12. Presentation by John Gannon (Tom Phillips & Associates) for Dublin Graving Docks

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Dublin Graving Docks LimitedDublin Graving Docks Limited

Oral HearingOral Hearing

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) and Berths 52 and 53p ( )Strategic Infrastructure DevelopmentABP Ref. PL 29N. PA0034

by

John GannonTom Phillips + AssociatesTown Planning Consultants2‐3 Roger’s Lane2 3 Roger s LaneLower Baggot StreetDublin 2Tel: 01 478 6055Email: info@tpalie

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Presenter: John Gannon MRUP MIPI

Qualified Town Planner.

Director of Tom Phillips + Associates, Town Planning Consultants.

Qualified in 1997 with a Masters Degree in Regional and Urban Planning from University College Dublin.

Holds a BSc (Surveying) from the Dublin Institute of Technology (1995).

Over 16 years professional experience in the field of planning and development.y p p p g p

Corporate Member of the Irish Planning Institute (IPI).

2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Introduction 

Detailed Observation was made to An Bord Pleanála on behalf of Dublin Graving Docks Limited (DGDL) in relation to the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) application (dated 7 May 2014).  The content of this Observation should be taken as read.

This submission to the Hearing seeks to reiterate and, where relevant, elaborate on some key points in respect of the planning and development issues arising with the ABR Project.

Separate submissions were made by Mr Joe Nelson of (DGDL), Mr Roy Glenton(AECOM), and Ms Mary Gallagher (STS International) in relation to other Port‐related issues.related issues.  

In summary, the ABR Project as currently constituted will result in the cessation of the graving dock use in Dublin Port, a long‐established and profitable activity, with g g , g p y,obviously catastrophic impacts on our Client’s existing business. 

3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

4

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Why Close the Graving Dock?

The closure of the graving dock is essentially rationalised in the ABR application on grounds of:grounds of:

poor economic performance, 

inefficient use of Port lands, and 

decreasing usefulness in an ever changing shipping context decreasing usefulness in an ever changing shipping context.

‐ we disagree.

Th i d k The graving dock: 

Is a profitable business employing 26 no. people.

C f i ifi b f l i h P d i Can cater for a very significant number of vessels using the Port, as noted in our Observation and in the EIS. 

Facilitates the deployment of a specialist workforce to carry out quayside ship Facilitates the deployment of a specialist workforce to carry out quayside ship repairs in particular circumstances.

Comprises an important function within the Port that will be lost should the ABR be

5

Comprises an important function within the Port that will be lost should the ABR be permitted as proposed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Why Close the Graving Dock?

W d h h d hi h i f h l d f h P We do not accept that the purported higher economic use of the lands for other Port activities is sufficient or compelling grounds to justify closing the graving dock.  

Given the shortage of lands available within the Port the ‘gain’ associated with the closure Given the shortage of lands available within the Port, the ‘gain’ associated with the closure and infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 will be significantly negated by the re‐opening and excavation of the adjoining disused Graving Dock No. 1 for a non‐core Port use (i.e heritage use).)

The existing DGDL area measures c. 1.4ha.  Once the area identified as part of the Conservation Zone for Graving Dock 1 and the area under the existing Tara Mines overhead conveyor are left out, the site measures c. 1.08 ha. 

It is ironic that as an existing live working graving dock is being closed, the adjoining 1860 graving dock is being excavated and re‐opened as a heritage site in the ABR.  

6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Is this Plan‐led Development?

The application documentation states that the ABR Project is Plan-led and accords with allABR Project is Plan led and accords with all relevant statutory and non-statutory plans

- we disagree.we disagree.

Key ‘local’ plans regarding the ABR Project are:

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040;

Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City – Port Heritage as a Key for Sustainable Economic, Social and Urban Development Local Action Plan City of Dublin July 2011(‘CTUR’ as referenced in the Dublin City Council Observation and ABR Planning Report).

8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Dublin City Development Plan 2011 2017Dublin City Development Plan, 2011‐2017

“It i bj ti f D bli Cit C il“It is an objective of Dublin City Council:

REO16 To examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the Poolbeg area and Dublin Port, including a g , greview of the current disembarking point and its connectivity with the city and the development of tour options for visitors within the city and set out R d ti ”Recommendations.”

9

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Is this Plan‐led Development?                  

Both the Masterplan and CTUR are ‘non-statutory’ but….

They comprise detailed and important planning guidance documents They comprise detailed and important planning guidance documents cited by both Dublin Port Company throughout the ABR Application documentation and Dublin City Council in its Observation (dated 14 May 2014) in relation to this ProjectMay 2014) in relation to this Project.

10

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012 ‐ 2040

The Masterplan is non‐statutory but….

It is identified in the ABR Planning Report as:

‘…the key document on which future development within the Port will be based up to 2040. It 

provides the critical context for the subject application. It was produced in line with best 

practice being followed in European Ports’.  (See pg. 10 Planning Report.)p g f p ( pg g p )

Framed within the context of EU, national, regional and local development plans policies;

Subject to a full SEA, Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment;

Subject to a major consultation exercise involving Port stakeholders, elected members and the 

general public including the production of an Issues Paper and Draft Masterplan, which drew 

300 b i iover 300 submissions;

Identifies a set of options (14 no.) for development in the Port depending on demand and 

capacity, subject to completion of the relevant planning and consents requirements;p y, j p p g q ;

Envisages informing future Development Plans for Dublin and Regional Planning Guidelines 

for the Greater Dublin Area; and,

11

It may be taken into account by An Bord Pleanála in considering any application submitted to 

it under the Strategic Infrastructure Act.  (See pg. 13 Dublin Port Masterplan 2012‐2040.)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012 ‐ 2040

The Masterplan is non‐statutory but….

