Vol. 162 No. 11
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following order in draft:–
Specification of Grand Canal Docks Area as an area for which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority may prepare a planning scheme,
copies of which were laid in draft form before the Seanad on 14th day of February, 2000.
I am pleased to move this important motion, the passing of which will pave the way for the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to prepare a planning scheme for the Grand Canal Basin. For the benefit of Senators I would like to outline the background to this motion and to the operation of the planning scheme approach which has been a central part of the development and regeneration of the Dublin docklands since the great enterprise to renew this part of Dublin commenced in the 1980s.
The draft order which is the subject of this resolution is being made under section 6(3) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act, 1997. This provides that any order under section 25(1) of that Act – the section under which planning schemes are prepared – shall not be made until both Houses of the Oireachtas have approved a draft of the order. This procedure is required where section 25 planning schemes are being prepared for areas outside the Custom House Docks area. The effect of making a planning scheme for an area is that development within that area which complies with the scheme will be exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission.
While the planning scheme approach was considered appropriate to facilitate in a coherent, integrated and accelerated fashion the development of the Custom House Docks area, a similar approach would not be appropriate for the wider docklands as a whole, and the restricted approach to the application of planning schemes is the rationale behind the section 6 provision. In keeping with the terms of the legislation, the master plan adopted by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in 1997 identifies just three areas outside the Custom House Docks street area – Sheriff Street, the Poolbeg Peninsula and the Grand Canal Basin – as being suitable for the preparation of planning schemes.
We are also breaking new ground in other ways. At 94 acres, this is the largest area for which a planning scheme has been prepared since redevelopment of the docklands commenced. Unlike the Custom House Docks area which had publicly owned lands, this diverse area includes a significant amount of properties in private ownership. The master plan envisaged this area as being the key to achievement of the plan's objectives on the south side of the Liffey. It is a part of Dublin that has seen little private investment and is relatively isolated, access being an identified problem.
Removing that sense of remoteness from the centre of the city is a priority and the provision of an improved transport infrastructure looms large in the range of objectives as envisaged by the master plan. When I opened the City Quay section of the splendid new linear park on the campshires recently, I was often amazed by the number of people who have been living in Dublin for years or even generations but who have never been to the place where the waters of the Dodder and the Grand Canal meet up with Anna Livia.
This must be addressed in the overall programme which the authority is implementing and the planning process can obviously assist in meeting master plan objectives in this regard. The integrated planning framework of a planning scheme will also provide property owners, residents and business interests with a major, once off opportunity to participate in the social and economic redevelopment of this important and diverse part of Dublin.
A criticism sometimes levelled at planning schemes as they have operated is that they afford a means of bypassing the rigours of the normal planning process and, in particular, recourse to the third party appeal system operated by An Bord Pleanála. That line of argument misses the point. For the reasons I have already mentioned, planning schemes are only appropriate in certain limited circumstances and the authority was mindful of this in developing the master plan. In terms of how people are affected, a planning scheme is based heavily on wide public consultation at all stages before, during and after the draft planning scheme has been prepared, whereas in the normal planning permission process the public can only respond after a planning application has been made. I also stress that if developers so wish they can apply to Dublin Corporation for planning permission in the normal way.
The consultative process also involves the participation of relevant State agencies and Dublin Corporation. Once the scheme has been approved by the Minister, the authority is then in a position to certify the developers' proposals as being compliant with the scheme, thus in effect providing planning permission.
The Grand Canal Basin is the next frontier in so far as implementation of the master plan is concerned and the authority is anxious to press ahead with preparation of the draft planning scheme which has culminated in the draft order before the House. Most of the area fronts the Liffey, the canal or the Dodder. The authority has already prepared and adopted an area action plan for the Grand Canal Docks which has involved considerable consultation with the local communities. In view of my quasi-judicial role in relation to the approval process for planning schemes, I cannot make any comment on the various proposals which the authority has or is developing for the area, but I understand the authority hopes to be in a position to submit the draft scheme for my approval by July next.
