JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 2005

DART Upgrade: Presentation.

Chairman

Today's discussion concerns objections by An Taisce to the proposed DART upgrade work at Dublin's southside stations. We are joined by Mr. Martin Shiels, office manager, and Mr. Ian Lumley, heritage officer, both from An Taisce. I welcome them on behalf of the committee to today's meeting. I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The joint committee has directed that, in responding to questions posed by members, witnesses should ensure their replies are brief and to the point. We will commence with a short presentation by Mr. Shields, which will be followed by a question and answer session.

A decision has been given by An Bord Pleanála in the past week in respect of this matter. Probably everybody is happy in this regard. It is a pity there was not a bit more discussion between Iarnród Éireann and An Taisce rather than having to go to An Bord Pleanála which delayed the project.

Senator Norris

I could not agree more, but it is important to note that An Taisce was vindicated by An Bord Pleanála.

Chairman

Nobody is objecting to that.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Will the Chairman repeat what he said?

Chairman

Minor changes have been brought about. The annoying aspect is that Iarnród Éireann was not prepared to sit down and negotiate the matter rather than holding up for six months a project which was needed to service the general public. Inconvenience was caused as a result. Iarnród Éireann could have been far more proactive.

Senator Norris

That is a very important point and could be clarified. In its submission, Iarnród Éireann was harshly critical of An Taisce and suggested that it had ignored communications and failed to arrange meetings. This is why I was very anxious that representatives from An Taisce should come and present their side.

Chairman

That was suggested.

Mr. Martin Shiels

We have provided a copy of our presentation in advance. An Taisce, through its Dún Laoghaire association, has lodged three appeals against separate pedestrian and disabled rail bridge works on the DART southside line. The appeals were taken on design and procedural grounds. In its submissions, An Taisce was emphatic in stating the need for full disabled access to be accommodated.

An Taisce is equally concerned that the best achievable public transport system should be developed for Dublin and nationally. We welcome the recent announcement by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, of a unitary Dublin transport authority to achieve better development and co-ordination.

The decision notification on both Blackrock and Killiney stations was made on 27 June 2005. Both decisions attached design modifications, including restrictions on advertising. Conditions were attached for reuse of stonework in Killiney and reuse of granite and railings in Blackrock. The Killiney permission also made significant modifications to the bridge design under condition No. 4, including reduction of the lift height from 9.9 metres to 9.5 metres above platform level by omission of the tensile fabric and replacement of the sloping roof and the replacement of perforated stainless steel ballustrading and woven mesh infill panels with glazing. The effect of the decision is to reduce both the scale and impact of the pedestrian bridge and give it a more transparent character. The latter design modification, which had already been incorporated into the Blackrock proposal, is also of benefit to disabled access users.

An Taisce considers that the significant modifications which have been made in An Bord Pleanála's decision justify the basis of the appeals taken. An appeal taken by An Taisce is always based on carefully considered grounds of environmental public interest and design. In many instances, such as the DART pedestrian bridges, the appeals were lodged not to secure the refusal or overturn of the proposal in principle but in the interests of an improved and better integrated scheme.

Any applicant, whether an individual, a commercial property investor or State body, such as Iarnród Éireann, lodging a planning application should factor in the time period for assessment and third-party appeal. The latter is an important part of the Irish planning system, allowing local communities, individuals, organisations and commercial property investors to make submissions where justified and appeal to An Bord Pleanála, with the board having jurisdiction for the dismissal of vexatious appeals. An Bord Pleanála's appeal period should have been factored into any work phasing by Iarnród Éireann for this element of the DART line upgrade.