The Masterplan is much more than merely a high level or conceptual planning document.

It i bl th f t t th ABR P j t t fl t th M t l It is reasonable, therefore, to expect the ABR Project to reflect the Masterplan 

– this is not the case for the following reasons.

12

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

1. The Closure of the Graving Dock is a Material Planning Issue

Graving Dock No 2 has a stated curtilage of 1 4ha* and was constructed in 1957 (*EIS Vol 1 Graving Dock No. 2 has a stated curtilage of 1.4ha* and was constructed in 1957. (*EIS Vol 1, 1‐31)

The ABR proposes the closure and infilling of Graving Dock No 2 essentially ending the long The ABR proposes the closure and infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 essentially ending the long established graving dock use in Dublin Port with the loss of 26 no. highly skilled jobs.

This is significant on several fronts: This is significant on several fronts:

land use planning and development ‐ change of use; 

environmental ‐ 55,000 cubic metres of contaminated fill material; 

socio economic direct loss of Port related employment and in the context of the loss of socio‐economic ‐ direct loss of Port‐related employment and in the context of the loss of an important function of the Port.

The Masterplan should have been amended to reflect the above material deviations – this

13

The Masterplan should have been amended to reflect the above material deviations  this did not occur.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

1. The Closure of the Graving Dock is a Material Planning Issue

S i 5 (Fi 3) f h M l id ifi d d ib 14 ‘d l i ’ Section 5 (Figure 3) of the Masterplan identifies and describes 14 no. ‘development options’for the Port, none of which relate to the graving dock.  These options are then illustrated on a series of graphics (Figures 3‐10 inclusive).

The closure and infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 is not mentioned at any stage in the Masterplan text, nor is it identified or highlighted on any of the Masterplan graphics as an area, or part of an area, earmarked for potential development within the Dublin Port lands.p p p

A reasonable interpretation of the Masterplan is that the graving dock is an existing unchanged part and function of the Port that will remain open and operational. 

Graving Dock No. 2 is not listed as a “land use to be determined” site in the Masterplan, despite 4 No. such sites being identified.

14

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

“In the Masterplan, there are four particular sites (listed below) which have been identified where judgement is required as to the future safeguarding or use of theseidentified where judgement is required as to the future safeguarding or use of these lands.” (Masterplan, pg. 62)

15

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

16

Source: ABR Project Rationale, Appendix 1 – The ABR Project in the context of DPC’s Masterplan 2012 to 2040

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Masterplan ‐ Figure 3 Extract

17

p g

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

2. The Creation of a Heritage Area is a Material Planning Issueg g

The adjoining Graving Dock No 1 was constructed in the 1860s and is proposed to The adjoining Graving Dock No.1 was constructed in the 1860s and is proposed to be excavated as a heritage site open to the public as part of the ABR.

The lands comprising Graving Dock No 1 are shown in a similar manner to Graving The lands comprising Graving Dock No. 1 are shown in a similar manner to Graving Dock No. 2 in the Masterplan i.e., unchanged and outside the identified development option lands.  

The Masterplan should have been amended to reflect this material change in land use. 

18

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Proposed Site Plan – Showing the Conservation Zone

19

Proposed Site Plan  Showing the Conservation Zone

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

3. The Site Area is Significant 

Figure 4 also outlines the development options by reference to the site area in hectares, g p p y ,several of which are smaller in area than Graving Dock No. 2.

It cannot be stated, therefore, that the inclusion of a site area of 1.4ha* within the ABR without prior revision to the Masterplan is immaterial in the context of the other development options identified in the Masterplan. (*EIS Vol 1, 1‐31.)

The inclusion of such a fundamental change in the ABR planning application is not appropriate in planning terms and calls into question the standing of the Masterplan and prejudiced our Client’s ability to review and assess this change to the business.

20

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

21

Masterplan ‐ Figure 4

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

22Masterplan ‐ Figure 4 Extract

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

4. The Re‐configuration of Alexandra Basin is a Material Planning ConsiderationMaterial Planning Consideration

The ABR application illustrates a revised berthing configuration, which is materially The ABR application illustrates a revised berthing configuration, which is materially different to the configuration shown in the Masterplan.

This revision gives rise to a series of material impacts in this part of the Port g p presulting in the closure of the graving dock.

The Masterplan should have been amended to reflect this material alteration.

23

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Proposed ABR Layout

24

Masterplan Layout

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Are Three Cruise Ship Berths Required?

The provision of a third cruise ship berth in Alexandra Basin necessitates a re‐configuration of the Ro‐Ro berthing arrangement as shown in the Masterplan, which ultimately precludes the operation of the graving dock.

Neither the Masterplan nor the CTUR identify this as a location for an additional cruise ship berth.

The ABR application documentation notes that for 2013, there were:

23 days when 2 no. cruise ships docked in Dublin Port;

3 days when 3 no. cruise ships docked in Dublin Port.

The scenario when 3 no. cruise ships will be in Dublin Port at the same time will be a very infrequent occurrence.

Are 3 no. cruise ship berths required? No such requirement was identified in any of the relevant detailed local plans for the area.

25

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:15

Are Three Cruise Ship Berths Required?

