* An important finding of the cost benefit analysis is in relation to the scale and value of the port estate, if it were to be redeveloped. The study concludes that such redevelopment would have to take place over a considerable length of time, which could realistically reach a century.
* The detailed cost benefit analysis of seven different scenarios concludes that retention of Dublin Port in its present location - together with onsite expansion - would deliver the highest net present value in cost benefit terms.
Minister Dempsey added - “The State ports played a vital role in facilitating the strong economic growth over the last decade, with tonnage increasing 50% over the ten years up to 2007. It was quite an achievement for the sector to accommodate such growth levels without any major disruption of trade and it is equally important that the sector is in a position to perform the same role when the economy returns to growth.”
The Ports Sub-Programme of the National Development Plan 2007 -2013 estimates port infrastructural expenditure of between €300 million and €600 million over the period of the programme. To-date, capital investment under the sub-programme is in line with this. Some €120 million has been invested in the first two years of the programme, with a further €75 million budgeted for 2009. This expenditure is being funded by the port companies themselves, without recourse to Exchequer funding.
The recently enacted Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009 contains a number of provisions designed to enhance the commercial ethos of the State-owned port companies and to facilitate their continued growth and development.
www.buckplanning.ie
The study was conducted under the National Development Plan 2007-2013 and contains important conclusions in relation to Dublin Port and the wider port sector.
Speaking on the publication of the report, Minister Dempsey said - “The future of Dublin Port has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. The future of this port is not just a local or regional matter - it is of major strategic importance to the country as a whole. The National Development Plan recognised this fact by providing for this study.
"As a trade dependent island nation we are reliant upon our ports to facilitate economic growth. Notwithstanding the current downturn and its associated effects in terms of decreased traffic volumes, the ports sector is one that demands long-term forward planning and analysis.
"This report is an important analysis - not just of the future of Dublin Port, but also provides a useful insight into the capacity challenges that face the sector as a whole.”
The study highlights the strategic importance of Dublin Port to the economy. Over 40% of national tonnage passes through the port and it plays a particularly important role in terms of fast-moving high value cargos. The port has a 75% market share for roll-on-roll-off trucks (RoRo) and 64% for lift-on-lift-off containers (LoLo). The port is also vital in terms of the State’s energy supply, handling 45% of national oil imports.
Highlights from the study include the following -
* A projection that national port throughput will continue to decline in 2009 and into 2010 and that traffic throughput will not return to 2007 levels until post 2011.
* Traffic projections have been formulated at a time of great uncertainty, but this does not impact on the key conclusions reached.
* There is a need to develop significant additional port capacity by 2025 - 2030 as a result of future capacity constraints in existing port facilities.
* There are two significant projects at different stages of the planning process at present. Dublin Port’s proposed expansion is currently with An Bord Pleanála and the proposal for a new port at Bremore is at the pre-planning stage. The study identifies considerable uncertainties with regard to both projects. It concludes that nothing should be done at a policy level to hinder either.
* The cost benefit analysis of seven different future scenarios identifies potential benefits relating to the relocation or partial relocation of Dublin Port in terms of city sustainability issues arising out of increased urbanisation, greater usage of public transport and a related reduction in congestion.
However, the costs of such a relocation are very significant in terms of the capital costs of building alternative capacity, the inevitable business disruption caused by such a relocation and increased traffic movements.
* An important finding of the cost benefit analysis is in relation to the scale and value of the port estate, if it were to be redeveloped. The study concludes that such redevelopment would have to take place over a considerable length of time, which could realistically reach a century.
* The detailed cost benefit analysis of seven different scenarios concludes that retention of Dublin Port in its present location - together with onsite expansion - would deliver the highest net present value in cost benefit terms.
Minister Dempsey added - “The State ports played a vital role in facilitating the strong economic growth over the last decade, with tonnage increasing 50% over the ten years up to 2007. It was quite an achievement for the sector to accommodate such growth levels without any major disruption of trade and it is equally important that the sector is in a position to perform the same role when the economy returns to growth.”