An Taisce is pleased to advise the committee that very constructive discussions are taking place with Iarnród Éireann to resolve the design concerns raised with regard to the other single location on which an appeal is outstanding, namely, the Monkstown-Salthill DART station.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I welcome the delegates and thank them for coming before the committee. It is not at my invitation. I did not ask for them to come in and give an account of the reason they objected, because they are perfectly entitled to do so. Iarnród Éireann was very critical of the delays, but I was critical of Iarnród Éireann. The funding had to be spent by autumn, and the work would not be done if it did not have permission in time. This caused concern for everybody. However, the blame lay entirely with Iarnród Éireann in that it did not realise it had to apply for planning permission in the first instance and therefore permission was applied for too late and the process had to be fast-tracked, unlike the rest of its work. With all the architectural, engineering and planning expertise available, it is inexplicable that Iarnród Éireann did not know it had to apply for planning permission.

I apologise to the delegates for having to come in and give an account of themselves. An Taisce acted in accordance with the legislation and what it is mandated to do. Well done to it.

Deputy Gilmore

Ten of the DART stations affected by these works, from Booterstown to Shankill, are located in my constituency. I am also aware of the concerns of people living in Bray and Greystones. There is deep frustration on the part of my constituents and those in the adjoining constituency of Wicklow that for the second time DART services are being suspended at weekends by Iarnród Éireann for upgrading works. The people I represent cannot understand why Iarnród Éireann could not have done all the work in one job rather than having two suspensions. Second, during the first suspension, we were obliged to endure almost one year without DART services at weekends. At the time I was part of a deputation which met Iarnród Éireann and which was assured that this was the full extent of the works and that they would not be revisited.

While I understand perfectly the reasons the work must be done, to facilitate disabled access and so on, it is massively disruptive to commercial life in places like Blackrock, Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire and Bray and to those who rely on public transport. The entire thrust of public policy has been to encourage people to use public transport. However, one cannot tell people to use it and then take it away at weekends. The alternative which was supposed to be provided through a bus service simply has not materialised. Iarnród Éireann's sister company, Dublin Bus, removed the No. 8 bus service from Dalkey shortly before work on the rail line started.

This frustration has been compounded by the fact that the works have been prolonged as a result of the objections made. I entirely respect the right of An Taisce to do its job and lodge objections. As Senator Norris stated, the objections were vindicated as a result of the decision made by An Bord Pleanála. I do not accept Iarnród Éireann did not know it was obliged to apply for planning permission. It now has a record as long as one's arm of doing things without getting permission. A couple of years ago it did some work on the beach at Killiney following a slippage of the line. It put JCBs and diggers on the beach without getting the requisite permission from either the local authority or the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and was obliged to so do retrospectively. When it last carried out works on the rail line, it made significant changes to at least one bridge of which I am aware and ran into trouble with the planning authority. I agree with Deputy Mitchell that the fault lies with it.

The only point I will make concerning planning permission is that normally a developer factors in the possibility that there will be a third-party appeal. To be fair, account should be taken of the situation whereby one is dealing with a rail service which is dependent on a limited quantity of railway lines and where the number of windows to carry out work is often limited. It is not like building a house where one should take into account the six-month period where one is obliged to wait for completion of the third-party process. This work can only be done at certain times. Iarnród Éireann must try to avoid the Christmas shopping period, school times and other periods such as when people rely on it in getting to and from examinations. This must be taken into account. However, this mess was caused by Iarnród Éireann again doing what it has done repeatedly in the past and attempting to wing it as far as planning permission is concerned. It has done so at the great inconvenience of the travelling public, many of whom I represent in my constituency.

Senator Norris

I welcome the constructive comments of Deputies Mitchell and Gilmore which are accurate. I have a small degree of sympathy, as does Deputy Gilmore, for CIE because of the difficulties encountered in getting the work done, as its representatives explained when they last appeared before the joint committee. It cannot do the work at night, as some have suggested, because it would only have approximately one or two hours before it would be obliged to start services again.