The Masterplan notes that:

‘The main attraction of the cruise industry is the generation of significant revenues for the Dublin region – the actual contribution to Dublin Port Company’s revenues is not significant Accordingly the port could part fund the development but additional fundingsignificant. Accordingly the port could part fund the development but additional funding would be needed from other sources given the scale of capital funding and the requirement for Dublin Port Company to demonstrate a return on capital’. (see pg 9)

The Masterplan further notes that:

‘The cruise business currently generates €700,000 direct revenue for Dublin PortThe cruise business currently generates €700,000 direct revenue for Dublin Port Company’. (see pg 32)

Having regard to the above statements and in the context of the significantly revised g g g yberthing and maneuvering arrangement necessitated by the above in the Alexandra Basin and ultimately resulting in the closure of Graving Dock No. 2, we would query whether this represents the most effective proposal to accommodate the cruise shipping objectives whilst safeguarding core port activities?

26

whilst safeguarding core port activities?

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Are Three Cruise Ship Berths Required?Are Three Cruise Ship Berths Required? 

The Masterplan shows 2 no. cruise ship berths on North Wall Quay Extension whereas the ABR shows this provision plus an additional cruise berth within Alexandra Basin – a total of 3 no. cruise berths.

The Masterplan states:

‘Having assessed three alternative locations for the development of new cruise f ili i h C b li h h i id ifi d i h Ci C il’facilities, the Company believes that the option identified in the City Council’s Local Area Plan of North Wall Quay (sic) is the optimum location. A new facility at this location could accommodate two large cruise ships at any one time and provide a strong visible and accessible link with the city’. (see pg 32)provide a strong visible and accessible link with the city . (see pg 32)

Note: The CTUR Action Plan is erroneously described as a ‘Local Area Plan’ above and elsewhere in the Port Masterplan – see also pg 9.p pg

27

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Cruise Traffic Urban Regeneration Plan, 2011 

Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City – PortCruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City  Port Heritage as a Key for Sustainable Economic, Social and Urban Development Local Action Plan City of Dublin July 2011

(‘CTUR’ as referenced in the Dublin City Council Observation and ABR Planning Report). 

28

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Cruise Traffic Urban Regeneration Plan 2011Cruise Traffic Urban Regeneration Plan, 2011 

Objective REO16 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011‐2017 (adopted November 2010) seeks:

‘To examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the Poolbeg area and Dublin Port, including a review of the current disembarking point and its connectivity with the city and the development of tour options for visitors within the city and set out recommendations’.

The subsequent CTUR Local Action Plan (adopted June 2011) essentially comprises the aforementioned feasibility exercise to give effect to this Objective. 

29

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The ABR does not accord with the CTUR

The CTUR identifies 3 no. specific objectives and a series of related actions.

A primary action of the CTUR is the provision of a cruise terminal building (Action 1.1) envisaged to be located at North Wall Quay Extension.

The CTUR also identifies the ‘…optimum location for a cruise liner berth is considered to be h i i T i l 3 T i l 3 i l d di l f h E Li k B id hthe existing Terminal 3. Terminal 3 is located directly east of the East Link Bridge, on the northern side of the River Liffey’.

Th l t d hi ill t ti thi t i i Fi 29 31 i l i l l The related graphics illustrating this arrangement comprising Figures 29‐31 inclusive clearly show two cruise ships in‐situ along North Wall Quay Extension. No cruise ship berths are shown within Alexandra Basin. 

This arrangement is what was transposed into the Dublin Port Masterplan.

Section 7 7 4 2 of the ABR Planning Report notes that ‘Part of the proposed development Section 7.7.4.2 of the ABR Planning Report notes that  Part of the proposed development derives directly from the Local Action Plan’.

A very significant part of the proposed development does not derive directly from the Local

30

A very significant part of the proposed development does not derive directly from the Local Action Plan (i.e. no cruise terminal facility, a third cruise ship berth, wholly reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension and Alexandra Basin). 

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

CTUR – Cruise Berths Phase 1 DevelopmentCTUR – Cruise Berths ‐ Phase 1 Development 

CTUR Figure 29

31

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

CTUR – Cruise Berths Phase 2 DevelopmentCTUR – Cruise Berths ‐ Phase 2 Development 

CTUR Fig 30

32

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

CTUR – Cruise Berths Phase 3 DevelopmentCTUR – Cruise Berths ‐ Phase 3 Development 

CTUR Figure 31

33

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

CTUR Artist Impression of Proposed TerminalCTUR ‐ Artist Impression of Proposed Terminal

CTUR Figure 28

34

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The ABR does not accord with the CTUR

The Observation by DCC regarding the ABR is also relevant here, it states:

‘However, it is noted that the proposal does not appear to provide for a cruise terminal building/multi‐functional building, and the lack of any details indicating how the proposed development would impact upon the future delivery of such a structure is not addressed’. (see pg 6)

The DCC Observation explicitly requests that DPC:

‘…demonstrate that the implementation of the Part X application (ABR), if permitted as proposed, would not prejudice the future development of a cruise ship terminal building, or a 

lti f ti l b ildi hi h ld t ti b ildi f i hi tmulti‐functional building which could operate as a reception building of cruise ships, to indicate their intent to provide or designate an area which can accommodate such a facility and to outline details of access arrangements, vehicular routes and parking arrangements for buses, taxis, etc which would serve the cruise ships’. (see pg 6), , p ( pg )

We would also query how the above can be facilitated particularly in the context of the alternative seasonal use of the proposed North Wall Quay Extension cruise ship berths for 

35

other purposes particularly car ships?

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The ABR does not accord with the CTUR

The ABR proposal is materially different to the objectives of the CTUR.

The ABR will prejudice the realisation of a key stated objective of the CTUR.  

36

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

37

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Were Alternatives Considered? 

There appears to be no consideration of alternative design proposals included in the ABRapplication once the subject site was selected.

In our opinion, this is a serious flaw with the EIS particularly given the fatal impact on Graving Dock No. 2 arising from the proposed ABR Project.