The scheme itself must consist of a written statement and a plan indicating how the authority believes the area should be redeveloped. In that context it must address issues such as the nature and extent of the development, the distribution and location of uses, design proposals, transportation proposals and also deal with the development of amenities and the conservation of architectural heritage or other relevant features. The planning scheme has been very much at the heart of the redevelopment of the docklands, providing a coherence and accelerated planning process which has given us many fine buildings and amenities in the redeveloped area. The fact that the IFSC now employs more than 8,500 people is indicative of the success of what has been achieved in the docklands since the 1980s. IFSC 2 is at an advanced stage and will provide much needed commercial office space, which is crucial given the docklands' status as the hub for the financial services industry. Small retail units are also being provided in the Custom House Docks area and there are plans for the development of restaurants in the area, including the campshires.
The former gasworks site on Sir John Rogerson's Quay forms part of the area covered by the draft order. The master plan stated that a planning scheme for the Grand Canal Docks would not be proceeded with until arrangements were agreed for the decontamination of this site. The site is now in the ownership of the authority and I am glad that following receipt of the necessary Environmental Protection Agency licensing and planning permission, preliminary works have commenced on the site. It is expected that remediation works will be completed in two years' time on the first major site.
An important plank in the authority's programme of redevelopment is the provision of social and affordable housing. The master plan envisages the population of the docklands rising by 25,000 over the 15 year period of the programme and has set an ambitious target of 20% of residential units to be allocated to social and affordable housing. The authority is providing approximately 45 houses at East Road and 37 units are also being provided in the IFSC 2 area as part of the residential project being provided by a private developer. These latter units will be managed by the St. Pancras Housing Association. Last year the authority launched an affordable housing scheme aimed at people living in the docklands and this scheme will assist those wishing to purchase units in these and future schemes being provided in the area. The authority will push ahead with its plans for the provision of social and affordable housing and the operation of a planning scheme in the Grand Canal Basin will strengthen the authority's hand in meeting master plan objectives in this important area.
The authority is also pressing ahead with its Saol Scoil approach, which involves the promotion of lifelong learning in the docklands. Implementation of the local labour charter continues to offer real employment opportunities for local people. The DDDA/Reuters Schools Job Placement Programme, the community training workshop at Seville Place and various other community development projects will greatly enhance the range of opportunities for young people in the docklands.
We are creating a docklands development for docklands people. I am frequently told by elected representatives and community groups from the area how attitudes of previously socially marginalised communities have changed, particularly in the area of education and training. People now see a real prospect of making a rewarding and fulfilling life in their own place. We should not understate that achievement and what has been and is being done here gives a lead which others might follow in terms of tackling social marginalisation in a coherent, integrated way by providing jobs and opportunities to better oneself and by helping people to find their career niche based on their aptitudes and capabilities.
Yesterday the Dáil unanimously adopted this resolution and today we take another vital step. It is important for the authority that the Oireachtas backs what it is trying to achieve in the docklands and this can only strengthen and support it in implementing the master plan. I have no hesitation in commending the motion to the House.
I welcome the Minister and thank him for his full account of this matter. It is a matter of huge intrinsic importance and should not just go through on the nod; there should be an opportunity to say a few words about it. I must declare an interest in that I live virtually in this area. If one moved a few inches on the map one would find my house, so I know the area very well.
The Minister is right in saying this is an extraordinary area with huge potential, yet because of the way in which the city has developed, it is an area where very little development has taken place and which is in many ways isolated from the rest of the city. There is a sense of separateness about it in that it has not shared the development over the years and there is a sense of distance from other parts of the city.
The document the Minister has circulated is helpful. However, it is largely aspirational which, by definition, must be the case. It sets out the objectives the Minister hopes to achieve, including the creation of new jobs, the development of the physical infrastructure in the area and the provision of better transport. In all of these aspirational documents there is mention of the mix of housing, particularly socially affordable housing, shops, cultural artefacts and services which will give the area a life of its own. It is precisely because of my worries about earlier developments that I want to signal a few worries about this development. These arise largely from happenings at present in the Spencer Dock development. One can listen to people coming from very different points on the spectrum, such as Fr. John Wall, the priest in the area, or Dermot Desmond, international financier and a man of great vision, who was almost certainly the progenitor of the International Financial Services Centre. When people on these two ends of the spectrum voice concerns, it is time to take notice.