The Ports Sub-Programme of the National Development Plan 2007 -2013 estimates port infrastructural expenditure of between €300 million and €600 million over the period of the programme. To-date, capital investment under the sub-programme is in line with this. Some €120 million has been invested in the first two years of the programme, with a further €75 million budgeted for 2009. This expenditure is being funded by the port companies themselves, without recourse to Exchequer funding.
The recently enacted Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009 contains a number of provisions designed to enhance the commercial ethos of the State-owned port companies and to facilitate their continued growth and development.
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 8 August 2009
A hundred years and €1bn to turn port into suburb
A PROPOSAL to transform Dublin Port into a suburban centre would cost €1bn and take a century, according to a new report.
It is opposed to the port being relocated further along the coast as is currently proposed.
And it says the huge city centre site should not be redeveloped for housing and commercial use as the benefits would not justify the costs.
The study by Indecon Economic Consultants, to be published today, warns there is a "danger to the Irish economy" if plans to provide additional capacity in Dublin and a new port at Bremore in north Co Dublin do not go ahead.
Sprawl
The report, seen by the Irish Independent , was carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport and sets out a range of options for the 532-acre site in the heart of the capital.
A previous study commissioned by Dublin City Council suggested that up to 55,000 homes could be built there, helping to curb urban sprawl, but the Indecon report says the cost of removing decades of pollution could run to almost €1bn.
Assuming that the property market improves and that the land can be developed, it could take up to a century to transform the port area into a suburb of the city.
The study stresses the strategic importance of the port to the economy, noting that over 40pc of national tonnage passes through it and that it plays a highly important role in terms of fast-moving, high-value cargos.
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
It is opposed to the port being relocated further along the coast as is currently proposed.
And it says the huge city centre site should not be redeveloped for housing and commercial use as the benefits would not justify the costs.
The study by Indecon Economic Consultants, to be published today, warns there is a "danger to the Irish economy" if plans to provide additional capacity in Dublin and a new port at Bremore in north Co Dublin do not go ahead.
Sprawl
The report, seen by the Irish Independent , was carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport and sets out a range of options for the 532-acre site in the heart of the capital.
A previous study commissioned by Dublin City Council suggested that up to 55,000 homes could be built there, helping to curb urban sprawl, but the Indecon report says the cost of removing decades of pollution could run to almost €1bn.
Assuming that the property market improves and that the land can be developed, it could take up to a century to transform the port area into a suburb of the city.
The study stresses the strategic importance of the port to the economy, noting that over 40pc of national tonnage passes through it and that it plays a highly important role in terms of fast-moving, high-value cargos.
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Shifting port out of Dublin 'not justified'
THE COSTS of closing Dublin Port and relocating its operations out of the city would not be justified, a report commissioned by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey has found.
The report, which has been welcomed by the Dublin Port Company, comes just weeks before the Bord Pleanála hearing on the company’s plans to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay for the expansion of the port.
An Bord Pleanála has received more than 100 objections to the plans, including a submission from Dublin City Council which stated that the application was “premature”, without adequate justification, and could cause flooding.
However, the new report from economic consultants Indecon found that the expansion of the port would benefit the economy.
Indecon was commissioned by Mr Dempsey last year to examine the future of the port, concentrating on the costs and benefits of relocation, expansion, or keeping Dublin port at its current size and locating new port development out of the city.
Its report found that while there was a decline in port activity due to the recession, there would be a need to develop additional capacity within the next 20 years. Indecon’s analysis said the expansion proposal was the best economic option, with the retention of the current port combined with a new port outside the city following a close second.
The least economically beneficial option would be the closure and relocation the port, it said. This conclusion is in direct conflict with a city council report, the Dublin Bay study, which recommended the port be moved out of the city and the lands be used to develop a new “city quarter”.