It i id d bl t th t DPC d it d i t t h It is considered reasonable to assume that DPC and its design team must have considered several design options before proposing the scheme as included in the planning application documentation.

The EIS does not include any such information or assessment criteria as to why certain design alternatives may have been dismissed in favour of the selected option.

Why was the Alexandra Basin berthing arrangement as shown in the Masterplan discounted?

The closure of the graving dock is not required to effect the key objectives of the ABR.

38

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Alternative to be Considered?

Has any consideration been given to the above whereby the public could view in a safe manner the actual live workings of a graving dock, having visited a 19th Century excavated version?excavated version?

This would facilitate the ongoing commercial use of the graving dock but complement the heritage use of the adjoining lands.the heritage use of the adjoining lands. 

The Observation of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (dated 7 May 2014) is noted, which states.) ,

‘The Department welcomes the proposed restoration of the No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House but wonders why it is considered necessary to fill in the No. 2 Graving Dock, which is supposed to be only a temporary measure. Would it not be possible for the public also to able to view the No. 2 Graving Dock or does this conflict with another aspect of the project such as vehicular access?’

39

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Why was the Masterplan not reviewed?

The Chairperson’s Foreword to the Masterplan states:

‘The 30 year time period covered by the Masterplan is long. In the current economic climate, there is uncertainty about what developments might be needed beyond the first ten years of this period. Accordingly it is essential that we keep the Masterplan under review to ensure that it always remains relevant and achieves its central objective of providing a clear vision for the development of the Port into the future’. 

Only 2 years post its adoption, the ‘central objective of providing a clear vision’ for the development of the Port, as set out in the Masterplan, has not been achieved.

Th M t l h ld h b i d i t i th ABR The Masterplan should have been reviewed prior to progressing the ABR.  

The ABR Application does not constitute Plan‐led development.

40

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

41

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Concluding CommentsConcluding Comments 

h l f k h b f d f b h The closure of Graving Dock No. 2 has not been justified in terms of being in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the Port.

Th i d b thi fi ti i Al d B i d l f G i D k The revised berthing configuration in Alexandra Basin and closure of Graving Dock No. 2 is not identified or rationalised in the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012‐2040.

The ABR does not facilitate a new cruise terminal building as per the objectives of The ABR does not facilitate a new cruise terminal building as per the objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011‐2017 and the CTUR, 2011.

The ABR proposes the excavation and use of Graving Dock No 1 as a heritage use The ABR proposes the excavation and use of Graving Dock No. 1 as a heritage use with public access – these significant works and land use changes are not identified in the Masterplan.

The ABR Project does not accord with the Masterplan. 

42

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

43

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

What Dublin Graving Dock Limited SeeksWhat Dublin Graving Dock Limited Seeks

The Board carefully considers the impact of the proposed closure and infilling of The Board carefully considers the impact of the proposed closure and infilling of Graving Dock No. 2.

The Board has regard to alternative arrangements that would deliver the primary The Board has regard to alternative arrangements that would deliver the primary commercial objectives of DPC, but do not result in the closure of the graving dock.

44

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

45

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

 

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Presentation by Mary Gallagher for Dublin Graving Docks

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Presentation to Oral Hearing

Mary GallagherMary Gallagher 

1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Presenter: Mary Gallagher (1)

• Director of Strategic Transport Solutions International (STS International)Director of Strategic Transport Solutions International (STS International).

• Holds a B.A. degree from NUI Galway & a Master of Business Studies in Transport & St t i Pl i f UCD (1984)& Strategic Planning from UCD (1984).

• Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.  Past President of the organisation in Ireland.

• Member of the Board of the Commissioners of Irish Lights since 2001.g

• A member of the first Dublin Transport Authority in the 1980s

2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

P t M G ll h (2)Presenter: Mary Gallagher (2)

• 26 years working in and with ports:

• 16 years professional experience in the ferry sector• 1 year with Irish Ferries  as strategic planning manager• 15 years with Stena Line in the UK & Ireland in various senior roles including 

• Commercial Manager, Holyhead• Passenger & Freight Manager, Rosslare Europort• Head of Stena Line in Ireland• Route Director, Rosslare‐Fishguard services

• While I was Passenger & Freight Manager in Rosslare I was heavily involved in the establishment of the Dublin‐Holyhead service.

• 10 years consultancy experience (STS) focusing on the ferry and unitised freight sectors in Ireland• 10 years consultancy experience (STS) focusing on the ferry and unitised freight sectors in Ireland and the UK. 

• STS International works on a variety of port and shipping related projects  • Examples: the evaluation of the potential for new ferry services, the re‐organisation of existing 

services (e g new ships and/or schedules) the impact of revised fare structures and theservices (e.g. new ships and/or schedules), the impact of revised fare structures and the provision of port services

• Our clients encompass Port Authorities, shipping companies, Government bodies, Local Authorities and trade organisations.  

3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The Masterplan ProposalThe Masterplan Proposal

The Masterplan (Fig 4 pages 44&45) would have met the Ports evolving needs byThe Masterplan (Fig. 4, pages 44&45) would have met the Ports evolving needs by:

• Deepening the bulk and lo‐lo berths on Alexandra Quay West & Ocean Pier WestWest 

• Retaining 2‐tier Ro‐Ro linkspan on the basin side of the North Wall Quay Extension

• Removing the Ro‐Ro linkspan on river side of the North Wall Quay Extension & replacing it with a linkspan north of the existing 2‐tier linkspan. 

This would have enabled:

• The creation, on the river side of the North Wall Quay Extension,  of berths for two cruise vessels (also envisaged in the CTUR report).