The essential criticisms of the Spencer Dock area and what has happened so far in the Financial Services Centre is the lack of integration, the sense of areas being built which are out of harmony and out of tune with the rest of the history and natural environment in which they operate. We have heard the fears of the residents who live close to Spencer Dock. When one looks at the montage of what is proposed, these people have very real fears. People who live close to Croke Park and Lansdowne Road when large stands are built suffer a very definite deterioration in the quality of their lives as a result of these developments. These effects would be just a fraction of what will happen if some of the plans as envisaged go ahead. I am aware that a public inquiry is taking place and that various groups will have a chance to make their case. However, it is important that living communities should not be displaced by something which is, in effect, a foreign body being placed in the centre of the city.
The International Financial Services Centre as conceived was to be a centre with a very definite identity which would be integrated into the rest of the city. That integration was meant to enhance and extend the city and to draw a diversity of different audiences, and much more. At one level we can look at the International Financial Services Centre which is a very real success; I would be the first to say that. Some 9,000 people work there and there is a corporate tax take of over £400 million per annum, and growing. However, when we look at the International Financial Services Centre, we do not see a sense of integration into the city. We do not see the museums, marinas or public parks and so on which were promised when the International Financial Services Centre was being conceived. These things have not happened even though we were told they would happen. There is often a very great leap between what developers promise and what happens in reality. There are often very good reasons, one at a time, these things do not happen.
The IFSC today is essentially an island. It is almost a foreign body within the city as far as most Dubliners are concerned. On Sunday evenings people do not bring the children for walks to look at the buildings around the International Financial Services Centre in the same way they go to Bray, Howth, St. Stephen's Green and so on. The IFSC is not seen by Dublin people as part of the living city. That is not what Dermot Desmond envisaged or what was promised when the concept began. Spencer Dock is a warning and we will have just one chance to get that development right. There are lessons, both good and bad, to be learned from what has happened in the IFSC. However, we must be careful not to create a whole area of Dublin which is not people friendly, which is there as a temple to mammon and commerce but not to the people of Dublin and which does not reflect the diversity that is Dublin and where people do not want to bring their children on a Sunday afternoon to experience a sense of ownership.
While I welcome the Minister and I am pleased he has given such a detailed outline of the draft order, it is important not to rush into developments which cannot be reversed. In relation to Spencer Dock, time should be taken to listen to the concerns of the people of Dublin and those who will be affected by what will happen. Having said that, I thank the Minister for coming to this House and for what he had to say.
I, too, welcome the Minister and I compliment him on his presentation. I agree with the motion in relation to the specification of the Grand Canal Docks Area as an area for which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority may prepare a planning scheme. It is ironic, given that the Docklands Development Authority can, through the Minister and the Oireachtas, bypass normal procedures under local authority planning regulations and apply for planning permission to An Bord Pleanála, that some people would see this as a shortcut and a means of bypassing the normal procedures. Knowing the way the Docklands Development Authority has operated and the formula they use in terms of consultation on such a wide basis with the local communities, the local authority, business interests and in the context of their master plan, ironically the consortium with responsibility for the Spencer Dock project sought to bypass the Docklands Development Authority so that it could get a better deal from the local authority in terms of the planning process. This is a very interesting benchmark because the Docklands Development Authority wanted to see Spencer Dock developed within the context of the master plan. The master plan had some very fine models of practice in terms of height, density and mix but they were not prepared to adhere to this. Treasury Holdings Consortium, which put forward the plan for the 52 acre site, thought that Dublin Corporation would give them a better deal. They applied for permission to develop an area of six million square feet and Dublin Corporation granted permission for 4.7 million square feet, which was in excess of what the Docklands Development Authority was prepared to give.
It is in the context of this horrendous planning application, which is currently being appealed, that we must look at what is taking place here. I hope the outcome of the oral hearing to An Bord Pleanála will be in accordance with the wishes of virtually every interest other than the particular consortium. I am ashamed that CIE as a semi-State body, which owned 51 of the 52 acres, should be the Trojan horse, the link with a private consortium to bring about a development which no one living in the area or who has anything to do with buildings, including An Taisce, the Docklands Development Authority or Dermot Desmond, wishes to see. If this proposal is rejected, CIE should go back to the Docklands Development Authority and, having consulted all the interested parties, put forward an integrated area plan which is in harmony with the developments to date along the docks in something like this form as an integrated area plan with all interests being consulted. It should be in harmony with the development to date along the docks on both the north and south sides of the Liffey.
