NA0005 - Oral Hearing Report - An Bord Pleanála · Dart Underground 29S.NA0005 Oral Hearing Report...

Dart Underground 29S.NA0005 Oral Hearing Report

An Bord Pleanala

An Bord Pleanála


Opening Statement page 2

Module 1: Applicant’s Submission page 2

Module 2: Local Authority Submission page 8

Module 3: Submissions from Prescribed Bodies page 11

Module 4: Submissions from Public Representatives page 14

Module 5: General Observer Submissions (not area/site specific) page 17

Module 6: Observer Submissions from East Wall Area page 19

Module 7: Observer Submissions from the Docklands Area page 28

Module 8: Observer Submissions from the Pearse Station Area page 32

Module 9: Observer Submissions from the St. Stephen’s Green Area page 39

Module 10: Observer Submissions from the Christchurch Area page 47

(incl. Temple Bar, Cook St., Island St., and Heuston Station areas)

Module 11: Observer Submissions from the Inchicore & page 48

War Memorial Park Areas Legal Submissions page 55 Module 12: Closing Statements page 56 Appendix A: List of Oral Hearing Submissions


An Bord Pleanala

Opening Statement:

The Inspector opened the Hearing on the 22/11/10. Submissions on procedural and other matters (including, inter alia, location of the O.H., transcripts of O.H. being made available, 10 year Notice to Treat, availability of applicant’s briefs of evidence, cross-questioning of applicant’s witnesses, use of webcam and costs) heard from:

Mr Esmond Keane SC for Sherling & Sons Ltd.

Mr Colm Allen SC for O’Callaghan Hotels and Associated Companies

Ms Angela Broderick for Protect East Wall

Mr Rory Mulcahy BL for Mr Rory O’Meara

Mr Tom Philips Planning Consultant for Irish Life Investment Managers, Irish Life Assurance Plc., Ventasker Ltd., RCSI

Mr John Spain Planning Consultant for RCSI

Mr Joe Costelloe TD

Ms Diane Steele for Parkside Resident’s Association

Mr McLoughlin

Cllr Kevin Humpreys

Mr Eoin Clear for a number of observers in the St. Stephen’s Green area

Sen. Pascal O’Donohue

Ms M. Broderick for East Wall observers

Mr Brendan Buck, Planning Consultant, for Protect East Wall, Ossory Business Park and others

Mr Karl Searson for East Wall residents and Mr Hughes and others

Ms Ann Mulcrone, Planning Consultant, Reid Associates, for James Adams & Sons

Ms Hobdale for Seven Oaks Management Co., Sarsfield Road

Module 1: Applicant’s Submission

Applicant’s team led by Mr Conleth Bradley SC and Mr Michael O’Donnell BL The applicant’s witnesses were question by the Inspectorate, in most cases, during and after each submission. While cross-questioning between the applicant and the observers was confined to subsequent Modules, the Inspector did allow/facilitate, on occasion, points of clarification from the floor. Day 1 being the 22/11/10 Following submissions were made by the applicant:

‘Brief of Evidence – Introduction to Dart Underground’ Dick Fearn, Chief Executive, Iarnrod Eireann

‘Brief of Evidence – Background and Need for the Scheme’ Michael Reidy, Manager – Strategic & Business Planning, IE


An Bord Pleanala

‘Brief of Evidence – Economic Appraisal’ Paul Buchanan, Director, Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd.

‘Brief of Evidence – Planning & Policy Context’ Alan Whelan, Director, Tiros Resources Ltd.

‘Brief of Evidence – Co-ordination of Railway Order Application’ Mark Conroy, Dart Underground – Environmental Manager

Day 2 being the 23/11/10 Following submissions were made by the applicant:

Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Co-ordination of Railway Order Application’ Mark Conroy, Dart Underground – Environmental Manager

‘Brief of Evidence – Introduction of Multi-Disciplinary Technical Consultants’ Tim Corcoran, Railway Order Manager

‘Brief of Evidence – Overview of EIS; Cumulative Impacts & Interactions’ Eddie Feely, EIS Manager

‘Public Consultation’ Tom Rowley, Communications Manager, Dart Underground

‘Brief of Evidence – Design Development and Alternatives Considered’ Conor Lavery and Peter Muldoon


Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Design Development and Alternatives Considered’ Conor Lavery and Peter Muldoon

Document titled ‘Details of Pearse Station Alternatives shown at Public Consultations’ submitted to the Hearing

Written response to questions posed by the Inspector submitted to the Hearing relating to Draft Dublin City DP, East Wall Action Plan 2004 and pedestrian route along Malachi Place

‘Brief of Evidence – Description of Railway Order Drawings’ Gavin O’Donnell, Railway Order Drawings Manager

‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed Description of the Railway Order Works’ John Flaherty and Conor Lavery

Day 4 being the 25/11/10 Inspector deviated from the Order of Proceedings to hear submissions on a legal (jurisdictional) point from Mr Colm Allen SC for O’Callaghan Hotel & Associated Companies, Mr Rory Mulcahy BL for Mr Rory O’Meara and Mr Oisin Collins BL for Sherling & Sons Ltd. Applicant’s submission continues. Following submissions were made by the applicant:

Drawings submitted to the Hearing showing running tunnel/cross passage cross section and typical cross-section through tunnel

Drawings submitted to the Hearing indicating Merrion Square Entrance Study

Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed Description of the Railway Order Works’ John Flaherty and Conor Lavery


An Bord Pleanala


Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed Description of the Railway Order Works’ John Flaherty and Conor Lavery

Submission titled ‘Details of East Wall Construction Compound Access Options shown at Public Consultations’ submitted to the Hearing

Day 6 being the 30/11/10 Inspector deviated from Order of Proceedings and returned to issue concerning the legal submissions of Day 4, he outlined a number of questions for the applicant’s legal advisors and indicated he will be hearing a response at a later date. Applicant’s submission continues. Following submissions were made by the applicant:

‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling & Programming’ Kevin McManus, Project Implementation Consultant, London Bridge Associates

‘Brief of Evidence – Ventilation, Fire and Smoke Control’, Dr Peter Woodburn, Fire Safety Engineering Dept. of Halcrow Group Ltd.


‘Brief of Evidence – Property Referencing’ Aidan Ruane, CIE Group Property Management. The submission also included appendices, which included ‘Appendix No. 2 – Property Referencing – Corrigenda’

‘Brief of Evidence – Risk Management Concept’ Roland Bourke, Project Controls Manager, Arup Halcrow Joint Venture

‘Brief of Evidence – Geotechnics, Soils and Geology’ Sean Mason, Geotechnical Project Director, Dart Underground

‘Brief of Evidence – Settlement’ Simon Fricker, Director of Rail and Underground Infrastructure, Halcrow Group Ltd.


‘Settlement of Permanent Structures and Utilities – Clarification for An Bord Pleanala’ submitted by Mr Fricker in response to issues raised by Dr Massarsch on Day 7

Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Settlement’ Simon Fricker, Director of Rail and Underground Infrastructure, Halcrow Group Ltd.

Inspector deviated from Order of Proceedings and returned to issue concerning the legal submissions of Day 4 and questions put to the applicant on Day 6. Submissions then heard from:

Mr Bradley SC for the applicant

Mr Gareth Simons SC for Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd.

Mr Esmond Keane SC for the Sherling Group

Mr Fintan Valentine BL for Flancrest Enterprises Ltd.


An Bord Pleanala

Mr Barry Magee Solicitor for the RPA

Mr Colm Allen SC for O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Properties

Mr Rory Mulcahy BL for Mr Rory O’Meara

Mr David Hughes Architect for himself

Mr K. Glynn for Ms Elizabeth Corrigan Day 9 being the 08/12/10 Following submissions were made by the applicant:

‘Brief of Evidence – Property Protection Scheme’ Mark Conroy, Dart Underground, Environmental Manager

‘Brief of Evidence – Hydrogeology’ Kevin Cullen, Hydrogeological Consultant

Submission of ‘Response to Queries raised from 24th November to 1st December’

‘Brief of Evidence – Hydrology’ Dr Conor Buggy, UCD

‘Brief of Evidence – Flood Risk Assessment’ Luke Ballantyne Day 10 being the 09/12/10 Following submissions were made by the applicant:

Mr Conor Lavery presents ‘Response to Queries raised from 24th November to 1st December’ submitted to the Hearing on Day 9, A1 version of Appendix A also submitted

Mr Lavery also submitted ‘Railway Order Application – An Bord Pleanala Oral hearing – Brief of Evidence – Description of Railway Order Drawings – Section 9.0 Corrigenda/Update – Table corrected on 26.11.2010’, document submitted in A3 and A0 format

‘Brief of Evidence – Below Ground Noise and Vibration’ Richard Greer, Director, Ove Arup & Partners Ltd.

Day 11 being the 10/12/10 Inspector announces his intentions in regard to the legal submissions previously made to the Hearing. Applicant’s submission continues. Following submissions were made by the applicant:

‘Brief of Evidence – Drainage and Utilities’ Ross Kinsella, Arup Halcrow Joint Venture

‘Brief of Evidence – Above Ground Noise and Vibration’ Jennifer Harmon, Senior Acoustic Consultant, AWN Consulting Ltd.

Day 12 being the 14/12/10 Inspector heard a statement from Mr Aidan Foley of Masterlabs Ltd. (East Wall) Mr Walsh and Dr Massarsch had a number of questions for Mr Greer, Mr McManus, Mr Fricker, Mr Lavery and Ms Harmon. Following submissions were made by the applicant:

Document titled ‘Summary of Baseline Unattended and Attended Noise Measurements’ submitted to the Hearing


An Bord Pleanala

‘Brief of Evidence – Transport Model’ Barry Colleary, National Transport Authority Commercial Services

‘Brief of Evidence – Traffic & Transportation’ Donal McDaid, Director of Traffic and Transportation, Arup, Dublin

Day 13 being the 15/12/10 Inspector notifies the Hearing of a letter received by the Board from the HSA concerning the Seveso site at Inchicore CIE Works, letter put on public file. Following submissions were made by the applicant:

Mr Lavery presents to the Hearing the following titled document ‘Response to An Bord Pleanala queries raised from 1st December to 10th December’

Mr Greer addresses the Hearing following on from previous days questions from Dr Massarsch, submits to the Hearing the document titled ‘Methods for Predicting Groundborne Noise and Vibration from Trains in Tunnels’

Continuing on from Day 12 with ‘Brief of Evidence – Traffic & Transportation’ Donal McDaid, Director of Traffic and Transportation, Arup, Dublin


Mr Conroy submits copies of correspondences between the HSA and the applicant.