I welcome the fact that representatives from An Taisce have come before the joint committee today because in the Seanad and — from what I read and listen to on "Oireachtas Report" — the Dáil it has been subjected to a brutal and ill-informed assault, principally by the Government parties in recent years. Part of it was due to the business of one-off housing but it led to the formation of an uncritical attitude of condemnation towards An Taisce. That is a great pity and I am glad its representatives are present to make this positive submission. Taking that into account, the work it has been doing in terms of one-off housing is important and will come back to haunt the Oireachtas.

I was listening to the radio today as the question of tourism was again discussed. Many from the west as well as tourists and others have made the point that one of the negative factors is that people come here and see the spread of housing everywhere. There were many critical comments on the subject. Therefore, An Taisce may find itself being vindicated on this point.

I want to return to the question raised by CIE. Iarnród Éireann's representatives were highly critical and suggested that An Taisce was completely indifferent to the disabled. I remember drawing attention to the sharpness of the language used in its submission to a public session of the joint committee. Its allegations included the claim that a series of letters went unanswered and that An Taisce did not attend meetings. I was unsure whether this was caused by a changeover of personnel in the office. Is this factual and, if so, is there is an explanation? Was there a legal reason? I do not know whether it is to the advantage of An Taisce but I want to know what the underlying story is. Was there a difficulty in meeting Iarnród Éireann whose representatives certainly made a meal out of it?

Senator Morrissey

I want to take up where Senator Norris left off because when I read the presentation, I do not understand what this issue is all about. It certainly does not concern pedestrian and disabled access. It has nothing to do with those issues if full permission has been granted. The modifications include a reduction in lift height and the replacement of perforated stainless steel balustrading with infill panels.

I live along the line running through Castleknock and Clonsilla. I do not know if the delegates are aware of the overhead bridges but I want to know whether An Taisce has ever made any submissions about them as they have been galvanised for the past ten or 15 years. In this case, however, we are discussing infill panels with glazing. I do not know what effect this has in the provision of a railway line to get people moving.

I remain to be convinced of the benefits of this exercise which is costly and has delayed matters. Iarnród Éireann has been obliged to resume works on the line and, as Deputies Gilmore and Mitchell have stated, hundreds of thousands will be discommoded at weekends. The presentation refers to significant modifications. I do not know how significant this process has actually been, as we have heard two stories from Iarnród Éireann and An Taisce. When will Iarnród Éireann get back to work on the line?

Mr. Ian Lumley

I will explain our reason for focusing on the stations mentioned. Blackrock is one of the oldest railway stations in the world. It was included in the original development of the Dublin-Dún Laoghaire line in 1834 and is a protected structure of heritage significance. Killiney is a 19th-century railway station that is not specifically listed but is of heritage significance in a particularly sensitive amenity site where, everyone would agree, a high quality design would be very desirable.

Regarding the bridges on the Maynooth line referred to by Senator Morrissey, all of the work would have been done using the Iarnród Éireann planning exemption. On the point made by Deputy Gilmore, the answer is better strategic and forward planning. The environmental impact assessment directive, even if it is not necessarily applicable in this case, provides for a consultation structure. It is an integrated assessment structure to minimise the impact of projects. If it is a public transport project, the structure finds a way to carry it out in such a way that the impact on passenger use is minimised.

While we have noted all of the comments made by Iarnród Éireann, based on the information available to us, it has not been demonstrated to us that the appeals in respect of the bridge sites have delayed the overall project which is quite complex. This is because bridges, although they may be large and complex structures, are constructed within a very short period. Once the foundations are prepared, the bridges are prefabricated and lifted into place by crane. It has not been demonstrated to us that the appeals have delayed and obstructed the overall project to the extent argued.

We are always delighted to commend good work where it is done. Overall, Iarnród Éireann has done superb work in upgrading the Dublin-Belfast line, a cross-Border funded project. The quality of work done in the stations in Dundalk and Drogheda has been superb and sets a standard for others. I know Iarnród Éireann has high quality proposals for upgrading stations all over the country, in addition to Heuston Station, which we have been discussing with it.

