Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1999

Vol. 512 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Port Development.

Mr. R. Bruton

This is an important issue for the northside of Dublin. To put the matter in perspective, it is proposed to take 52 acres from Dublin Bay and convert it to real estate for port development. The Minister of State will know the scale of 52 acres. However, to put it in context, it is equivalent to a ground level car park for 32,500 cars, which is a massive amount of land. There have been no pre-application consultations with key groups such as residents' associations and public representatives. This proposal was drafted without proper consultation with local residents. The Minister of State knows that over the years the residents have objected to developments such as the underground gas caverns which were proposed at one stage and which thankfully did not go ahead.

As a result of the tight timescale – only one month was provided for submissions, the advertisement of which many people were not alerted to – a huge number of people who would like to have made submissions missed the cut-off date. More importantly, many of the submissions were made in a hasty manner without the opportunity to properly research and reply to the issues raised in the environmental impact statement. The port company is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act so technical reports were not accessible to the public. The time which should be given to citizens to research such a modern project was not allowed.

The legislation governing the decision about a project which will have a huge environmental impact on the bay is ancient and anachronistic. The Foreshore Act does not provide for public hearings, adequate time for third parties to make objections or an appeal mechanism. A project of such scale and with so many implications would not be allowed with such procedure in another state. This legislation dates from a time when the role of citizens was minute and is now inappropriate. I ask the Minister to extend the time allowed for submissions and, even though it is not his statutory obligation, to institute public hearings before he makes a decision. People have a right to express their views in a modern democratic society and to have them heard by technical experts before a Minister makes a decision. Otherwise, a nonsense would be made of long-established planning procedures where one has an opportunity to make objections and there are hearings to ensure a proper decision is reached.

I am concerned about the thinking behind this proposal. It regards Dublin Bay as an appendage to the port to be absorbed whenever the necessities of the port demand it. People should look on the bay as an amenity. We are unique in Dublin in having a bay such as this. It should be looked on as an amenity which is worth preserving. I put it to the Minister of State that given the pace of growth in Dublin and the congestion created in bringing 50% of the country's trade into the heart of the city, it must be questioned whether it would be better for Dublin Port Company to intensify use of its assets, using them for longer hours and at off-peak times, rather than looking for more land from valuable Dublin Bay resources as it is now trying to do.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

Dublin Port Company has applied for permission under section 10 of the Foreshore Act, 1933, as amended, to have 21 hectares or 52 acres of privately owned foreshore in Dublin Port reclaimed for port purposes. In addition to the statutory consultees named on page 21 of the Environmental Impact Statement, the company has advised me that it also consulted the Clontarf Yacht and Boat Club prior to the publication of its EIS.

The publication of the EIS and the commencement of the public consultation process were advertised prominently in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times on 1 October. Copies of the EIS and other associated documents necessary for the public consultation process were made available for public consultation for the statutory period of one month at both the port company's offices and Store Street Garda Station. While I am anxious that any developer seeking a foreshore lease or licence under the Foreshore Acts would enter into the greatest possible consultation prior to completion and publication of an EIS, it is ultimately a decision for the intending developer to make as to who is consulted, in addition to the statutory consultees.

The House will appreciate that it is impossible to consult every person or group who might have an interest. Were it possible, there would not be any need to enter the public consultation process. However, I am advised that the port company, at the request of Deputy Callely, attended two residents association meetings in Clontarf Castle to discuss the project. The port company has also advised me that, following on publication of the notice in the newspapers on 1 October and, having regard to the relatively small attendance at the exhibition of the public consultation documents in the port offices, public representatives for the area, both at national and local level, known residents associations in the area and other known interested parties, such as An Taisce and Birdwatch Ireland, were written to and invited to attend at the company's offices. The company advises that the response was mixed, with some attending and having fruitful discussions, some sending apologies and some ignoring the invitation. I accept this as evidence that the company has complied with its statutory duty in relation to public consultation. I am informed that Deputy Bruton was not among those who accepted the invitation.

The House will be aware that the proposed development required an Environmental Impact Statement under section 13A(1) of the Foreshore Act, as inserted by the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (Statutory Instrument No. 349 of 1989) and subsequently amended. I am satisfied that the procedures required under section 19 A, B and C of the 1933 Act have been complied with. The regulations set the prescribed period as being one month from the date of publication in the case of interested persons or bodies who are not prescribed bodies for the purposes of the Act. This prescribed period is binding both on the developer and on interested bodies and individuals.

It is significant to note that the statutory period was sufficient to allow 428 submissions to be made to me on to the proposed reclamation. The vast bulk of these were from individual residents or family groups with Clontarf addresses while two were from community action groups – the Clontarf Residents Association and the East Wall Community Development Council. The submissions were under no less than 14 broad headings. It would appear, therefore, that the statutory one month consultation period proved adequate in this case.