Continuing on with ‘Brief of Evidence – Traffic & Transportation’ Donal McDaid, Director of Traffic and Transportation, Arup, Dublin

‘Vertical and Horizontal Ground Movements Associated with island Street Shaft Construction’ presented to the Hearing by Simon Fricker

‘Brief of Evidence – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ Margaret Gowen, Archaeologist

‘Brief of Evidence – Socio Economics’ Dr Craig Bullock, Optimize Economic Consultancy


‘Summary of Baseline Unattended and Attended Noise Measurements’ presented to the Hearing by Jennifer Harmon, Senior Acoustic Consultant, AWN Consulting Ltd.

‘Brief of Evidence – Retail/Business Impact’ Alan Whelan, Planning Consultant, Tiros Resources Ltd.

‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’ Joyanne Manning, Arup Dublin

Discussion on spoil removal by rail

‘Flora and Fauna’ Dr Carmel Brennan, Senior Ecologist, Natura Environmental Consultants Ltd.

The Hearing then adjourned for the Christmas period. Day 16 being the 10/01/11 Following submissions were made by the applicant:


An Bord Pleanala

‘Brief of Evidence – Station Planning / Architectural Design / Urban Integration’ Clare White, Consultant Architect to AHJV and Leszek Dobrovolsky, Director of Interchange Design, Arup


‘Brief of Evidence – Platform-Train Interface: Calculations of Gap’, Hugh O’Neill, Principal Engineer, Interfleet Technology Ltd. UK

‘Brief of Evidence - Platform-Train Interface: Accessibility’ Mike Evans, Principal Engineer, Interfleet Technology Ltd. UK

‘Brief of Evidence – Landscape & Visual Impact’ Thomas Burns, Landscape Architect, Brady Shipman Martin

‘Brief of Evidence – Architectural Heritage’ David Slattery, David Slattery Conservation Ltd.


Continuing with ‘Brief of Evidence – Architectural Heritage’ David Slattery, David Slattery Conservation Ltd.

‘Brief of Evidence – Industrial Heritage’ Mary McMahon, Urban Heritage Consultancy

Leszek Dobrovolsky and Clare White present ‘Responses and Clarifications – Architectural Design’ following on from their previous submission to the Hearing

Mr Lavery submits to the Hearing ‘Dart Underground Oral Hearing. Response to Queries’

‘Brief of Evidence – Air Quality and Climate’ Sinead Whyte, Arup


‘Brief of Evidence – Electromagnetic Compatibility’ Chris Marshman, MD of York EMC Services Ltd., brief of evidence read into the record by Mr Lavery

‘Brief of Evidence – Human Health’ Dr Martin Hogan, Consultant Occupational & Environmental Physician, Director Employment Health Advisers Ltd.

‘Responses to supplemental information request’ presented to the Hearing by Barry Colleary, National Transport Authority Commercial Services

Follow-up presentation by Sean Mason and Ken Gavin, AHJV, on specific geophysical information from a MASW Survey

‘Agreed Position of Dublin City Council and Iarnrod Eireann’ presented to the Hearing by Peter Muldoon, Mark Conroy and Conor Lavery


‘Dart Underground Oral Hearing. Response to Queries. Read into An Bord Pleanala on 14th

January 2011’ presented to the Hearing by John Flaherty

Presentation by Mr McManus on spoil-by-rail from North Wall Yard

‘Brief of Evidence – Monitoring’ Simon Fricker, presented by Mr Fricker and Mark Conroy

‘Below Ground Noise & Vibration, Example Calculations’ and related documents presented to the Hearing by Richard Greer


An Bord Pleanala


Mr Fricker and Mr Greer respond to questions from the Inspectorate and points of clarification from the floor on monitoring, European Standards and related matters

Mr McDaid, Mr Lavery, Ms White, Mr Ruane respond to questions from the Inspectorate on operational access arrangements to the Inchicore Station

Mr Muldoon and Mr Conroy responded to questions from the Inspectorate on compliance and the ‘Agreed Position’ document

‘Brief of Evidence – Cumulative Impacts & Interactions; Mitigation Measures & Residual Impacts’ Eddie Feely, EIS Manager (see also submission of the 23/11/10 by Mr Feely)

Presentation on Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) by Patrick Casey (for Mr Mason)

‘Response to An Bord Pleanala Request for Confirmation of the manner by which TBM Operation data is reviewed’ presented to the Hearing by Simon Fricker (see also monitoring submission of the 14/01/11)

‘Response to supplemental information request’ Barry Colleary, NTACS

‘Questions Raised by An Bord Pleanala Inspector on 11th January 2011’ presented to the Hearing by Aidan Ruane, CIE Property Department

‘Property Protection Scheme’ presented to the Hearing by Mark Conroy (see also submission of the 08/12/10)

‘Dart Underground Oral Hearing. Response to Queries. Read into An Bord Pleanala on the 19th January 2011’ and associated documents presented to the Hearing by Conor Lavery and Jennifer Harmon


Applicant’s response to questions posed by Mr Fred Walsh, response given by Peter Muldoon and Jennifer Harmon

‘Response: Shafts – Determination of Vertical and Horizontal Movements: Validation of Contours’ presented by Simon Fricker

‘Environmental Impact Statement – An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing – Below Ground Noise and Vibration, Corrigenda/Update – Table corrected on 20.01.2011’ submitted to the Hearing

2 no. drawings titled ‘St. Stephen’s Green Station – Scenario: Dart Underground is Operational Prior to Opening of St. Stephen’s Green Station’ submitted to the Hearing

Document titled ‘An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing – Programme and Notice to Treat’ submitted to the Hearing

Module 2: Local Authority Submission

Module 2 commenced on Day 22 being the 20/01/11 Presenting for the Local Authority were:

Mr Gerard Meehan BL


An Bord Pleanala

Mr Dick Gleeson, City Planner

Mr Eoghan Madden, Senior Engineer, Traffic Planning Division (Mr Madden did not make a formal submission to the Hearing but did make himself available to answer questions from the Inspectorate, he was so questioned on a number of matters by Mr Wallace, Technical Adviser to the Inspector on Traffic & Transportation matters)

Mr Meehan’s submission can be summarised as follows:

The LA is neither the applicant nor the decision maker in this instance

DCC is supportive of the DU scheme

The proposal complies with the hierarchy of plans set out for Dublin: the NSS, NDP 07-13, Platform for Change, Transport21, RPG for GDA 04-16, DCC DP 05-11, DCC DP 11-17

DCC’s role under the legislation is consultative, it is a statutory consultee

DCC carried out a thorough, multi-disciplinary review of the applicant’s documentation

DCC is present at the Hearing to primarily facilitate the Board

DCC prepared a comprehensive submission for the Board and submitted it in August 2010 which included 114 draft conditions it requested the Board to attach to any RO granted

The matters raised in those draft conditions have now been agreed between CIE and DCC

CIE must carry out and operate the scheme in accordance with the agreement

CIE has agreed to include the draft conditions contained within this ‘Agreed Position’ document in their main contract with the PPPCo

DCC is no longer requesting the Board to attach the draft conditions contained within the August 2010 submission

Following the DCC August 2010 submission CIE and DCC engaged in intense, technical meetings and discussions with a view to addressing and resolving all of the issues of concern

DCC’s request for attachment of the 114 draft conditions is hereby withdrawn

DCC expects CIE to honour and meet its commitments in the Agreed Position document of November 2010

While it is only CIE that can be placed under a duty as a result of the making of a RO, DCC’s interests are protected by a number of different mechanisms such as the Road Traffic Acts, the Roads Act, the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act and the Water Services Act

DCC still has all of the powers that it has by virtue of the law of the land to police anybody who is loose in the city

DCC’s interests will be protected by the insertion into the Contract of several terms as contained in the Agreed Position document

It is envisaged that a collaborative approach to the works will be adopted by the PPPCo, CIE and DCC

In the event of a breach of the RO by the PPPCo it is unclear what enforcement mechanisms are available to DCC


An Bord Pleanala

DCC’s own in-house, multi-discipline, co-ordination group will continue in existence, through to the completion of the scheme, to ensure a single point of contact and corporate response

DCC will aim to co-operate so as to ensure a robust and durable monitoring and enforcement regime is in place that all parties will have confidence in when the works commence

Mr Meehan told the Inspector that the Agreed Position is between CIE and DCC and not the PPPCo, DCC’s point of contact should any disagreement arise would be with CIE not the PPPCo

Mr Gleeson’s submission can be summarised as follows:

The DU is promoted and supported by a range of planning policies from national to local level

DU is supported by the City Development Plan and is consistent with the objectives contained within the Liberties LAP, Docklands Masterplan and the North Lotts Planning Scheme

In the adopted City Development Plan 2011-2017 the DU is a key element of the Core Strategy which seeks to achieve a quality, consolidated metropolitan area, for example through strategies, policies and objectives in chapters 3, 4 and 5

The provision of DU will underpin the successful delivery of the various priorities, policies and objectives in the Development Plan that have been developed out of the Core Strategy and the delivery of Transport 21 proposals has been identified as a priority

DU will play a vital role in providing linkages between corridors identified in the Development Plan and the regional polycentric centres

The provision of a new transport network with key station locations will significantly improve access to areas of the city that previously may have suffered an element of dislocation

It is considered vitally important that the design of the stations contributes architecturally to the city

The development of DU is a key piece of infrastructure, physically, economically and socially

The PA is of the opinion that DU will bring significant long term benefits to the city and its population

In economic terms DU will provide the city region with the ability to better complete with other global locations

Cross-questioning between the City Council and the applicant was permitted (but not

availed of), Mr Muldoon and Mr Bradley SC for the applicant sought to clarify some issues

arising. The City Council was in attendance for the entire duration of the Hearing and made

a number of contributions throughout the Hearing.


An Bord Pleanala

Module 3: Submissions from Prescribed Bodies

Module 3 commenced on Day 23 being 21/01/11 An Taisce An Taisce were represented by Mr James Kelly, architect with Kelly & Cogan Architects, the contents of their submission can be summarised as follows:

An Taisce is supportive of the project

Their main concern relates to mitigation of impacts of proposed works and in particular impact on St. Stephen’s Green (SSG)

Concerns relating to the removal of trees and works affecting the existing railings and side walks at SSG

Concern relating to design of the intervention shafts at SSG

Main concern relates to the visual impact of the structures and their impact on the historic fabric

Could the size, height and location be amended?