I welcome this proposal, which involves consultation and a certain fast-tracking of the procedures for the much needed development of this derelict site. One of the strong points about the development is the requirement for not less than 20% social and affordable housing. That is the first hard target likely to be met in terms of our commitment to getting a mix of affordable social and private housing in this city.
Too often we have bemoaned the fact that we have ghettoised sections of our community and our city by the manner in which huge complexes of flats or housing estates were built without proper amenities and totally separate from the private sector. This is an opportunity to move away from this and to put in a 20%-80% mix, which is a very desirable target. I understand that the mix will be something like 60% residential and 40% office and I would like to know if the Minister has any figures on the actual number of units of accommodation to be created.
I was concerned about the figures given by the Minister on the developments taking place so far in social and affordable housing. He said, "The authority is providing around 45 houses at East Road and 37 units are also being provided in the IFSC2 area as part of a residential project being provided by a private developer." I understand there are at least 800 units of residential accommodation in part two of the financial services centre development. I would have thought that 20% of that would be about 200 units. A figure of 37 units seems a long way off the specified target in the master plan and it seems that up to now the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has not met its targets. What difficulties are being experienced with private developers in terms of targets that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is seeking to reach? Is it true that the only targets being met by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority are those relating to land owned by the authority itself rather than the percentage being provided from the private sector?
Could a commitment be given now on the specification of the Grand Canal Docks Area in terms of the area development plan which will be carried out by the authority and the private sector? The interesting thing about this area is that it is one of the few areas with a mix of land owned by the docklands authority and by private developers. It is better to bring them all together in a master plan which means a controlled development rather than the individual applications coming before the planning authority. Land, buildings and structures owned by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the private sector should all be incorporated in a proper master plan.
What is the residential input involved in this? Could a commitment be given that this development will have a 20% mix, as the Dublin Docklands Development Authority told me and the local councillors, and as claimed by Peter Coyne yesterday in an presentation made by him to the area committee of Dublin Central? It seemed that he was talking about a full 20%. At what figure will that work out in practice? Will there be a full 20% from all of the private developers who will build residential developments as well as building on the land owned by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority?
I would like some information on the gasworks site which is being decontaminated. In the past a major obstacle to the development of the overall site was the degree of contamination there during the gasworks operation. There is no facility for disposal of the contaminated material. The asbestos removed from the Hogan Stand in Croke Park is still packed away somewhere waiting for disposal to Germany or the Netherlands. The plan is much the same for this site. All the sludge and contaminated material will be dredged up, pumped into ships and taken to the Netherlands or to some other European country for disposal. Is that the case and how will it be ensured that the entire site is decontaminated? The full decontamination of the site is a serious concern if a large number of residential units are to be built there.
I welcome the Minister's proposals and those of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. I expect it will be a very fine development but I would like these concerns to be addressed.
I welcome the motion on the specification of the Grand Canal Docks Area, which I support. This development must be orderly and planned with proper consultation. There must be consultation with residents and their views must be considered in any developments taking place.
I welcome the very detailed speech by the Minister. The docklands is a derelict and unused area – that type of area is of no benefit to Dublin city. One must remove that sense of remoteness through development. Heritage areas and areas of architectural merit in this area must be preserved. I welcome the measures for affordable housing, which is the basis of the proper development of any area. One must give people an opportunity to move into an area with affordable housing. The Minister mentioned 20% of the residential units comprisinng affordable housing, which is very welcome.
We see so many derelict sites, about which many people complain countrywide. When things are going well and the economy is thriving it is time to develop those areas, no matter where they are. This is an ideal opportunity to develop the docklands. Yesterday this motion was discussed in Dáil Éireann and unanimously adopted, which signifies the importance of the development. On behalf of this side of the House, I welcome the motion. I thank the Minister and his officials for outlining in great detail the proposals for the area.
I understand debate on this matter is to conclude at 4 p.m.
Perhaps the order could be changed to allow Senator Norris to contribute. The debate started late.
It started 25 minutes late.