• The retention of Graving Dock No 2 as a functioning element of Port’s• The retention of Graving Dock No 2 as a functioning element of Port s infrastructure 

4

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The North Wall Quay Extension (1)The North Wall Quay Extension (1)ABR Plan states that:……the operational efficiency of the port would be enhanced by making many of the berths suitable for different types of ships and cargo.  

Observation:DPC has set aside the operationally reasonable balance between multipurpose and dedicated berths determined by the Masterplan

Concern:Will ABR enhance Dublin Port’s operational efficiency as a result of the planned 

b d l i f ‘ l i ’ b h f h hinumber and location of ‘multipurpose’ berths for these ships:•Car transporters•Ro‐ro vesselsG l l•General cargo vessels

•Visiting naval ships & tall ships ?

5

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The North Wall Quay Extension (2)The North Wall Quay Extension (2)Practical Example One: Dedicated car transporters

ABR PlanCar Transporter Ships use quarter or side ramps, which are dropped on the quay 

ll (i h fi h li k i i h )wall (i.e. when  a permanent fixture such as a linkspan is not in the way).

Observation:There are no 2 ann al ar re istration periods in Ireland Jan ar and J l As aThere are now 2 annual car registration periods in Ireland: January and July. As a result cars are imported throughout the year, such as in 2014:

•Q1: 23,713•Q2: 19,884Q2: 19,884•Q3: 14,802 (coincides with cruise ship peak).

Concern:The ABR states the use by car transporters of the new cruise berths will be counter‐cyclical to the cruise trade but not according to the new cycle.

Also as car trade adopt just‐in‐time practices an increasing % of vehicles are arriving by scheduled ferry, so these cars use Ro‐Ro berths and compounds.

6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The North Wall Quay Extension (3)The North Wall Quay Extension (3)

Practical Example Two: Ro‐Ro ships

ABR Planh l k f h d d dProposes to remove the two existing linkspans from this quay dedicated to Ro‐Ro 

ships.

Ob tiObservation:It will not be possible for Ro‐Ro ships to use this quay in the new mode due to the absence of linkspans. 

Concern:Continued growth in Ro‐Ro traffic will necessitate more link spans not fewer.

7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The North Wall Quay Extension (4)The North Wall Quay Extension (4)

P ti l E l Th G l lPractical Example Three:  General cargo vessels

ABR PlanWill enable some types of cargo vessels to use this quay such as shipsWill enable some types of cargo vessels to use this quay, such as shipscarrying cargoes for specialist projects like wind turbines. 

Observation:Observation:The impact of such cargo as it is transported from into storage and/orout of the port is not explained in the Application.

Concern:A berth is only multifunctional if it can meet the variety of operational demands from ships discharging and loading different types of cargo at times that suit p g g g yp gthem. 

8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

Updating & amending the MasterplanUpdating & amending the MasterplanABR PlanIs presented as making the best possible use of a finite estate to achieveIs presented as making the best possible use of a finite estate to achieve optimum utilisation of land, especially alongside berths .

Observation:Dublin Port is, and will remain, a really important multi‐purpose port needing multi purpose berths. In planning the number and location of these berths, should some account not be taken of relative importance of different traffic t ?types? 

Ro‐Ro: 64%Lo‐Lo:  18%General Cargo/bulk traffic : 18%General Cargo/bulk traffic : 18%

(Source: tonnes for Jan‐Sept 2014 from  the DPC website)

Concern:The volume of Ro‐Ro traffic handled by Dublin Port shows this trade to be the clear priority in planning future use of scarce resources – land and berths.

ABR seems to be prioritising seasonal cruise traffic at the expense of daily Ro‐RoABR  seems to be prioritising seasonal cruise traffic at the expense of daily Ro Ro traffic.

9

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

The Masterplan LayoutThe Masterplan Layout

Return to the Masterplan LayoutRetain the proposal in the Masterplan which balances the needs of Ro‐Ro, Lo‐Lo, bulk and multi‐purpose berths, while creating quayside capacity DPC 

f lrequires for cruise vessels.

Observation: Th M t l L t f Al d B i d th N th W ll Q E t iThe Masterplan Layout for Alexandra Basin and the North Wall Quay Extension can meet the needs of a number of trades, including Ro‐Ro, cruise, Lo‐Lo and bulk.

Concern:The Masterplan Layout is compatible with developing substantial cruise terminal facilities on North Wall Quay Extension while also accommodatingterminal facilities on North Wall Quay Extension while also accommodating the displaced Ro‐Ro services. 

Infilling in the Graving Dock, especially with contaminated material will makeInfilling in the Graving Dock, especially with contaminated material will make the cost of recovering the facility and then reintroducing the land use prohibitive . 10

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Submission by Paul O’Connell (Waterman Moylan Consulting Engineers) for Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (Ref 29N.PA0034)

APPLICANT: DUBLIN PORT COMPANY

SUBMISSION to AN BORD PLEANALA On behalf of

DUN LAOGHAIRE HARBOUR COMPANY

PAUL O'COHNELL WATERMAN MOYLAN CONSULTtNG ENGlNEERS

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

1.0 Quatlficatlons and Experience

1.1 i am Paul O'Connell, Managing Director of Waterman Moyfan Consulting Engineers, part of the Waterman Group. 1 have 28 years of experience fn civil englneerlng projects, including marllime engineen'ng, port and harbour planning and design, marina development and marine trafflc impact assessment, In Ireland, the UK, the US and the Far East.

1.2 1 graduated with a first class honours degree in Civil Engineering from UCD fn 1985 and a Masters Degree tn Structural Enginwing from Stanford University, California in 1987.