Architectural design aspects not given significant consideration Ms Clare White and Mr Lavery responded on behalf of the applicant. Cross-questioning between the applicant and An Taisce was facilitated (but not availed of). Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government

Mr Gerry Browner, Senior Architect, Built Heritage & Architectural Policy Section:

It remains the view of the DoEHLG that the placing of structures associated with the project within St Stephens Green (SSG) may have a significant and adverse impact on the architecture and heritage of the park

Particularly with the eastern shaft

Mitigation measures will be required

The final design of the enclosures to the structures should be agreed with the DoEHLG and the OPW, this should be conditioned

The entire LMS building and the North Wall Quay (not just the mid section) should be brought back into a viable use

Potential for conflict between RO under the Transport Act and protection of SSG under the National Monuments Act

The Board can remove the lack of clarity by putting in a condition in relation to agreement on structures in SSG

The DoEHLG has another responsibility under the St Stephen’s Green Act

The shaft is a big rectangular box, you cannot make it unobtrusive

Ms Clare White, Mr Burns, Mr Muldoon and Mr Bradley responded on behalf of the applicant


An Bord Pleanala

Ms Catherine Desmond, Archaeologist, National Monuments Service:

The National Monuments Service have reached agreement in relation to most issues and are fully supportive of the DU

A number of mitigation measures have been suggested by the NMS and these have been incorporated into the EIS

Works at a number of sites will require consent of the Minister of the DoEHLG under s.14 of the National Monuments Act 2004

Detailed methodology for any proposed works should be submitted to the DoEHLG for approval

An appropriate timescale to be agreed with the NMS should be allowed for excavation of any archaeological remains

CIE should publish and disseminate any significant archaeological information gained during DU works

An archaeological archive shall be compiled

There will be direct impact on 3 National Monuments: St. Stephens Green, Christchurch and Cook St.

An archaeological strategy is a suitable approach to dealing with these sensitive locations (as proposed by the applicant)

The NMS is in ongoing consultation with the CSSO (States Solicitors Office) on the most appropriate mechanism to deal with the access/ownership question relating to SSG

Functions and ownership of SSG is vested in the DoEHLG while day-to-day operational functions are vested in the Minister for Finance, executed by the OPW

The entire area of the station box at Christchurch will require archaeological resolution

Full archaeological resolution will be required prior to any works commencing at the location of the Cook Street shaft

A number of Ministerial Consents have been issued to facilitate boreholes and archaeological monitoring to date, licences were also issued to archaeological consultants for CIE at a number of sites

The NMS is generally satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant for DU are the best that can be reasonably be achieved.

Cross-questioning between the applicant and the DoEHLG was facilitated (but not availed of).

Dublin Bus Mr Derry O’Leary, Strategic Planning Manager for Dublin Bus, contents of Mr O’Leary’s submission to the Hearing can be summarised as follows:

DB has actively and positively engaged with the CIE team to minimise disruption to its passenger services during both the construction and operational phases

In practice there are few areas where the DU project impinges or potentially impinges on DB operations


An Bord Pleanala

Measures to address any issues have been agreed with the project promoters.

DB is satisfied that the project represents a major opportunity to upgrade the city’s public transport network and support it fully as part of Transport 21

Cross-questioning between the applicant and Dublin Bus was facilitated (but not availed of). Health Service Executive Presenting for the HSE were:

Ms Michelle Convey, Environmental Health Officer

Mr Andrew Sully, Senior Environmental Health Officer (Mr Sully did not make a formal submission to the Hearing but was available to answer question, the Inspectorate did question Mr Sully)

Ms Michelle Convey, Environmental Health Officer, HSE, contents of Ms Convey’s submission to the Hearing can be summarised as follows:

The EIS does not discuss other transport options

The Environmental Health Service (EHS) was unable to identify in the EIS details of contingency plans in the event of explosions, flooding or tunnel collapse during construction

The traffic management plan should include specific details of how emergency access can be maintained to construction sites, commercial premises and dwellings during construction phase

The traffic management plan should include details of access to health care facilities

All food businesses and the EHS should be notified in advance of any utility diversion or disconnection

The EHS recommends that food premises are considered within the dust minimisation plan

It is important and necessary that local food premises are considered as a priority for active pest control under the Environmental Management Plan

Waste generated should only be transferred to waste collection permit holders and authorised waste facilities, this should be conditioned

Audits for all relevant hazardous materials such as asbestos are carried out prior to demolition

EIS proposals (i.e. Waste Hierarchy Plan) governing tunnel spoil disposal should be fully implemented

The EHS recommends that the Water Management Plan (Ch. 14, Ch25) pertaining to groundwater quality standards and threshold values for compliance aim to be inline with the criteria set out in the Water Framework Directive 2013 and not just Directive 80/68/EEC and Directive 2006/118/EC

Mr Conroy and Mr Feely responded for the applicant. Cross-questioning between the applicant and the HSE was facilitated (but not availed of).


An Bord Pleanala

RPA Mr Rory O’Connor, Project Director for Metro North Project, the contents of Mr O’Connor’s submission to the Hearing can be summarised as follows:

RPA supports the DU project

The Metro North and DU will go a considerable way to realising the high quality public transport network needed to achieve a major shift from private car to public transport

The MN team has liaised closely with the DU team to ensure that the SSG interchange operates in a seamless and efficient manner

They have worked together also to ensure that environmental impacts from construction and operations are mitigated through design to the greatest possible extent

Due to ongoing economic climate the relative timing of the two projects remains uncertain

To minimise the interfaces and mitigate the risks it has been agreed that the RPA will construct elements of the DU station as part of the MN works subject to the necessary budget transfer by the NTA

Agreement has been reached on how the two contractors building the MN and DU stations should collaborate to avoid or minimise the cumulative impacts and disruption risks, including the agreement of a Joint Environmental Management Plan and a joint approach to monitoring settlement

Drafting of a formal agreement is largely complete

In relation to DU works beneath existing Luas lines RPA is satisfied with the ground level monitoring proposals to be put in place by DU during construction phase and the associated warning trigger levels

Mr O’Connor returned to the Hearing on Day 60 (06/04/11) to address it in relation to agreements reached between RPA and CIE, he requested the Board apply a condition in relation to the interfaces

Cross-questioning between the applicant and the RPA was facilitated (but not availed of).

Module 4: Submissions from Public Representatives

Module 4 commenced on Day 23 being 21/01/11 and continued on Day 24 being the 25/01/11 List of Observers Presenting (note: reference to the elected office held by the observers below is that as held at the opening of the Hearing):

Mr Oisin O hAlmhain for the Green Party

Deputy Aengus O’Snodaigh

Deputy Chris Andrews

Cllr. Cieran Perry


An Bord Pleanala

Deputy Joe Costello, Cllr Emer Costello & Cllr Owen Clancy, represented by Deputy Costello

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan & Cllr Marie Metcalfe, represented by Deputy O’Sullivan

Mr Patrick Martin, Ogra Fianna Fail – Dublin Central

Deputy Catherine Byrne & Cllr Clare Byrne, represented by Deputy Byrne

Senator Pascal O’Donohoe & Cllr Ray McAdam, represented by Sen. Donohoe

Deputy Mary Upton, represented by Mr John Byrne

Cllr Niall Ring

Ms Mary Lou McDonald & Cllr Seamus McGrattan, represented by Ms McDonald

Cllr Mary Fitzpatrick Issues Raised:

Concerns relating to lack of stations, location of stations and alignment

Need for proper consultation

Location of Inchicore Station wholly unsuitable

Alternative alignments presented to the Hearing

Station at Inchicore should be moved further west towards Kylemore Road

No current footfall for station in Inchicore Works

€30K cap on the Property Protection Scheme (PPS)

PPS should be expanded

Proximity of residences to construction sites

Concerns relating to insurance

Procedures for the repair of damage caused

Pearse DU station close to residential conservation areas

Alternative location for Pearse Station at Cumberland House site

Further information needed to fully assess impacts on residential and business areas

Cost of attending a lengthy Hearing

Six week time period for observer submissions is inadequate

Transcript of Hearing should be made available

10 year Notice to Treat period of concern

East Wall, North Wall, North Strand and Ossory Road will suffer enormous difficulties during the construction phase

Procedures for reporting and addressing any breaches should be put in place

Traffic Management Plan of extreme importance

Sound barriers need to be increased

A liaison committee should be established

Impact from relocation of West Road bridge in East Wall

Impact on property values

Flood risk in East Wall area

East Wall gest ‘all the pain with no gain’

Spoil from tunnelling being removed via East Wall

Damage to health and property should be monitored

HGV backup route at Irvine Terrace should not be permitted

Residents’ enjoyment of their homes will be severely curtailed


An Bord Pleanala

A Charter of Rights should be drawn up

Working hours should be limited

Structures at East Wall will be visually intrusive

Need to consider proposal in the context of wider integrated transportation including, inter alia, taxis and Dublin Bikes

DU should facilitate unassisted access for wheelchair users

Community Gain issue

Impact of shifting of hub to south side of city i.e. impact on retail/shopping on north side

Local communities should benefit from a local employment clause of 20% of the workforce

Spoil removal by rail preferable

Scale and complexity of proposal

Need for 24 hour manned phone line

Need for independent arbitration

Light pollution

Impact from dust, noise and traffic

Access into/out of East Wall during construction phase

Is CIE a prescribed organisation?

Impact of sleep deprivation on young children

Impact from rodents

Impact on East Wall bus service

Impact of tunnelling on Woodfield Cottages and North Terrace, Inchicore

Opening of pedestrian access behind Abercorn Terrace, Inchicore

Cook St. shaft inappropriate at that location

Location of substation in East Wall

Impacts from vibration

Construction traffic impacts on Abercorn Road

Impacts from 24/7 tunnelling activities

Zero value being placed on substratum land below 10 metres

East Wall, North Wall and North Strand were originally under the sea

Policing of the project Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Muldoon, Mr Lavery, Mr Conroy, Mr Feely, Ms C. White, Mr McManus and Mr Masterson. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.


