Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Oct 2002

Vol. 556 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Port Development.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of Dublin Bay and the proposed 52 acre infill by the port company. While many people feel this is a local issue, that is not the case. The issue of the bay is about the preservation of the environment and of a valuable national asset. People who see it as a local issue are misguided. It is a national issue as Dublin Bay belongs to the people of Dublin and Ireland, not just to the port company.

I was elected on this issue and it is essential I accept my democratic mandate and say to the Dáil and the Minister that the people want me to reflect that view here. I follow in the tradition of that great politician, Seán Dublin Bay Loftus, and I hope the Minister will respect the wishes of the people and do all in his power to stop this infill and the destruction of our bay.

Not only would this be an environmental disaster for all concerned but it has the potential to affect the whole city, particularly in regard to flooding. It does not make economic sense when we consider the traffic congestion problems in our city. We need new radical ideas to develop our ports and successive Governments should have listened to the detailed plans and proposals to develop our port north of Dublin put forward by people such as Seán Dublin Bay Loftus. People are genuinely upset at the prospect of our bay being filled in, with further pollution of our seas. It is not acceptable and the Government and port company must listen to the will of the people. It is no good lecturing Tony Blair and his Government about Sellafield when our own port company wants to wipe out 52 acres of our beautiful bay.

I ask the port company to follow the good example of Dublin City Council which is spending over €200 million cleaning up the bay. This is an example of good practice which should be heeded by everyone with the interests of the bay at heart. I pay tribute to the great work of groups like Baywatch, an environmental group based in Clontarf, and the Clontarf residents' association. These voluntary groups have been the backbone of the professional campaign to preserve our bay and I commend them. I intend to be their voice in the Dáil. Despite what many parties might say, I will honour that mandate. It is simply not acceptable that a port company can force a policy on people against their will while sites are lying idle in the port and space is freely available. Will the Minister tell me if there is a hidden agenda here and is there a possibility of the 52 acre real estate being available on the open market? Let us have transparency and openness in this debate.

Another potential damaging project in our community is a planning application by a company called Minichem, which deals in chemical and hazardous waste, in the port area. This could be a mini-Sellafield and it is up to all of us to be on our guard about this recent development. I urge all parties to back local groups in their campaign against the 52 acre infill. This issue is important and I urge everyone here to take the broader view, the long-term interest of the bay, the environment and the country.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

I welcome this opportunity to inform the House of the position regarding the proposed reclamation of 21 hectares of foreshore in Dublin Bay. Dublin Port Company made an application to the Department on 17 July 1998 for approval under the Foreshore Act, 1933, for the reclamation of 21 hectares of foreshore within the port area. The company indicated that the proposed reclamation was necessary to cope with expanding traffic by creating additional deep water berthing facilities.

In view of the amenity and ecological importance of the area in question and the nature and extent of the proposed reclamation, my Department engaged experts to review the environmental impact statement which accompanied the port company's application. The experts' brief required them to form an opinion on whether the EIS met statutory requirements and was sufficient to allow a decision to be made on their proposal. In the event, the consultants came to the view that the statement did not meet statutory requirements and the port company was advised accordingly.

Having reviewed the situation the port company decided that the appropriate way to proceed was to commission a new environmental impact statement and to make a fresh application. This new application was received in the Department on 7 March last. Again, because of the sensitivity of the area concerned and the scope of the proposed reclamation, the Department sought expert advice on the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. The experts' evaluation of the statement was received in the Department this week. Their report is quite lengthy, in excess of 100 pages, and it will be considered in detail by the Department.

Having considered the experts' report, the Department will advise the Minister as to whether the environmental impact statement meets statutory requirements and provides all the information required to permit the proposed development to proceed to public consultation. If the proposal is found to be ready to go to public consultation, the port company will be instructed to commence the process. This will involve giving public notice and the making available by the port company of documentation relating to the proposed development. All interested parties will have a period of one month to make their views known and full account will be taken of submissions and observations received before a decision is made on the proposal. In the event that it is found that the EIS does not provide the necessary basis for public consultation the port company will be advised in detail as to the further information required.

My Department has also considered the planning status of the proposed reclamation, having regard in particular to the provisions of Part XV of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The advice available to the Department indicates that planning permission is required for the proposed reclamation. The port company has been advised accordingly. I understand that it is currently consulting its advisers on the issue and will revert to my Department on the matter in the near future.

I assure the House that full and careful consideration will be given to this major proposal before a decision under the Foreshore Acts is made on it.

Barr
Roinn