Indecon agrees that the closure would have “city-wide sustainability benefits” in stemming urban sprawl. However, this would not justify the cost involved in developing a sufficiently large new port, disrupting existing port businesses, and increasing transport and distribution distances.
It also states that the residential development value of the land is now much lower than judged by the council and it would take several decades before it would be absorbed by the market.
The report also rates highly plans, promoted by Treasury Holdings and the Drogheda Port Company, to develop Bremore port near Balbriggan in north Dublin, as a provider of the necessary additional capacity if the port was not expanded.
It notes that both developments were subject to “uncertainties” such as the planning process, but said that if neither proceeded or if equivalent capacity was not found, it would “result in significant damage to the Irish economy”. It recommends against putting any Government policy in place that would block either development.
Dublin Bay Watch, which opposes the expansion plans, said it was a “strange coincidence” the report was issued just weeks before the planning hearing and added that the infill would result in large environmental fines.
In a statement yesterday the port company said the report confirmed the strategic importance of the port and that the “real value of Dublin Port is as a vital piece of infrastructure driving Irish trade rather than a property play”.
The Bord Pleanála hearing begins on August 31st and is likely to last several weeks.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The report, which has been welcomed by the Dublin Port Company, comes just weeks before the Bord Pleanála hearing on the company’s plans to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay for the expansion of the port.
An Bord Pleanála has received more than 100 objections to the plans, including a submission from Dublin City Council which stated that the application was “premature”, without adequate justification, and could cause flooding.
However, the new report from economic consultants Indecon found that the expansion of the port would benefit the economy.
Indecon was commissioned by Mr Dempsey last year to examine the future of the port, concentrating on the costs and benefits of relocation, expansion, or keeping Dublin port at its current size and locating new port development out of the city.
Its report found that while there was a decline in port activity due to the recession, there would be a need to develop additional capacity within the next 20 years. Indecon’s analysis said the expansion proposal was the best economic option, with the retention of the current port combined with a new port outside the city following a close second.
The least economically beneficial option would be the closure and relocation the port, it said. This conclusion is in direct conflict with a city council report, the Dublin Bay study, which recommended the port be moved out of the city and the lands be used to develop a new “city quarter”.
Indecon agrees that the closure would have “city-wide sustainability benefits” in stemming urban sprawl. However, this would not justify the cost involved in developing a sufficiently large new port, disrupting existing port businesses, and increasing transport and distribution distances.
It also states that the residential development value of the land is now much lower than judged by the council and it would take several decades before it would be absorbed by the market.
The report also rates highly plans, promoted by Treasury Holdings and the Drogheda Port Company, to develop Bremore port near Balbriggan in north Dublin, as a provider of the necessary additional capacity if the port was not expanded.
It notes that both developments were subject to “uncertainties” such as the planning process, but said that if neither proceeded or if equivalent capacity was not found, it would “result in significant damage to the Irish economy”. It recommends against putting any Government policy in place that would block either development.
Dublin Bay Watch, which opposes the expansion plans, said it was a “strange coincidence” the report was issued just weeks before the planning hearing and added that the infill would result in large environmental fines.
In a statement yesterday the port company said the report confirmed the strategic importance of the port and that the “real value of Dublin Port is as a vital piece of infrastructure driving Irish trade rather than a property play”.
The Bord Pleanála hearing begins on August 31st and is likely to last several weeks.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Delay to Dublin Bay infill plan
Dublin Port Company faces significant delays to its plans to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay following a decision by An Bord Pleanála to re-open public consultation on the application.
The company made its application for permission to construct new deep-water berths at the 21-hectare northeastern part of Dublin Port, which is located in Dublin Bay, last August.
In addition to the proposed infill, there would be additional dredging or other works on a further 17 hectares of the bay.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The company made its application for permission to construct new deep-water berths at the 21-hectare northeastern part of Dublin Port, which is located in Dublin Bay, last August.
In addition to the proposed infill, there would be additional dredging or other works on a further 17 hectares of the bay.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)