Is it agreed to allow Senator Norris to contribute? Agreed.
I am grateful to the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the House. I welcome the motion. It is important that the development of Dublin continues in a controlled, proper and orderly manner. Undoubtedly, as the Minister said, the docklands have been a remarkable success in certain areas. I must confess – mea culpa, mea maxima culpa– that I was one of the doubters about the Irish Financial Services Centre. I remember pouring as much scorn and contumely as I could on the idea and I said it was a white elephant. However, I acknowledge that I was wrong. It has been a remarkable success. The buildings and the energy that has been released are exciting.
The Minister referred to some of the redevelopment work along the line of the river. In what he called the campshires, the linear development includes a cobbled park, trees, benches and public lighting. It is a delight and a joy. This is the type of development which should be favoured, although there are some problems such as the Spencer Dock development on the other side of the river to the Grand Canal site. Curious things are happening there. Undoubtedly, Kevin Roche is an architect of the greatest international distinction. Looked at singularly and out of context, the development appears to be architecturally exciting, especially the new conference centre. I hope this will be built because this city needs a conference centre and something as exciting and innovative architecturally as the proposal by that distinguished architect.
However, I am worried about site density and scale and I hope these will be considered carefully in the Grand Canal development. One of the reasons I objected to the millennium spike in O'Connell Street was that I knew it would be used as a reference point in documentation from developers to increase the scale of projects. Dublin has certain distinctive qualities as a modern European city. It still has its 18th century core and a respect for humanity in terms of the scale of its buildings. We should not go down the awful, boring and bland route of sky scraper buildings. They are anonymous and inhuman and they scar so many European cities. We should keep the human feel which is one of the great attractions of Dublin.
I note with great interest that a prominent member of the financial community, Mr. Desmond, has chosen to intervene and object. It is interesting that he has done so, but it is curious. I also note that another development, the millennium mall, is being held up by a row between two sets of Tyrannosauri rex in terms of property developers who are hacking at each other. This is a very bad precedent because an important development is being held up by the selfishness and greed of two sets of property developers. As far as I am concerned, the sooner they get off the pitch and let the development go ahead, the better.
I welcome the Grand Canal docks area development and I hope it will be monitored carefully. The Minister also referred to three areas outside the Custom House docks area, Sheriff Street, the Poolbeg peninsula and the Grand Canal basin. These are the only ones currently regarded as suitable for the preparation of planning schemes. I welcome the inclusion of Sheriff Street because traditionally it was an extremely deprived area of the city. Decent people lived there but it was vulnerable to the incursion of drugs.
Perhaps the Minister could give the House some information on the plans for the Poolbeg peninsula because this is an important amenity to the people of Dublin. The great South Wall, which was built by Captain Bligh of the Bounty in the late 18th century, is now closed to public access for repair work. I am not sure that a timescale has been given for the completion of that work. Is there any concrete news in that regard?
Regarding the Grand Canal basin, the Minister wondered wistfully how many people have walked in this area and how many citizens of Dublin know about it. However, there may be more than he imagines. I remember the area as a small child. The Minister called it the confluence of the Dodder, the Grand Canal and Anna Livia. I remember it as a place of fascination for us as children because there was a set of locks and one could walk across on planks at that point. We often watched the emergence of the Innishfallen, the old coal boat, from the area. It caused great excitement and there was a romance about the area.
I hope some form of historical survey will be carried out. There was a gasometer there and many people had a sentimental attachment to it. It is now gone and contaminated ground remains. There are technical problems with that and I am sure they can be solved. However, the gasometer site was also the site of earlier elements in Dublin's history. I remember inspecting it and seeing the remains of a fine plain building which had on the top, "Mariners Church 1832". This was part of the site.
Will a small handbook, a short history or a small exhibition on the area be prepared? For example, the remarkable cranes were there from an early part of Dublin's development. These were interesting mechanical artefacts from a lost industrial age. Another item which should be preserved is the early diving bell. It was a curious iron construction with a funnel. It looked like an enormous metal funnel, but it was a 19th century diving bell. In many other countries such an item would be preserved. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the creation of an interpretative centre, although I hate to use that phrase. This area of the docks deserves to be celebrated even as it travels in the direction of 'yuppiedom'. Inevitably, this area, among others, was known to James Joyce. The little ferry which carried Joyce and his brother across was at that point, but it is now gone.