An Bord Pleanala

Module 5: General Observer Submissions (not area/site specific)

Module 5 commenced on Day 25 being 26/01/11 and continued on Day 26 being the 27/01/11 List of Observers Presenting:

Joint submission: Centre for Independent Living, Irish Wheelchair Association and People with Disabilities in Ireland, represented by Mr David Egan

Mr Gerry Ellis, Consultant in the area of Usability & Accessibility

Mr Peter Sweetman & Associates, represented by Mr Sweetman

Rail Users Ireland, represented by Mr Colm Moore

Dargan Project, represented by Mr Cormac Rabbitt Issues Raised:

Concern relating to interface between the carriage and the platform

Need for unassisted access within the entire DU system

Platform/carriage interface is the interlocking point which dictates how accessible a system is

It is highly unlikely that the applicant’s target stepping distance of 20 mm vertical/ 50 mm horizontal will be achievable

This means that a lot of passengers will need assistance

By the time DU is available Dublin Bus, Metro North and LUAS will be 100% roll on, roll off unassisted access, DU is to link with these 3 transport services

Cost to taxpayer of staff deploying manual ramps

Cost vis-à-vis slowing service down

DU will be brought into disrepute

Disruption to passengers as manual ramps deployed

Reference made to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which may be binding at time of Board’s decision)

The Board is requested to condition that all rolling stock including existing rolling stock will have at least one carriage per train set fitted with an electronic hydraulic ramp

Reference to the TSI Interoperability standard relating to intercity and intercontinental trains specifically

Those trains are designed to go through intervening stations at high speed, that is not the case with the DU which will stop at every station, there is not the same degree of sway

Transport is not an end in itself, it is a conduit to education, to employment to social inclusion, this is recognised by the UN Convention

EU Directive on public procurement say that public works must be made accessible

Irish legislation around this issues includes the Disability Act, Education of Persons with Special Needs Act, the Equality Act, reference also made to government’s National Strategy on Disability and Transport 21, mandate accessibility as a right

12,000 wheelchair users in the GDA


An Bord Pleanala

Issue not just related to wheelchair users but also persons with other disabilities, restricted mobility, elderly etc.

Manual intervention does not work

The Board is asked to ensure accessibility

No waste plan in the development

CIE should use a disused quarry adjacent a rail line for the disposal of the waste from the project

Compliance conditions can not be used to complete an inadequate EIS

The Board is required to carry out a proper EIA on the project

The walk from the secondary concourse of platforms 6-7-8 to the main concourse in Heuston is excessive

Access to Inchicore station should be from both north and south

Turnback facilities should be provided at both Docklands and Inchicore

Cycle parking provisions at stations are derisory

The RO application is amiss in the matter of route evaluation, route choice, integration with existing rail stations and choice of tunnel type

An alternative option addresses the flawed DU proposal

The DU does not meet 6 high level goals of integration, investment value, safety, competition, regulation & reform and delivery

The RO EIS hasn’t justified why it selected Sallins-Malahide over Sallins-Maynooth

The CIE proposal is incomplete in many ways, it is not in accordance with ‘Platform for Change’ or the Department of Transport Statement of Strategy

The observer’s alternative will provide high level grade separated interlinks and a circle line

The maps produced by T21 are without status

The alternative is well balanced with high capacity and operationally very efficient, it penetrates all major areas of demand in the city centre

The alternative utilises a single tunnel of 13.6 m diameter and 4.8 km in length

The alternative proposal would take 20 months less that CIE’s proposal Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Muldoon, Mr Evans, Mr O’Neill, Mr Feely, Mr Conroy, Mr Flaherty, Mr Reidy, Mr Lavery and Mr Fricker. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.


An Bord Pleanala

Module 6: Observer Submissions from the East Wall Area (North of Sherrif

Street)

Module 6 commenced with Mr Tommy Seery & Others on Day 24 being the 25/01/11 but

returned to Module 5, Module 6 then recommenced on Day 26 being the 27/01/11 with Mr

Aidan Foley & Masterlabs Ltd. and continued on Day 27 being the 28/01/11, Day 28 being

the 01/02/11, Day 29 being the 02/02/11, Day 30 being the 03/02/11, Day 31 being the

09/02/11, Day 32 being the 10/02/11, Day 33 being the 11/02/11, Day 34 being the

15/02/11, Day 35 being the 16/02/11, day 36 being the 17/02/11 and Day 37 being the

18/02/11.

List of Observers Presenting : (Note: the references to public representatives refers to the

office they held at the opening of the Hearing)

Mr Tommy Seery & Others, represented by Mr Seery

Mr Aidan Foley & Masterlabs Ltd., represented by Mr Foley

Andrew & Elizabeth Hulton, represented by Mr Thomas Hulton

Ms Adrienne Redmond & Others, represented by Mr Corey Redmond

Ms Anna Flanagan & Others, represented by Ms Angela Broderick

Ms Carmel Cosgrave & Others, represented by Ms Carmel Moore

Joint submission on behalf of Business Owners Ossory Road Industrial Estate, Mr Declan Rodgers and Mr Michael Kennedy represented by:

o Mr B. Buck, Planning Consultant o Mr M. Kennedy o Mr Declan Rodgers o Ms Brid Rogers who read a submission from Mr Andrew Foran of Gunne

Auctioneers on behalf of Mr Declan Rodgers

Crosbie Properties, represented by Mr Brian Madden of OCSC

Daisy Days Community Childcare (Eva Dillon), represented by Ms Marie Broderick

Mr Laurence Redmond

Mr Michael Muldowney, represented by Mr Brendan Laird

Ms Ann Gahan, represented by Ms Marie Broderick

Ms Phyllis Doyle, represented by Ms Marie Broderick

East Wall Water Sports Group Ltd., represented by Mr Pat Dolan

John Conway

West Road Residents’, represented by Mr Brendan Buck, Planning Consultant and Mr Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consultant Engineers

Elaine & Paul Kenny, represented by Ms E. Kenny

Ms Emma McDonnell, represented by Mr P. McDonnell, Architect & Town Planner

Mr Ian Hand, represented by Mr J. Meehan

Martina Kelly & Paul Corrigan

Mr Terrance Melhourn

Mr James Lee


An Bord Pleanala

Ms Denise Wright

Mary Corcoran & Richard Hewer, represented by Mr P. Sweetman

Ms Elizabeth Corrigan, represented by Mr K. Glynn

Mr Rory O’Meara, represented by himself and Mr R. Mulcahy BL

Mr Karl O’Grady & Ms Deidre O’Reilly

Ms Angela Wigglesworth & Others, represented by Ms Mary Murphy

Ms Helen McCabe & Others, represented by Ms Helen McCabe

Mr Joe Mooney

Mr Seamus Cummins & Ms Delphine Guine, represented by Mr S. Cummins

Ms Margret Roper & Others, represented by Mr M. Kane (2 submissions, one of behalf of Kane & Treacy of the ‘others’ and one on behalf of Ms Roper)

Mr Thomas Hulton & Ms Ita Hulton, represented by Mr T. Hulton

Joint submission by Ms Carmel Kelly & Others and Nascadh Community Development, represented by Mr Owen Binchy

Zen Hair & Beauty, represented by Ms Lesley Maher

Protect East Wall, represented by: o Mr Brendan Buck, Planning Consultant o Mr Brendan Laird o Mr Tony Kelly o Dr Ruth McManus BA, PhD, FHEA o Ms Angela Broderick o Mr Thomas Hulton o Mr Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consultant Engineers o Mr Ian Duckenfield, Structural & Civil Engineer o Mr Andrew Foran, Gunne Auctioneers o Mr John Morrissey BL o Ms Marie Broderick o Ms Caitriona Ni Cassaithe o Ms Marie Broderick o Mr Seamus Murphy, Principal, St. Joseph’s Primary School, East Wall o Prof. Anthony Staines, DCU

Parkside North Strand Residents Group, represented by Mr Brian Harmon

Ms Margaret Ballot & Others, represented by Ms A. Broderick

Mr Philip McGovern & Mr Michael Hennessy, represented by Ms A. Broderick

Ms Angela Foley, represented by Ms A. Broderick

Ms Patrica Rainsford, represented by Mr K. Glynn

Issues Raised:

Damage to homes

Property Protect Scheme (PPS)

Extension of area to be covered by the PPS

Age of dwellings in the area of the proposed works

Duration of proposed works in the East Wall area

Impact on value of homes

24/7 work proposed in the East Wall area


An Bord Pleanala

Health impacts due to noise generated at construction phase and at operational phase

Health impacts due to sleep deprivation

Health impacts due to dust generated at construction stage, impact of dust on property, vehicles, clothes drying facilities and on vegetation within gardens

Concerns relating to pollutants emanating from machinery and from contaminated soil

Traffic impacts, lack of details in relation to Traffic Management, HGV trip generation in the area, HGV movements along West Road

Concerns relating to disturbance of vermin

Lack of meaningful consultation

All tunnelling to be done from East Wall

Impact on a sound engineering premises

Location of Oral Hearing

Creation of new T-junction adjacent established dwellings along West Road

Location of relocated bridge along West Road

Location of traction substation

Height of proposed Operational Control Centre on raised land

Impacts on existing utilities during the construction phase

Health and safety concerns of residents in the area

Dirt generated in the area during construction phase

Use of front gardens along West Road as residential amenity space will be impacted upon by the construction works

Intensification of use of the existing freight line

Access to and from the area will be impacted upon

Emergency access during construction phase

Extent of road-take along West Road

Trucks parking in the area

Spoil generated from works to the relocated bridge should be removed via Sherrif Street and not via West Road

Freight line should be closed for the construction phase so as to speed up works to the relocated bridge

Proposed rail bridge is significantly wider than existing bridge

A Health Protection Scheme should be implemented for the works

Spoil should be removed from the works by rail

Site of the OCC building being used to dump spoil from the tunnelling works

Worksite should be fully enclosed

Compliance with the terms and conditions of the Railway Order

Concerns raised in relation to effective enforcement

Concerns over vibrations generated during construction and operational phases

Many dwellings in the area have shallow or no foundations

Proposed sound barriers should be independently tested

Impact from trains idling along the freight line

Need to impose noise emission limitations


An Bord Pleanala

Impact from lighting during construction phase

Operational Control Centre should be moved

Noise from proposed Traction Substation

Planning blight brought about by the proposed works

Impact on property values in the area

Concerns in relation to use of the term ‘as far as practicable’ in the EIS in relation to mitigation measures

Flood risk

Cost of observer submission and cost of attending Hearing should be reimbursed

Access to proposed Docklands Station in Spencer Dock

Level of access from East Wall to the new Dart Station is inadequate and unreasonable

Alternative parking arrangements should be provided for residents during the construction phase

Construction workers parking should be provide for on CIE lands, parking for residents in the East Wall area should be maintained

Temporary possession of West Road should be refused

Residents should be relocated for the duration of the construction works in the interests of health and quality of life

All emissions should be independently monitored

Location of new bridge is dangerous, width of new bridge

Traction substation would be better located at the Fairview Depot

Loss of floodplain due to OCC construction

Limit of PPS unacceptable, CIE should retain responsibility for the management and operation of the PPS

Free feeder bus should be provided to access the DU station

Existing health issues in the East Wall area

Spoil removal from tunnelling through East Wall

Trains currently operating at night in the area

History of flooding in the area

Homes built on reclaimed land

Traffic generated from OCC building at operational stage

East Wall ‘gets all the pain and none of the gain’