1.3 1 am a Chartered Engineer, a Member of Engineers Ireland and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

1.4 I am the Waterman Moylan Project Director leading the team that is currently preparing the engineering design for cruise shlp facllWes at Dun hoghaire Harbour on behalf of the Dun Laoghalre Harbour Company.

I outllne bdow the main remaining concerns warding the marine traffic and engineering works proposals In the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project.

2.0 Cruise Berth Access

2.1 Firstly, in its submission to the Bord on the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project, Dun Laoghaim Harbour commented on the la& of detail on any testing of the ability of large cnrlse shlps to enter the Port and access the proposed new cruise berths on the truncated North Wall Quay, both riverside and on the Alexandra Basin side, and R expressed concern at the constrained manoeuvring area available for large cruise ships.

2.2 Captain Dignan, Dublin Port Harbourmaster, has provided details of two separate sfmulation exercises undertaken to test access to the berths, including the sirnulafin of a 34Bm Royal Caribbean vessel, Quantum of the Sees. This is to be welcomed, as is the confirmation by Captain Dignan that Re is satisfled with the manoeuvring areas available.

2.3 While confirmation of the testing carried out and h e assurances of Captain Dignan in particular is welcome, and provides reassurance on this matter, some concerns remain. The environmental conditions, and particutarly wind conditions, assumed for the simulation modellfng are not clear. Cruise ships are very high (up to 6Om above water, or half the h@ht of the Spire) and are therefore particuiarly affected by wlnd - when the ship turns sideways to the wind, R presents a very large solid face for the wind to push against. Therefore, as a cruise shlp turns, whlch ft must do at the proposed crufse fsctllty either to get on the berth or to depart, it will at some stage be turning into the wind and will be broadside on to the wind. The wind will tend to cause the ship to drR sideways in the water. Modem cruise shlps are hlghly powered, and

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

can counteract this drift by use of their propulsion to a certain degree, but it becomes more difficult to do so as the wind get stronger. Therefore, the stronger the d n d the more dIfflculf It Is to control the ship without drift. It Is not clear whether the simulations carrled out have looked at a nnge of envimmsntal ccrndions to determine the likely limitlng condifions for different ske and powered cruise ships getting on the berths.

2.4 The proposed cruise berth on the Alexandra Bash dde of the No* Wall Quay wlll he Mcky to access for large cruise ships even under calm conditions, more so if there are atso ships berthed on Ocean Pier West a d o r the adjacent Ro-Ro berth (see Figure I), as these will reduce the water space available for any turning movements even further. This berth will be particularly prublernatic if there is any wind at all, and will not be an attractive option for large cruise shfps.

2.5 Notwithstanding the simulation studies that have been carded out, it is likely that many ship's Masters will be uncomfortable wfth berthlng at the Alexandra Basin cruise berth, particularly in the case of even a moderate wind. It will be the ship's Master who will uftimatety make the decisbn as to whether wndiions are such that he can safely berth his vessel at the assigned berth. Cnrlse shlp Masters are generally known to be conservative in this regard- they have ultimate responsibility for the safety of the passengers and crew on their vessel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

3.0 Cruise Faclllty Capacity

3.1 The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment involves reconfiguration of the North WalI Quay, including shortening of the Quay by approximately 180m and reducing the width of the Quay by about 35m. The prfmary reason for the shortening and narrowing of the Quay appears to be to permft large cruise ships to attempt to get on the berlh along the Alexandra Basin side of the Nortfr Wall Quay. Without this shorkning of the North Wall Quay, which widens the entrance to the Alexandra Basin, it would not be powible for large cruise ships to berth in the Alexandra Basin.

These works to North Wall Quay will also facillfate larger bulk carriers and Ro-Ro ferries ushg the Alexandra Bask, although, as these shlps will not be anywhere near as large (long) as the miso ships, the extent of the rsconfiguratIon of the North Wall Quay required to accommodate the bigger Ro-Ro and bulk mrriers would not be as great as that currently proposed. Indeed, it Is likely that larger Ro-Ro fed88 would use the high capacity berths 49 and 52153, where there wlll be double deck ramps, wfth only smaller ferries using the new single deck ramp berths in the Alexandra Basin.

Therefore, were it not for the desire to accommodate 300m + cruise shfps in the Alexandra Basin, a longer length of the existing North Wall Quay could probably be retained. Thii In turn would provide a longer berthing face along the North Well Quay riverside for wulse shlps.

7?w length of the riverside berthing face under the current Dublin Port scheme is 476111. If Dublin Port was not seeking to provide access to the Alexandra Basin side of the North Wall Quay for large mise ships, then the extent of any shortening of the North Wall Quay could be s1gnHIcantly reduced, and a riverside berth face along North Wall Quay of 550m or greater wuld probably be provided, facilitating the berthing of two medium size cruise ships concurrently.

At 476rn, the North Wall Quay riverside berth as currently proposed wlll only be able to accommodate a very smaU (475111) wuise ship if a 250111 - 300m crulse shlp Is on the berth. Irt effect, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, including the berth In Alexandra Basin, can only accommodate two c r u k ship over 250m at any one time, as the proposed herside berth is too small to accommodate more than one of t b vessels at a time.