I welcome the proposal and that it will be a controlled development. I hope those responsible will be conscious of height and I applaud the fact that there will be affordable social housing in the area. I hope the target will be met. However, the lead on that did not come from central authority or Dublin Corporation, but from the decent ordinary people of City Quay. They were to be turfed out and relocated in some of the outer suburbs of Dublin, but as a parish and a community, and as people who knew each other, they wanted to stay together. They recognised the value of living together as a community so they upped stumps and refused to move – I remember the marches – and they got their housing. This is the nice housing which has the privilege now of looking out on the redeveloped linear park. The people of Dublin would not go, saying, "This is where we live, this is where our traditions are". The people who lived there had been loaders, dockers and wharfhands. Their culture, pubs, schools and churches are there and they refused to have their community broken up. They stayed and eventually Dublin Corporation built them very decent housing. I hope we can continue this tradition because it is important that people continue to live in the heart of an area that is sometimes, unfortunately, seen just as an engine of economic regeneration.
I thank Senators who have contributed in such a positive way to this debate. All decisions must be made on the basis of informed debate. I have been impressed by the range of issues raised and the various worthwhile and interesting suggestions which have been made and which can only benefit the process on which the Dublin Dockland Development Authority is about to embark.
The next stage of implementation of the master plan marks a challenging and exciting opportunity for the authority and the people of the Grand Canal Docks to transform and redevelop this area of our city. The support given by speakers today and by Dáil Éireann, which unanimously adopted this resolution yesterday, is a valuable public recognition of the important role which the authority has in implementing its master plan for the area. The broad political support for the master plan across the political spectrum means that where you have a strong consensus that something has to be done, achieving your objectives will be that bit easier.
As in all good debates there have been some points of criticism and I would like to deal with some of those issues. I understand the points made in relation to building height, an issue on which Dublin Corporation is currently preparing a study. This study will provide guidance on the height of buildings in the context of the overall planning of the city, including the docklands area. The results of this study are awaited. The height issue has been satisfactorily handled under previous planning schemes – the IFSC buildings come to mind. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority can deal with this issue in the context of the planning scheme which will be made for the Grand Canal Docks but that is a matter for them and is something I cannot comment on given the Minister's quasi-judicial role in the process.
Social housing provision is an important plank of the master plan. Members will be aware that last year the Minister launched an affordable housing scheme for the Dublin Docklands Development Authority which is based on the shared ownership scheme, with additional features built in so that it opens up the prospect of home ownership to many people in the docklands area who otherwise could not aspire to it. This is a 15 year plan and the authority is committed to meeting the 20% social affordable objective.
As regards the points made in relation to planning, I reiterate what the Minister said earlier. Planning schemes have only limited application and for this reason only three areas were identified. They have worked successfully in the past. There is no question of anybody trying to set aside proper planning controls or to leave people affected out of the process. Far from it. This system has a strong consultative base and everyone affected will have an opportunity to have their say. Developers who do not want to avail of the planning scheme option can opt instead for the normal planning permission route.
As the Minister stated, the gasworks site is being decontaminated. The necessary planning permission and EPA licence have been obtained. Under the EPA licence the decontamination works are being carried out to the highest environmental standards. The authority is satisfied that the process of extraction and disposal will be done in accordance with the best international practices.
I do not agree with Senator Manning's point about the cultural life of the docklands. A considerable number of people live in the docklands area, some of whom are very involved in the development. The authority organises an annual docklands festival each summer – Flugtag 1999 etc. It is modest and local in its impact but it is growing and in 2000 will have a musical scheme. The authority is working with the St. Patrick's Festival committee and with Bloomsday (Joyce Society) to increase the relevance of these events in the docklands each year.
The Point Village development is likely to include a redevelopment of the Point Depot as an improved concert venue in a greatly enhanced environment. The campshires are being progressively developed as a public realm and during 2000 will include two new café-restaurants on the waterside at the IFSC 2. The authority has commissioned a study on the leisure and tourism regeneration of the Liffey and intends to invest in implementing this regeneration and in the completion of the campshires project in the next three to four years.