Largest construction project in the history of the state

Construction working hours should be reduced

Proposed West Road bridge is ugly

Noise from proposed bridge

All track along West Road should be continuously welded to reduce noise

Disruption to the area during construction

Location of backup HGV haul route

Location of intervention shaft adjacent homes

Tunnelling should take place from both ends of proposed DU route

Need for independent arbitrator

Consultation process was a one-way street


An Bord Pleanala

Board must ensure proper mitigation measures are put in place

Mitigation measures need to be properly policed

Applicant has shown no consideration for East Wall

Lack of meaningful consultation

Only a small number of entrance/exit points serving East Wall

Longer walk to North Strand post-construction of realigned West Road

Impacts on businesses, properties and workers in the Ossory Road Industrial Estate

Vehicular access to Ossory Road Industrial Estate via West Road

Cut and cover adjacent Industrial Estate

Noise and vibration from passing trains

Idling trains

Odour from diesel

Sounding of train horns

Impact on development potential of properties in the area

No alternative location for the Eastern Portal was considered

Insufficient details in data provided

West Road bridge should not be moved

OCC building can be accommodated elsewhere

No acoustic barriers proposed adjacent Industrial Estate

Impacts on businesses due to loss of utilities

Visual impact during construction phase

Proposed plans such as Noise and Vibration Plan, Environmental Management Plan, Dust Mitigation Management Plan etc. should be produced at application stage and not post the granting of a Railway Order

Negative effect on property values in estate during and after construction

Transcripts of the Hearing should be made available during the Hearing

Vagueness of proposals within the Eastern Portal site

Sterilisation of a large area of the Eastern Portal site

All spoil should be removed by rail

Increased loading on weight-restricted Sherrif Street bridge

Proposal relating to the thrust bored service under the railway line

Route of cabling to substation should be clarified

Air quality concerns

Proximity of dwellings to proposed works

Loss of privacy

Impact on existing residential amenity

Cost of EIS documents

Mitigation measures being left to the contractor

Mitigation measures are vague

Complexity of issues arising

Little or no consultation with the community

Impact of hoarding, residents ‘caged in’

No discharges should be allowed to the River Tolka

Socio-economic impacts


An Bord Pleanala

Proposed working hours

Z1 residential zoning along West Road adjacent proposed works

Z2 residential conservation zoning also along West Road adjacent proposed works

No Phase 3 settlement assessment conducted on any West Road dwelling

Objectives for the area as contained within the East Wall Area Action Plan 2004

Scheduling of works

Cycle lane along West Road

Proposed West Road bridge site should be covered during construction stage (i.e. an acoustic shed covering)

OCC building proposed on Coady’s yard site that is zoned Z6

Other options should have been considered for the location of the OCC building

Visual impact from the OCC building

Overlooking from the OCC building

Scale and massing of the OCC building

Proposed finish of the OCC building

Impact on West Road during construction

Silent rail technology and bridge noise reduction technology should be used

Visual impact of the proposed emergency evacuation footbridge

Overshadowing of residences along West Road

Size/length of the EIS

Temporary possession of Blythe Avenue

Noise from existing works in the area during night time

Light pollution from existing works in the area during night time

Concerns over potential settlement, generation of cracks in homes

Impact on insurance cover for homes

Uncertainty in relation to proposed works and timelines given recent government announcement on the project

Need for relocation package for residents

Proximity of homes along Blythe Avenue to proposed works in the portal site

Opportunity to solve isolated position of East Wall

Connectivity could be improved to the Docklands area by way of a green bridge and/or route through the portal site, possibility of using an underpass to improve connectivity

Light overspill from construction site to adjacent residences

Travel restrictions in the area during construction phase

Loss of vital bus service

Impact of dust on racing pigeons

East Wall is a residential area not an industrial one

Final destination of spoil removal by rail is unknown

Railway law is blind, unjust and inequitable

The area has suffered greatly from Iarnrod Eireann’s legal but insensitive attitude

The DU will have the most adverse effects on the small community of Abercorn Road due to noise, dust and intrusive operations

Plans for the area were rushed


An Bord Pleanala

ABP should appoint the Independent Monitor

A certain portion of the DART services (Malahide to Dalkey) should be retained

Rail gradients over 3% are undesirable

Alternative alignment of West Road is far less expensive, far safer and less intrusive

24/7 security hut adjacent Abercorn Road dwelling

Overflow parking along Abercorn Road

Alternative proposal exists for the Abercorn Road site entrance

Concerns over the location of the substation

Damage to Sherrif Street bridge from truck movements from site

Alternative access onto Sherrif Street is available from the south side of Sherrif Street via the recycle yard

While spoil by rail is the best option, the conveyor at the back of Irvine Terrace is unacceptable

With the ramp removed to the south of Sherrif Street a covered spoil can be accommodated at the portal site

The DU should include a tie-in to the Maynooth line and a portion of the existing north/south Dart services retained

Noise from truck climbing the ramp onto Sherrif Street

Concerns over potential terrorist attack on DART in tunnel

Slight change to vertical alignment of the rail line would obviate the need for the realignment of the West Road

Notice to Treat provision of the Railway Order

Adequacy of the EIS questioned given uncertainty now of the funding of the project and the consequences for a start date of construction

Compulsory acquisition of lands needs to be ‘necessary and proportionate’

An observer held that DCC in pre-planning meetings indicated that a 12 storey building on the Coady’s Yard site was not a major planning issue

Despite several pre-planning meetings going back several years the owner of Coady’s Yard was not informed of the proposed CPO until early 2009

The cost imposed on observers wishing to partake in the Hearing is unfair and unjust given the public funding of the applicant’s application

Railway Order planning process is very difficult for ordinary residents to fully participate in

Suitability of the East Wall Portal site for proposed works is questioned

Blythe Avenue faces directly onto the portal site

Existing noise levels from this site are horrendous

Existing noise barrier inadequate

Houses on Abercorn Road don’t have front gardens so children traditionally have played on the streets

The houses on Abercorn Road have small backyards, there is a large wall separating them from the CIE yard to the rear

History of various uses of the CIE yard to the rear of Abercorn Road outlined to the Hearing

Works must not increase the risk of flooding of homes in the East Wall area


An Bord Pleanala

The siting of the intervention shaft within what would effectively be a lake in the event of major flooding seems inappropriate

A clear complaints and redress process should be put in place

The project is huge, East Wall needs to be protected, the strictest conditions should be imposed by the Board

The incorporation of the LMS building on North Wall Quay is to be welcomed

Residents in East Wall not informed or kept up to date of changes to the proposed development

Risk management issues

OCC location needs to be reconsidered

Temporary possession of West Road should be refused, only possession of half the width of the road should be granted (if any)

Concerns that existing established businesses in East Wall will be impacted upon

Portal in heart of residential area

Applicant has failed to consider the legitimate concerns of the East Wall community

East Wall appears to have been the only option considered since the project’s inception

Use of term ‘as far as practicable’ in the EIS

East Wall is not the Docklands

Historic background of East Wall area presented to the Hearing

Phase 1 & 2 consultation did not involve residents or stakeholders of East Wall

Phase 3 consultation did not address the concerns or issues raised by the residents or stakeholders of East Wall

Offices are prohibited by the definition of ‘Public service installation’, therefore the OCC and Management Offices are located on a site not zoned for same.

The applicant fails to address or plan for public realm issues at North Wall yard

Policies s.17.37 (working hours) and s.17.38 (noise) in the new City Development Plan are particularly relevant

The proposal also ignores policies in the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008

Provision should have been made for connectivity between East Wall and Station Square

The statutory Master Plan 2008 has a policy (LU24) seeking the implementation of the East Wall Area Action Plan 2004

Policy EIW3 of the Action Plan relates to the delivery of a pedestrian bridge on lands subject of the Railway Order application

East Wall will not have adequate access to the proposed DU

An entrance to the proposed Docklands Station should be provided for at Sheriff Street

The DU proposal will result in a decade of planning blight for the East Wall area

The construction strategy as proposed does not protect East Wall

The Eastern Portal site should not be used for the removal of spoil from the North Box site in the Docklands

The construction activities that can give rise to problems for houses in East Wall are blasting, rock breaking, sheet piling, lowering of ground water, ground water movement, compaction of stone, poker vibration of concrete and truck traffic


An Bord Pleanala

Houses within 100m of any work and any houses on the proposed haul route should be surveyed

It is unacceptable that the Noise and Vibration Plan is not included in the EIS

The vibration limits should be independently monitored

DU will have a negative effect on property values during and after construction

The applicant indicated that there would be no blasting in East Wall, this should be subject of condition of the Railway Order

A Legal Charter of Rights should be agreed with the East Wall community

Conditions such as a completion guarantee/bond should be applied and required to ensure that the project is completed

The powers contained in the Transport Act 2001 appear to provide a blank cheque to the project’s contractor and to the applicant

Assurances from An Bord Pleanala relating to enforceability/compliance with the Order might go towards satisfying the residents

The quantity of additional information furnished to the Hearing is such that it would amount to a further information request

The EIS has been revised as a result of the Hearing

There has been no period of weeks’ notice of these changes to allow people to update their submission, there is an element of unfairness in the procedures

All removal of spoil by truck should be via Sherrif Street, the backup haul route should not be used

Several plans to be prepared by the contractor should be available at application stage

East Wall is a large floodplain and placing critical infrastructure at this location should be reconsidered

The Eastern Portal will impact on views from properties

Insufficient detail has been provided in respect of site screening

The hoardings will themselves have a visual impact as they will be in place for many years

The proposed footbridge is unsightly

The language and materials of the proposed structures are questionable

East Wall community experiences above average ill-health, the project risks worsening the situation

CIE should cover costs of health expenses incurred as a result of construction

A Health Protection Plan needs to be put in place in order that a ‘Post Construction Health Evaluation’ may be carried out to assess health impacts

PEW carried out a health survey of 227 homes in the area between 29/07/2010 and 15/08/2010, the results require careful scrutiny

The number of children in the local primary school who have been prescribed inhalers and have been absent or even hospitalised is forever increasing

No responsible judgement as to the health effects of this development can be made on the basis of the materials submitted

There is no comprehensive plan for protecting local residents, especially children in East Wall from risk of injury

It is quite easy given adequate resources to monitor the health of a small population


An Bord Pleanala

The inequality of arms between the applicant and the observers to the Hearing fundamentally grates with the principles of natural and constitutional justice

The Board should fix the period within which the construction of the railway works is to be completed

The need for an Independent Arbitrator should be a prerequisite to the granting of any Railway Order

Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Feely, Mr Muldoon, Mr Lavery, Mr Conroy, Ms Harmon, Mr McManus, Ms S. White, Dr Hogan, Mr T. Burns, Ms Manning, Mr Fricker, Mr Whelan, Mr Flaherty, Mr Masterson, Mr McDaid, Ms C. White, Mr Reidy, Mr Greer, Mr Colleary and Mr Rowley. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.