3.6 The same capacity can be achieved if the Alexandra Basin reconf~upation is not designed to accommodate larger cruise ships on the Basin side of the North Wall Quay, as a much reduced North Wall Quay demolition wlll result in a longer river berth, which could accommodate Ma cruise shlps 250m - 300m In length at the same time. Thls would offer certain advantages including:

- Better aocess for cruise ships {riverside bertha are easier to berth at than the Alexandra Basin berth)

- Additional berth frea In Alexandra Basin for other uses eg Ro-Ro - Redudon in extent of demotitron of h M c quay.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

4.0 Crulse Ship Size

4.1 1 would now like to address the issue of cruise ship size. this has been discussed by Mr Ajamll of Bermello, Ajamil & Partners in his evidence. Mr Ajamil correctly highlighted the trend In the cruise industry towards larger ships of greater than 300111 In length. Howaver, at present, these large crulse ships represent less than 15% of the global cruise ship fleet.

4.2 There are 19 cruise ship on order for delver in 2014 - 2016 inclusive. Of these, 9 are less than 300m and 10 greater than 300171. Smaller vess~ls wlll continue to be ordered for niche markets with the large 300m + ships being ordered by the big cruise lines for their main markets. Based on current trends, R is likely that 25-30% of the global fleet will comprise large cruise ships over 3Mlm in length by 2040 while over 50% of the fleet will still comprise vessels In the 200m-300m range, with the balance being smaller, specialist vessels.

4.3 As cruke calls to Dublin grow in the future, it can be expected that a range of vessel sizes will be received, including some greater than 300111 In length, but with the majority of d l s being f m ships less than 300m.

4.4 While Mr Ajamil is correct to indicate that it will be necessary for Dublin to cater for 3Wm + cruise ships in the future if it is to maintain or grow ifs share d the crulse market, It wit1 also have to continue to senrlce a considerable number of ships less than 300m.

5.9 1 would now like to look briefly at the overall growth in ship arrivals that Dublin Port forecast for 2040. This growth Is summarised in the table below, taken from Table 1. f6 in the EIS.

Type of Vessel

Ro-Ro

Lo-Lo

Bulk

Break Bulk

Cruise

Other

Total

2013

4,928

1,101

783

39

87

7 18

7,058

-

2040

9,696

1,066

867

50

160

200

12,039

Change

+ 4,768

-35

+04

+A 1

+73

+$2

4,983

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

5.2 As can be seen, by far and away the b-t growth in ship arrivals wilt be for Ro Ro traffic. Ro-Ro traffic will amount for a l m d 96% of h e increase in arrivals at Dublin Port In the mud from 2013 b 204Q By contrast, mIse ship calk will account for just 1,5% &total ship arrivals in the port in 2040,

5.3 Despite the almost doubllng in the number of Ro Ro calls that are forecast by DubHn Port, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project does not seem to provide any additional Ro Ro berths to sewice this increase in arrivals. The existing two Ro-Ro berths 52 and 53 311 be replaced with a single, higher capacity, double deck ramp berth and an Increased landside area, while the existing double deck ramp berth at the Alexandra Basin, and shgfe deck ramp on the riverside of North Wall Quay will be replaced with two shgle deck ramps in Alexandra Basin. There wlll be no increase in berths, or in ramp capacity.

5.4 It would appear from the Masterplan that increasing the number of Ro Ro berths available to serve the formst Ro Ro 1ral-R~ will wmprise a subsequent development project to the Alexandra Basin Project Redevelopment. The Masterplan indicates an additional two Ro Ro berths are to be provided to the east of Berth 52153. However, it is also noted that the MastergIan includes substantial redarnation to create the landside areas required to support these bdhs. Given recent planning history at the port, it is by no means certain that permission for such reclamation will be forthcoming. Should permission not be fwthwming, there wllI be tremendous pressure on the Port to meet the demand for Ro Ro by reassignment of underutllised b d m elsewhere In the Port - the incorporation of a bankseat that would parnit the retrofting of a Ro Ro ramp at Crossberth Quay next to the proposed wise berth on the Alexandra Basin side of the North Wall Quay has most lib@ been included in case just such a scenario should arise.

5.5 There is no afternative to Dubfin Port for meeting the farecast growth in marine cargo traffic In and out of Dublln, and In parflcular Ro Ro. There is, however a viable alternab for cruise ship traffic to Dublin. That alternative is Dun Laoghaire Harbour, whlch has already demonstrated Its capability of meeting cruise line requirements, since it commenced receiving cruise calls in 2012. At present, small cruise ships can be received at the existing berths in the harbour while large cruise ships can 'tender" - anchor in deep water outside the harbour and use their tender boats to ferry passengers ashore at the purpose desrgned tender berth in the harbour. The harbour also offers the scope for development of new direct access facilities for the largest cruise ships, without the marine trafflc difficuMes that will be experienced at Dublin Port, and is currenffy deveIoping Its own glans for such a Pacifi.

5.6 In view of the much gr-r demands that will be placed on Dublin Port by the growth in Ro Ro traffic in particular, it would seem to make sense for Dublin Port to develop its cruise strategy In conjunction with Dun Laoghaire Harbour, rather than Ignoring the capacity for Dun Laoghdre Harbour to share in thk market. This would allow Dublin Port to optlmlse the size of the cruise facility to be provided in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project rather than sizing it to accommodate all of the forecast growth In cruise calls to Dublin over the next 20 or 25 years.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

5.7 Dun Laoghaire Harbour can a d s t In hondllng the projected growth in cruise traffic to Dublin Bay, but it cannot assist in handling the projected growth in Ro Ro or other cargomc.

5.8 The Dublin Port cruise facnity as presented in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project, has ignored the potential for Dun Lawhaire Harbour to accommodate some of the forecast c r u k traffic to Dublin Bay, and has been designed to accommodate all of this forecast traffic, The facility has therefore been oversized.