We have circulated a copy of the current edition of our magazine. Apart from giving members a general insight into the entire range of environmental issues with which An Taisce is concerned, we are delighted to highlight on the front cover one of the finest infrastructural projects and symbols of modern Ireland, the Luas over-bridge in Dundrum. Apart from bringing the Luas over a very complex traffic junction in a wonderfully efficient and effective manner, it is a focal point or landmark in the area, in the same way as the great engineering achievements of the past were monuments of their time. We are always delighted to be able to commend something. Unfortunately, all too often, it is our criticisms or concerns that receive the publicity. When we deliver praise, as we do all the time, it does not get enough publicity.

Chairman

Iarnród Éireann painted a very different picture on its visit to the joint committee. At that stage Senator Norris requested that Mr. Lumley be given the opportunity of explaining An Taisce's side of the story, which is quite positive. Is there anything the committee can do to help An Taisce with regard to public projects where it might be notified or given a copy of designs prior to making a full submission to iron out teething problems such as these at the initial stage? I know that in cases involving one-off houses and serious conflict, Mr. Lumley has sat down with people and sorted problems out and that everybody has gone away happy when a stand-off would have done no one any good.

We need to look into the possibility that in respect of major projects such as this information is submitted by various groupings, rather than councils automatically notifying An Taisce. Applicants should notify An Taisce prior to or following the lodging of an application in order that design problems can be ironed out. I am bringing this forward as a suggestion. I do not know what Mr. Lumley feels about it from An Taisce's perspective. It would be a positive move because we should remember that if this approach had been taken by Iarnród Éireann, it would not be inconveniencing the public for such a long period on this project.

Deputy Gilmore

I agree with the Chairman. As I understand it, a decision has not been made with regard to Blackrock and Killiney stations. With regard to Monkstown-Salthill station, is An Taisce withdrawing its objection?

Mr. Lumley

We are having very constructive discussions with Iarnród Éireann in which one of the issues being examined is whether some of the design modifications An Bord Pleanála has recommended for Killiney station could be adapted for Monkstown-Salthill station as a way of resolving the outstanding issues.

Deputy Gilmore

What is the issue to be resolved at Monkstown-Salthill station? It is a new station in which there are no old buildings.

Mr. Lumley

For those members familiar with that part of the DART line, it mainly concerns the interface in respect of the fine public right of way running along the seafront, which dates from the 19th century, and the degree to which the bridge cuts into it. There are very tight operational constraints because of the width of the platform. That is an issue we are examining in detail with Iarnród Éireann.

Deputy Gilmore

I urge that it be resolved. This is the second time people have had their lives and businesses disrupted as a result of works on the railway line. We are talking about two tracks which carry mainline rail services from the south east into the city and a very busy suburban rail service. A balance needs to be struck between the planning objectives which I understand must be achieved. I have said where I think the blame lies in that respect. I do not want to see the works on this line being unnecessarily prolonged. There is a need to get back to normal movement. We all talk about encouraging people to get out of their cars. I meet constituents who do not have a car but are now considering getting one because their movements have been repeatedly restricted at weekends.

Mr. Lumley

I am very pleased to clarify again that we are having very constructive discussions with Iarnród Éireann which will I hope allow the appeal to be withdrawn. The point that generally many of these problems could be solved through better pre-planning consultation is welcome and valid. There is such consultation on applications involving environmental impact statements, in respect of which there is pre-planning circulation of information, which is enormously beneficial in the planning process in avoiding problems when planning applications come to be lodged.

There has been advance consultation with Iarnród Éireann with regard to both stations in Dublin and the national station upgrade programme which affects a number of fine heritage stations and buildings. We have a wonderful legacy of 19th-century station buildings and it is entirely possible to keep their best features and characteristics while, at the same time, achieving the modern public transport infrastructure we all want.