Module 7: Observer Submissions from the Docklands Area

Module 7 commenced on Day 38 of the Hearing being the 22/02/2011 and continued over Day 39 being the 23/02/2011 and Day 40 being the 24/02/2011. List of Observers Presenting:

Marie, Matt & Jack O’Reilly, represented by Ms Marie O’Reilly

North Port Dwellers Residents’ Association, represented by Mr Tony McDonnell and Ms Mary Murphy

Tony, Hilda & Derek McDonnell, represented by Mr Tony McDonnell

Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd. (SDDC) Represented by o Mr Gareth Simons SC o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr John Bruder, MD of Treasury Holdings in Ireland o Mr Sean McCormack, Director in DTZ Sherry FitzGerald o Mr Brian Madden, Chartered Engineer, O’Connor Sutton Cronin o Mr Shay Cleary, Shay Cleary Architects o Mr Cathal Crimmins, Conservation Architect o Mr Daryl Prasad, MD at Marshall Day Acoustics UK o Mr Brian McCann, Civil Engineer, Associate Director of Moylan Consulting

Engineers o Mr Dan Boyd, Spencer Dock Estate Management

Issues Raised:

Impact on established residential areas

Cumulative impact

Impact on the water table

Structural damage to homes and properties


An Bord Pleanala

Legal status of the applicant to make the application

Enforcement of conditions

Homes built on reclaimed lands

Proximity of 1-6 Mayor St. to the proposed station

Past experience of construction projects and their impacts on the residential amenity of the area

Impacts from noise, dust and vibration

Area has been a large construction site for several years and this is set to continue if the Rail Order is granted

Area has opened up with on-going developments including LUAS and has resulted in an increase of anti-social behaviour and vandalism

Loss of privacy set to worsen with proposed project

Mitigation measures to address increase in crime are required

Massive transformation of area brought about by LUAS, proposed DART Station will compound the problem caused by those using the services to access concerts etc. in the area

Existing construction noise in the area is 24/7

Conditions applied to other developments in the area not being complied with, concerns this will be repeated if the Rail Order is granted

Homes devalued because of construction projects in the area

Impact from noise and vibration from the LUAS will be compounded by the proposed project

DART Underground should not repeat what happened during the construction of the LUAS in the area

The operational phase and its impact on the area has not been addressed in the EIS

Spoil removal by truck and its implications for the area

Proposed Docklands Station should be relocated further north away from established residences on Mayor Street

Board should ensure conditions are enforceable

Houses along Mayor Street should be relocated and/or substantial relocation grants provided to the residents

Clarification required in relation to nature and extent of proposed acoustic barriers adjacent existing dwellings

Structural surveys of houses required before work commences

Proposed emergency route to the rear of dwellings on Abercorn Road and Irvine Terrace

Impact of proposed ESB substation adjacent Abercorn Road

Light spillage from proposed lighting masts

Need for community to deal directly with those managing the project at all stages

Established dwellings on Mayor Street have been located in the middle of a massive building site for several years and this is set to continue if the DART Underground Station is to proceed

The importance of the need to adhere to stated hours of construction work


An Bord Pleanala

SDDC held that the applicant failed to properly ensure mitigation measures and other design measures so as to unlock the development potential of lands in the area

18 months – v – 10 year Notice to Treat period issue

Failure to comply with the EIA Directive

Serious deficiency in the legislation in terms of enforcement mechanism provided for under the 2001 Act

Development in the North Docklands area should not be unduly restricted or compromised by the DART Underground proposals

The landtake proposed coupled with the 10 year Notice to Treat period will effectively sterilise the development of Spencer Dock for an extended period

The DU would potentially seriously restrict development in the area once it is operational

Amendments sought by the SDDC include the omission of the entrance through the LMS building, the relocation of the vent shafts, amendments to the design/materials of above ground structures and amendments to the structural design

Construction activity has the potential to have significant impacts on existing and future residents and business operations at Spencer Dock

Construction access to the Spencer Dock area should be rationalised

Proposed noise and vibration limits are inappropriate

The DU oversite development of up to 44 metres does not reflect the height policy set out in the new City Development Plan 2011-2017

There is a need for flexibility in the DU design at Spencer Dock in order to accommodate new development in accordance with either the proposed amended DDDA Planning Scheme or more likely, a LAP to be prepared by DCC

Planning history including extant permissions and permissions refused presented to the Hearing

Planning refusals relating to the DU proposal have already blighted the area

Clarity is required on the powers of enforcement held by both ABP and DCC in relation to a Railway Order

SDDC has the exclusive right to develop c.21 ha in the area pursuant to a Master Development Agreement entered into with CIE/Irish Rail and others

Spencer Dock Management Ltd (SDDC associate company) has the on-going role as the estate manager for the portion of Spencer Dock completed to date.

SDDC was not appropriately consulted in the formulation of the DU proposal.

The proposal has the potential to seriously and detrimentally impact on Spencer Dock and the delivery of the new urban quarter in North Docklands

Proposed land acquisition is unclear

By acquiring the lands from ‘heaven to hell’ the applicant is taking more than is required for the proposed DU and is restricting the ability to develop above or below that which is required

The combined effect of the permanent and temporary acquisition of land is a significant issue for SDDC

Potential impact on the operation of the LUAS service along Mayor Street


An Bord Pleanala

Spoil extract from the tunnels should be split in a balanced manner between Inchicore and Spencer Dock

LMS station entrance is flawed and should be omitted entirely

Proposed construction ramp onto Sheriff St. will erode the amenity value of apartments at Spencer Dock

Concerns expressed in relation to the Property Protection Scheme

DU works will have a significant impact on Spencer Dock in terms of desirability and attractiveness as a premium office and residential location

24/7 works at the TBM launch site is of concern

Impact on property values

Impact on utilities serving the Spencer Dock area

Building settlement due to the lowering of the ground water table at the Docklands Station

Construction and stability of the proposed 6 metre high hoarding at the south and north boxes

Sheriff Street Bridge load carrying capacity

Rock breaking at Docklands Station

The Phase 3 of the applicant’s building settlement assessment should be carried out before the Railway Order is granted

The applicant should assess the effect of the proposed Docklands Station on existing ground anchors in the area

The north and south boxes should be covered with dust screens for the duration of the works

Proposed construction work hours at the boxes is unacceptable

A number of design changes are required, including an increase in axial loading allowance, to accommodate future development above the DU structures proposed at Docklands

SDDC has an existing masterplan for the area which was developed by Scott Tallon Walker, SDDC are currently developing a new masterplan within the context of the DDDA Masterplan and the new City Development Plan

The proposed vent structures are in the worst possible locations in relation to the masterplan

The proposed location of a number of structures (north vent shaft, southern fire access shaft and LMS access arrangements) would seriously impact on the delivery of a quality urban environment at this location

Proposals for Station Square should be developed with SDCC to ensure a central public space of highest quality and architectural design

The development of the TBM launch / portal site (aka Spencer Dock North) should be agreed with SDDC

The applicant’s proposal for the Spencer Dock North site is a major loss

Concern in relation to the quality and level of information submitted in relation to the protected structures: the LMS building and the Wool Store

It is not possible to properly ascertain the potential detrimental impacts that may result to these important protected structures


An Bord Pleanala

Existing properties at Spencer Dock will be exposed to a high degree of construction noise

The results of the observer’s own survey of the ambient noise environment adjacent the proposed Docklands Station are significantly lower than those represented in the EIS

The applicant’s proposed construction hours are significantly longer than those contained in the City Development Plan 2011-2017

Tunnel boring will be a significant effect

Blasting for construction of cross-passages may cause disturbance to the building occupants

Details of proposed track types and the level of isolation are not provided within the EIS

Groundbourne noise criterion of 35 dB LAmax for both construction and operational phases should be adopted

Spoil removal by road – v- by rail

Emergency vehicle access and egress

Access from the proposed Southern Box onto North Wall Quay should not be permitted, a single access should be provided to all three compounds (i.e. South Box, North Box and Portal site) via the Portal site

Compliance with conditions being devolved to the contractor

Alternative HGV route

Concerns over temporary possession over Mayor Street and Park lane

Need to protect the brand image of Spencer Dock

The importance of hoarding around and within the development

Impact of loss of Central Square during construction phase, replacement park required

Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Feely, Mr Fricker, Mr Muldoon, Mr Whelan, Mr Flaherty, Mr Lavery, Ms Harmon, Ms S. White, Mr Burns, Mr McManus, Mr McDaid, Ms C. White, Mr Conroy and Mr G. O’Donnell. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.

Module 8: Observer Submissions from the Pearse Station Area

Module 8 commenced on Day 41 of the Hearing being the 25/02/2011 and continued over Day 42 being the 01/03/11, Day 43 being the 02/03/11, Day 44 being the 03/03/11, Day 45 being the 08/03/11, Day 46 being the 09/03/11 and Day 47 being the 10/03/11. List of Observers Presenting:

Mr James Synott

David Hughes, Edith MacGarry & Damian MacGarry, represented by o Mr D. Hughes, Architect


An Bord Pleanala

o Mr D. MacGarry, Architect o Mr Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consultant Engineers

Cllr Kevin Humpreys represented by Cllr. Maria Crowley

Ms Carmel McCormack & Residents of Upper Erne Street, represented by Mr D. Hughes

O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Companies, represented by o Mr Colm Allen SC o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr John Brophy, Architect, HKR Architects o Mr Andy O’Brien, Director of OCSC Consulting Engineers

Chartered Lands, represented by o Mr Stephen Little, SL&A Town Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Brian Madden, Director, OCSC Consulting Engineers o Mr Daryl Prassad, MD Marshall Day Acoustics UK

Mr Timothy Lynch & Pearse Square Residents Association (joint submission), represented by Mr T. Lynch

Grand Canal Theatre Company Ltd., represented by o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Ms Leona Quigley, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Mike Adamson, CEO Live Nation Ireland o Mr Harry Crosbie, owner Grand Canal Theatre o Mr Brian Madden, Director, OCSC Consulting Engineers o Mr Daryl Prassad, MD Marshall Day Acoustics UK o Mr Eamon Galligan SC o Note: While Module 8 was completed on Day 47, issues relating to Grand

Canal Theatre was returned to, at the request of the Inspector, on Day 48, Day 51, Day 52, Day 55, Day 56, Day 57, Day 60 and Day 61

Issues Raised:

Concerns over the PPS

Impact of tunnelling under a protected structure on Merrion Square

€30k limit on PPS and the 12 month time limit are unacceptable

If property is damaged affected persons would have to go through the courts to have it addressed

Protected structures in Merrion Sq. do not have substantial foundations

Impact of development on Erne Street residences

Location and design of a station is critical to the success of the infrastructure

Stations are as important as the alignment

Interchange will be key to how people use the infrastructure

Access and transfer time is very important

Concerns over location and configuration of proposed Pearse DU station

Concerns that the Cologne, Barcelona and Amsterdam experiences could occur in Dublin

Concerns relating to the raison d’etre of the scheme

Concerns over personal safety arising from construction works


An Bord Pleanala

The design of the Pearse DU station was not adequately considered

Inadequate consultation with property owners in the area

Construction works on the Pearse DU station would make living on Erne Street terrace intolerable

Proximity of station box to a residential conservation area terrace

Duration of construction works

Potential of future over-site development prolonging construction impacts

Impact from pedestrian flows at operational stage

Scale of development proposed in the area

Impact on parking in the area during construction and operational phases

Traffic impacts during construction phase

Vermin problem during construction

Impact on delicate sewer serving the Erne Street terrace

Slide protection doors on platforms to prevent suicide

Flooding concerns

Litter generated in the area at operational stage

Concerns relating to settlement

Safety concerns

Removal of vegetation on the site

Location of ventilation shaft relative to the rear of Erne Street terrace

Air quality

Impact on utilities during enabling works

Option 1 – v – Option 2 for the Pearse DU station location

Risk assessment process

Area has already seen a lot of construction works in recent years

Objection to the compulsory purchase orders relating to their properties

Status of the applicant

Information not available in EIS on a bore hole at the Pearse DU station site

The DU route through the city is already served by the LUAS Red Line

A station should be provided at St. Stephens Green on the DU line if the Metro North does not proceed

Erne Street Upper has been ignored in the EIS and the Hearing

The foundations to the terrace are shallow rubble limestone bonded with sand and lime mortar

The brick used in the construction of the terrace is soft

The houses are built on a wet silt base

Concerns over the stability of several structures including the Cumberland Street bridge associated with the original Dublin-Kingston rail line

The Erne Street bridge is the only bridge built by Dargan that survives unaltered and intact (despite several vehicle strikes), it is a protected structure

The tunnel comes at a diagonal under the abutments to the bridge

The tunnel is proposed under the Pearse Street Dublin City Library and City Archive building


An Bord Pleanala

The Erne Street bridge, the library and the Erne Street terrace are not mentioned in the EIS

There appears to have been a failure of communications between the authors of Chapter 20 (relating to architectural conservation) and Chapter 16 (relating to settlement impacts) of the EIS

The old shoreline came up to this area

Soft estuarine silts have been encountered during the development of the Port and Docks

Question whether the streets have the structural capacity to carry the construction traffic generated

Concerns relating to blasting for the cross-passages

Monitors should be independently appointed

In relation to the library, the bridge and the dwellings, given the ground conditions in the area, including groundwater influences, monitoring should be provided fairly intensively for the area

Concerns relating to implications the proposal and the PPS have for property owners’ own insurance

The Independent Environmental and Archaeological Monitor as proposed by the applicant can’t be ‘independent’ if employed by the applicant

The monitoring of the construction works are considered of primary importance to policing the DU works

The PPS precludes the property owner from specifying the nature and quality of the works which in the context of a period property can be quite specific

Impact on rental income if there is a large construction whole to the rear of the rented property

The applicant should assume the responsibility for all aspects of the scheme and not seek to offload responsibility to the PPPCo

Objection to CPO, there is uncertainty relating to the areas of land to be acquired, the CPO is invalid

Blight effect caused by previous road proposal in the city could be repeated here

An alternative location for the Pearse DU station would have less construction impacts

Westland Row is an appropriate street for the ’level of service’ pedestrian flows expected

Alternative option between Options 1 and 2 should also be considered for Pearse DU station

Acoustic and visual assessment was carried out at nos. 32 & 35 Upper Erne Street and submitted to the Hearing

The noise issue will be significant for people resident in the properties

Potential of damage to these structures also

Particular concerns relating to the condition of a chimney stack at one of the dwellings was highlighted

Concerns relating to ground movement and vibration during construction

Concerns relating to liquefaction

There are key areas not adequately addressed in the EIS


An Bord Pleanala

Accumulation of different impacts is of particular concern

Residual impacts during operational stage are also of concern, changes in pedestrian movements and changes to the character of the area

HGV movements in and out of the site on surrounding streets

Acquisition of the substrata will limit or possibly compromise property

Every chapter of the EIS contains impacts that need further assessment

Alternative location and station design presented to the Hearing

Alternative design advantages include shorter transfer connections, more direct access, less disruption to local community and sensitive residential receptors

Impact of vehicular and pedestrian flows at operational stage

Land use zoning at the proposed site

Strict control on working hours and traffic movement must be put in place

Station should be manned, policed with controls relating to street litter, noise and crowd movement

Vibrations from tunnelling under Pearse Square, depth of tunnels could be increased

Long term impacts from vent shaft on Bass Place need to be considered

Adequate conditions should be applied by the Board to protect residential amenity

Opportunity for community gain fund

Risk analysis

Fear of tunnel collapse

Need for emergency plan of action

Fire risk from bins

There should be no driven or percussion piling

Existing impacts from idling trains, litter, waste bins, noisy track and maintenance work at night

Shorter Notice to Treat period should be applied by the Board

The DU doesn’t really serve those living in the city

No detailed landscaping plan for the Pearse DU station

Impacts from dust generated

Impacts on human health

Protected structure legislation to be disallowed if RO granted

Concerns relating to enforcement of the conditions of the RO

The ‘Dalkey Granite Wall’ at the rear of the terrace needs to be properly protected

Need for manned 24/7 contact number at construction phase

Loss of utilities at construction stage

Site zoning does not permit the station

O’Callaghan Hotels and subsidiaries have a substantial landholding in the D2 area that will be affected by the DU project

The Pearse DU station site includes a site ‘Mosaic Assemblers’ owned by O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Companies

Temporary acquisition of residential properties at Bass Place owned by O’Callaghan Hotels is also sought


An Bord Pleanala

The block defined by Fenian St., Bass Place, Boyne St., and Sandwith St. is the planned location of a new hotel and conference facility, a DU shaft is proposed at this location

The shaft at this location will render the proposed hotel unviable and unachievable

The shaft should be relocated

It is important that key city centre sites are not blighted by the DU project, this would undermine objectives of the City Development Plan

It is requested that the planning blight caused in the city in the past by road widening schemes that were either eventually abandoned or only partially implemented not be repeated by granting approval for a 10 year Notice to Treat

Implications for timeframe for the DU project following the Government’s Four Year Plan 2010 issued in November 2010

Government statements that there will be no funds available to start the DU before 2014

The recently announced Government for National Recovery 2011-2016 March 2011 does not include any commitment to proceed in the near future with the implementation of the DU

ABP should seek further clarity on the matter from the applicant

The Bass Place Shaft will not be constructed until 2020 at the earliest and in which case it would not be possible for any scheme on the Bass Place site to integrate with the shaft until after this time

The site owner will be prevented from developing these lands for up to 10 years or longer from the date of the RO yet he is still required to service the interest accruing on the loans

The applicant provides no rationale for why the location of the shaft on the Cumberland House site is unacceptable

The applicant should either permanently acquire the lands or alternatively and in preference identify a more suitable site to accommodate the compound

The impacts of the proposed shaft on the proposed O’Callaghan Hotels proposal is loss of conference facility, loss of social & affordable residences (for DCC) and loss of 44 hotel bedrooms

The shaft compromises the scheme to such as extent to render it unviable in design terms

It is not possible to reconfigure the structural layout of the proposed hotel

It is possible to relocate the shaft

Cumberland House appears to be a viable alternative site

Concerns over the likely impacts the DU will have on office buildings Nos. 2, 4 & 5 Grand Canal Square

These properties will be unduly adversely affected by the DU development

The EIS has assumed a significance criteria of 40dB for offices, an internal noise criterion of 35dB is more appropriate

The EIS fails to indicate the impact of the tunnel works on these new office buildings

The proposed Phase 3 settlement assessment should be carried out before a RO is granted


An Bord Pleanala

The EIS does not indicate the effects of settlement on the existing buildings in the Grand Canal Square Development

The accuracy of the predicted period of disruption of the TBMs is queried

Little information on what, if any, utility diversions are required

The EIS does not indicate the type of trains that will be used, the accuracy of the entire noise assessment is therefore questioned

Lack of clarity and detail surrounding proposed mitigation measures

Wholly unacceptable for mitigation to be left to the contractor

Flexibility in Article 6 of the draft RO should be omitted

Working hours should be as per the City Development Plan

Impacts from construction of cross-passages

Settlement and vibration monitoring equipment should be installed in Grand Canal Square

24 hour contact no. should be provided should building occupants be concerned about vibration or settlement

Proximity of tunnels to existing piles

Tunnel depth below Pearse Square

Monitoring is important

Independent arbitrator should be appointed

Shallow and old infrastructure in Pearse Square

The Grand Canal Theatre (GCT) is a facility that is superior to any other theatre of its type and size in Europe

The acoustics of the theatre are second to none for a theatre of its type

The GCT is rapidly gaining international acclaim on the global touring circuit

The auditorium was custom designed to precise acoustic reverberation times

If it were known that an underground DART tunnel was planned to pass underneath, the design of the theatre would have been very different

If external noise was to penetrate this fine auditorium the reputation of the theatre would be irreparably damaged

Ideally the DU should not be positioned underneath the GCT, an important piece of social infrastructure

The observer due to huge concerns has carried out 4 acoustic tests within the GCT to establish the affect of the CIE proposal

The track needs to be realigned

It would be folly and irresponsible to put the track in as it is proposed

The theatre is of remarkable design and is Daniel Liebeskind’s first theatre

The westbound running tunnel is located directly under the stage

There is a cross-passage located immediately to the rear of the theatre

ABP is requested to take account of the national importance of the theatre in making its decision

The Docklands Masterplan 2003 illustrated the indicative alignment for the DU, it was not proposed under the theatre

The North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 also indicates an indicative alignment which was not located under the GCT


An Bord Pleanala

The Docklands Masterplan 2008 acknowledges the importance of the GCT

The earlier Phase 1 & 2 design for the DU did not have the alignment under the GCT

The EIS Phase 3 assessment makes no reference to the fact that this option will have a significant impact on the GCT, this is a serious omission in the assessment

The GCT was not made aware of the proposal to locate the route under the theatre until June 2010, just prior to the application being submitted

The structural philosophy of the GCT is that it is designed as a box within a box

The DU passes some 20 m immediately below the GCT, the theatre has piled foundations socketed into the same limestone as the tunnel with around 8 metres separating the pile toe to the tunnel

The limestone will act as a conduit to transmit vibration from the DU up through the piles into the theatre

It is requested that the applicant or their contractor be conditioned to liaise with the GCT to agree the timing of TBM when within a zone of influence of the building

Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Greer, Mr Fricker, Mr Muldoon, Ms Harmon, Mr Lavery, Mr Feely, Mr McManus, Mr Flaherty, Ms S. Whyte, Mr McDaid, Ms C. White, Mr Ruane and Mr Conroy. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.