6.0 Dublin Port Channel

6.1 As throughput at Dublin Port grows, and the volume of shjp movements dong the channel Increase, the potential for mvem disruption to port operaflons d m to mechsniwl failure, loss of power, navigation ermr, mllislon or other such accident becumes greater. The channel at Dublin Port is relatively narmw, and any accldent mumng in the channel has the potential to prevent access to and from the port until such time as the obstruction in the channel is removed. This could have very severe knock on consequences for the netlonal economy, especially if port operations were disrupted for an extended period of time.

6.2 While such an event would be extremely unlikely, given the systems Dublin Port have In place far management of its marine W c , it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a serious accident could occur at some stage in the future (Costa Concordia is a case in pint). Cruise ships are the largest ships accessing Dublh Port, and are set to get even bigger following completion of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment. Whlle any large vessel getting Into trouble at any location in the Dublin Port channel will muse disruption and potentially block the channel, the size of the very large w i s e ships is such that a failure of one these ships could totally block the channel, and would wry likely be much mum difficult to clear. Sucb an event wuld have catastrophic consequences for the port and the economy as a whole,

8.3 The provision of a deepwater berth at Dun hoghaire Harbour, to take the largest of these miss ships, would reduce the risk to Dublin Port of failure of om of these vessels paralyshg fhe port.

7.0 Dredging Works

7.1 Section 4.2.2 of the EtS states the dredging of the main channel will take 6 years, given favourable conditions. Figure 4.?3 indicates this dredging muld take up to a maximum of 10 years,

7.2 The dredghg is planned to be carried out k SIX stages, each of approximately 6 months duration.

7.3 The dredglng Is to start at the seaward end of tfio existing channel, and gradually move westwards, with h a flnal dredging stage including the dredging of the berthing

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

pockets in front of North Wall Quay riverside berths. All going well, it is anticipated that this final stage of dredging would only be completed in 2022. Thus, it is unlikely that North Wall Quay will be able to receive large crulse ships prlor to the completion of dredgkg in 2022.

7.4 The timing of the dredging works imposes a significant constraint on the development of Dublin Port Cruise proposals, as it is unllkely it will be able to s m r n d a t e 300m + cruise ship anytime in the near Mure.

7.5 Dun Laoghaire Harbour is already catering for 3UOm + crutse ships, with 20 calls by such vessels confirmed for 2015, using the Harbour's tender berth. In addition, the scab of the work required to provide a new berth to accommodab direct berthing by 300m+ ships at Dun Laoghaire Harbour is much less than that proposed for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, with dmdging volumes in particular only about 10% of the volume of dredging for the ABR. It w i H be possible to complete the dredging for the Dun Laoghaire Harbwr facility in one season. It is currentfy envisaged that a new berth will ~ E I available for large 300m+ cruise ships at Dun laoghaire Harbour for 201 7 or 201 8.

7.6 In view of the above It would seem to make sense for a coordinated strategy to be developed by Dublin Port and Dun Laoghaim Harbwr to avoid any unnecessary over- sizing of fadlhies for cruise, and to align development proposals and timelines to ensure facilities are in plam on a phased bash as needed to maximbe growth in the mise business for Dublin Bay and the sumundlng regions,

8.1 In conclusion the following key points are raised on the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project:

The proposed cruise berth on the Alexandra Basin side of the North Wall Quay will be very diicult for large cruise ships to access, particularly in windy conditions or if there ara other ships bmed In Alexandra Basin.

The proposed cruise facility can provide berths for 2 medium or large size crulse shlps at the same time, but not 3.

2 cruise ships up to 25Um - 300m long could be accommodated on the North Wall Quay rkrgrside berth if the Quay did not need to accommodate large cruise ships on its Alexandra Bastn side.

Wife there will be a demand from the cruise industrj to accommodate 300rn + crulse ships in the future, the majority of calls are llkely to continue to ba from ships 300m or ks.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

I Despite the almost doubling In the forecast number of Ro Ro ship amvak between now and 2040, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project provides no additional Ro Ro beahs.

r The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project cruise berths and facili has been designed to accommodate all forecast cruise traffic up to 2040. No account has been taken of the capacity of Dun boghaire Harbour to meet some of the cruise demand, or of the fact that Dun Laoghaire HaMur is already receiving a number of mise calls, including calls from 300m+ ships.

The cruise facilities Included in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project are therefore overdesigned, and are utlllsing berth space that might be more appropriate for other wes.

Large 300m + cruise ships will be the largest vessels arriving in Dublin Port by a long way. A catastrophic accident to me of these vessejs In the Port channel, no matter how remote the possiblllty, would have very severe consequences for the Irish economy. Were a ship of this scale to run aground, be involved in a colllskn, or sink in the channel, it would block all marine access to and from the port, due to tho refatlvely long and narrow nature of the channel.

Construction sequencing, and quay reconstruction in particular, mean that the capacity of Dublin Port to cater for the crufe industry will decrease over the next few years. Due to the extended period fob dredging, it will not be until 2022 that Dublin Port will be In a posbn to handle 300m + cruise ships.

In view of the alternative offered by Dun taoghaire Harbour, and pending development of an overall cruise strategy for Dublin Bay, the scale of the planned cruise facility In the Alexandra Basln Redevelopment should be r e d u d .

That the cruise berths provided in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project be limited to the North Wall Quay riverside berths only, thus alldng reconsideration of the extent of dernoliiion of the North Wall Quay, and the reassignment of the Alexandra Basin side of the North Wall Quay for other uses.

Owing to the potentially catastrophic consequences of an accident in the port channel lnvolvlng a large cruise ship (300m +), and the potential for this to block all marine a m s s to Dublin Port fw a considerable period of time, consideration should be given to limltlng the maximum size of crulse ship permitted to access the Dublin Port cruise faclliity to 300m.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17

 

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:17