Senator Norris

On planning appeals and objections, it is essential, particularly for a group such as An Taisce, that there is the maximum communication in order that people know exactly what is going on. In that light, this has been a very constructive meeting for all participants. If there are mechanisms by which An Taisce can reach other parts of the Oireachtas and other committees by meeting with representatives, it would be very helpful. An Taisce's motivations and method of operation are often misrepresented and misunderstood by politicians.

Chairman

We are all guilty.

Senator Norris

Yes. However, this is a question that can be resolved by communication. An Taisce is not in the business of deliberately torturing people or alienating the travelling public. I agree completely with Deputy Gilmore that transport systems should not be disrupted unnecessarily.

Reference was made to a very fine public right of way. Thanks to Deputy Gilmore's constituents, it has the highest concentration of dog dirt in the known universe. I know this is not a question for the committee but it is an absolute fact.

Deputy Gilmore

What makes the Senator believe they are my constituents?

Senator Norris

The Deputy claims them.

Deputy Gilmore

People come from all over Dublin to relieve their dogs there.

Senator Norris

Do they? I have seen some of them and I have identified them.

Chairman

Is the Senator saying he would like to exclude dogs that come from other areas?

Senator Norris

Not in the slightest. I would exclude neither dogs nor bitches, to use the appropriate terminology. One must be accurate in these matters and get animals' nomenclature correct. I may have introduced this problem in a slightly frivolous way but the public right of way is virtually unusable.

Chairman

I suggest the Senator should write to the local authority about the problem, as this is a local authority problem.

Senator Norris

There are fines and local authorities used to leave pooper scoopers for people to use. It is now disloyal to refer to North Great George's Street as the dog dirt capital of Dublin. We used to be fingered regularly by newspapers for this. I am sure Deputy Gilmore will agree that the state of the area in question is atrocious.

Deputy Gilmore

They are not our dogs.

Chairman

This is far from the duties of the Joint Committee on Transport.

Mr. Lumley

I want to raise an issue that the committee may be interested in considering further, that of the procurement of materials and services for transport infrastructural projects. We have an unprecedented level of transport investment development and the projects generate major requirements for aggregate materials from quarries. Every time there is a proposal for a road that goes through a public inquiry process, assurances are given that the material used for the publicly funded road scheme will come from legally compliant quarries, which have planning permission, operate properly, do not cause traffic safety or pollution problems and do not cause vibrations.

In practice, the vetting procedure on a national basis to ensure these requirements are adhered to is not adequate. When complaints are made to the road authorities about unauthorised quarries being used, they tend to be shrugged off and the project is completed by the time the matter is properly dealt with. There are commercial and EU competition law issues here, as legitimate quarry operators who comply with the environmental requirements, with proper screening, road safety and expensive environmental monitoring measures, are unfairly disadvantaged competitively in comparison to the fly-by-night operators who have no planning permission. I have a letter I wish to submit to the committee.

Chairman

That is not a problem.

Mr. Lumley

It is entirely up to the Chairman whether this is appropriate to the committee for consideration.

Chairman

It is probably more appropriate to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government but I will pass the letter to the chairman of that committee and tell him we would appreciate the matter being dealt with. We are annoyed that in many cases a fair amount of aggregate is dumped rather than used on roads. We have witnessed cases of materials that would have been suitable for road-making purposes being drawn away and tipped, with other materials taken back. This is a matter that must be examined in all construction projects. One is recycling nature if one recycles the stone that is taken as part of a road being cut out or a house being demolished. Rather than having the stone and concrete dumped, it should be recycled by crushing. The issue should be examined again and I will definitely send Mr. Lumley's letter to the other committee and ask its members to take up the matter on his behalf.

Mr. Lumley

Thank you.

Chairman

If there are no further questions, we stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 July. We will deal with the NRA and its failure to provide proper lay-by systems and proper facilities on the new motorways. Before we go, it would be good from Mr. Lumley's point of view were he to circulate his magazine to the Members of the Oireachtas.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Yes.

Chairman

The magazine is a good presentation and would be informative.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.15 p.m. sine die.