Module 9: Observer Submissions from the St. Stephen’s Green Area

Module 9 commenced on Day 48 of the Hearing being the 11/03/2011 and continued over Day 49 being the 14/03/11, Day 50 being the 15/03/2011 and Day 51 being the 16/03/2011 List of Observers Presenting:

Chartered Lands, represented by o Mr Stephen Little, SL&A Town Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Brian Madden, Director, OCSC Consulting Engineers o Mr Daryl Prassad, MD Marshall Day Acoustics UK

James Adam & Sons Ltd., represented by Ms Ann Mulcrone of Reid Associates

Damian O’Regan

Peploes Restaurant, represented by Mr Aidan McLernon of Cunnane Stratton Reynolds

Ampleforth Ltd. (T/A The Fitzwilliam Hotel), represented by o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Ronan King, Chartered Accountant, Principal Amethyst Consulting o Mr Shane Carr, Marshall Day Acoustics o Mr Fergal O’Connell, General Manager Fitzwilliam Hotel

St. Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club, represented by o Mr Denis McAdams, Chairman of St. Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club


An Bord Pleanala

o Mr Ray Mooney, General Manager of the Club o Mr Richard Down, Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Geologist, Director

at Waterman Group

Kildare Street & University Club, represented by o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Brian Madden, Director, OCSC Consulting Engineers

Ciaran McGrath (owner No. 22 SSG ‘The Cliff Townhouse’), represented by o Mr Stephen McGrath, IPAV and Building Conservation o Mr Drew Flood, General Manager, The Cliff Townhouse o Mr Dermot Herlihy, Valuer o Mr Ciaran McGrath, owner

Irish Life Assurance PLC, Ventasker Ltd., Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland & Tenants of St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre (re: SSG Shopping Centre, RCSI college building, Shopping Centre/RCSI car parks), represented by Tom Philips & Associates

Irish Life Assurance PLC (re: Stephen Court, SSG North), represented by Tom Philips & Associates

Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland (re: Mercer Library & Medical Centre, Mercer Court, Millin House and Beaux Lane House), represented by

o Mr John Spain, JSA Planning & Development Consultants o Mr Brian Madden, Chartered Engineer, O’Connor Sutton Cronin o Mr Daryl Prasad, MD at Marshall Day Acoustics UK

Issues Raised:

Concerns over impact of tunnelling under new South King Street property consisting of 6 storey block of premier offices, retail and residential, it has a double basement (Chartered Land submission)

The 6 storey block abuts the Gaiety Theatre, a protected structure, to the east

South King Street is a category 1 retail street

Clarification is sought on the proposals for St. Stephen’s Green (SSG) station should the Metro North project not proceed or be delayed beyond the DU timeframe

The EIS indicates that the temporary groundborne unmitigated noise impacts will have a significant effect at the Gaiety Theatre that adjoins the 6 storey block

The EIS fails to acknowledged the presence of 4 apartments at 5th floor level

The EIS does not indicate the type of trains that will be used

The accuracy of the entire noise assessment must therefore be questioned

Details of the track isolation are not provided

The 5dB allowance for uncertainty as contained in the EIS is unacceptable, a figure of 10dB is more appropriate

Observer is dismayed at lack of clarity and detail surrounding the proposed mitigation measures during both the construction and operation stage

The information in the RO gives little comfort to property owners or their tenants that future construction work will be handled appropriately

It is wholly unacceptable for mitigation to be left to the contractor as proposed in s.9.5.1 of the EIS


An Bord Pleanala

There is no information on the detailed content of the proposed noise and vibration management plan (NVMP)

The observer seeks to be included in the Construction Management Group set up under the RO in order to ensure that their property interests are protected

Concerns expressed as to the implications of Article 6 of the draft RO

Phase 3 settlement assessments should be carried out as part of the RO application

The applicant should assess the effect of the DU tunnelling methodology on the ground anchors

Vibration measurements of the existing DART rolling stock should be made available

Clarification is required regarding whether blasting or rock breaking has been included in the above ground noise assessment

A number of conditions are recommended should the Board grant permission

Proximity of existing ground anchors to the tunnel is a serious concern as a source of vibration into the building settlement and vibration monitoring equipment should be installed at South King Street

The noise assessment makes no reference to rock breaking equipment

The proposed construction hours go against the guidance within both the Dublin City Development Plan and BS 5228-1:2009

The vibration levels likely to be generated by the TBM should be below the threshold for cosmetic or structural damage to the buildings

Concerns expressed over potential impacts from supply trains and blasting during the construction of the tunnels

There is a need for annual compliance monitoring of the effectiveness of the track isolation system

James Adams & Sons operate a fine art auction house on SSG

Concerns relate to changes in accessibility, loading, noise, environmental impact, visual impact, construction, site compounds in SSG and area blighted for investment and business

Business contributes to richness and diversity of urban life, concerned of the viability of the business during the construction phase

The socio economic impact assessment is flawed

No direct contact with the observer, no detailed survey of local business needs carried out

Flight of capital and investment from SSG

Cumulative blight effect on wider area

Need for a balance between maintaining existing environment and securing strategic infrastructure

Perception of being located in the midst of a building site

The site compounds do not form part of the RO application as they are not mentioned in the public description and they are not exempt under the P & D Regs.

The rationale for the use of SSG as a location is questioned

A lay-by outside the observer’s premises is warranted

Location of the site compound at SSG materially contravenes the development plan zoning


An Bord Pleanala

Illegal, fraudulent and non-valid procurement by CIE of the ground, substratum and use of SSG

The St. Stephen’s Green Act 1877 granted the Park for the citizens of Dublin

The Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 is a legislative malfeasance that has given the green light for the destruction of SSG

The Dublin Transportation Act is not a legal or valid document to change s.17 of the SSG Act 1877

Works are not compatible with the zoning

ABP should protect SSG from CIE

There is something very wrong with the planning process if CIE gets permission to destroy SSG

There is a hidden agenda to confiscate land not necessary for the building of the railway

CIE are dependent on the Metro North station being built

There is no money yet the charade for the RO goes on

There is already a reliable and perfect line between Heuston and Connolly Station via Phoenix park

ABP is the last line of defence for common sense, fairness and reasoned thought in the planning process, permission for the RO should be refused, there should be no structures within the boundaries of SSG

The scheme is environmentally foolhardy and hostile

ABP does not have all the relevant environmental information from non CIE sources of the effects on the environment of the building of DU

ABP should commission its own EIS

Peploes Restaurant operates from a protected structure

Given its hours of operation it is occupied by staff for almost 24 hours

The construction of DU must ensure that businesses such as Peploes are not forced to close

Restaurants as a land use would be very sensitive to substantial construction works

It is in the national interest that the historic SSG is protected and remains a tourist attraction throughout the construction period

No CGIs submitted indicating the DU and Metro compounds in place at the same time

The cumulative impact of two significant construction compounds in such close proximity is a concern

Poor level of consultation to date

Peploes restaurant should be included in the PPS

The construction period will have arguably immeasurable impacts on the SSG area and on the restaurant in particular

The spoil should be transported out of the area by rail using the bottom up construction approach

The proposed 7 m tall hoarding is visually unacceptable

Key stakeholders in the area should be consulted in relation to the Construction Management Plan

Restriction should be placed on truck movements during peak traffic times


An Bord Pleanala

Truck wash facilities are important and should be properly managed

The Local Authority should be given ample time to consider the applicant’s Scheme Traffic Management Plan

Potential visual impact on SSG for 6 years is of major concern

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is deficient and misleading

There is an obligation to assess and show the cumulative impacts

Proposed compound is too big

Regular cleaning of the site hoarding is vital to reduce the adverse impact on the area

Continual monitoring of dust and air quality is required

It would be impossible to operate the business if vibrations are excessive

Continuous monitoring should be carried of vibrations to ensure they do not reach unacceptable levels

Proposals relating to real time monitoring of noise, vibration and settlement along the route is welcomed

Disasters in Cologne and Vienna on similar projects are noted by the observer

The observer is aware that the applicant has endeavoured to assess all potential impacts in advance of this submission but it is paramount to all interested parties that the maximum protection is afforded to all interested parties prior to, during and after construction

The DU will have major, and potentially devastating, implications for the Fitzwilliam Hotel and related businesses

The Fitzwilliam Hotel is one of only five 5 star hotels in the Dublin City region

The hotel has 2 restaurants including the Michelin star accredited Thornton’s, it has 3 dedicated conference rooms and a commercially operated underground car park

The hotel’s reputation and goodwill is totally dependent on the tranquil ambience and the quality of service offered together with the physical surroundings

Central to the service is a simple guarantee of a good night’s sleep

A detailed formal legal agreement was reached with the RPA to curtail the potentially devastating impact of Metro North works on the hotel

The noise levels from the TBMs as they pass under the hotel is a concern

No justifiable reason why night-time operation should be permitted or necessary

ABP are requested to impose appropriate constraints on noise emissions

Clarification sought in relation to proposed surface land acquisition

Issues relating to construction traffic management

Issues relating to Notice to Treat and Construction periods

The southern tunnel travels directly beneath the northern end of the hotel at a depth of c. 28 metres

Condition requested requiring works within the Metro North compound for the DU to be carried out in compliance with Ampleforth Ltd./RPA agreement reached in relation to the construction of the Metro North

The Notice to Treat period should be amended by the Board to no more than 18 months

The EIS does not assess the impacts of Metro North / DU / Luas BXD projects running consecutively or only over-lapping in part


An Bord Pleanala

It would appear from the Government’s Four Year Plan that it will not be possible to commence the tunnel of the DU within the next 4 years

The projects running consecutively could have a very significant and lengthy impact on SSG

Tunnel should be moved away from St. Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club and other structures along the north side of SSG

The Hibernian Club building was erected in 1740 and is one of the most historic such buildings in the city

The proposed development will have a significant impact on the club

The structural integrity of the building and its La Francini plaster works must be protected

The Club’s interior contains unique ceilings, walls and other features

The Club’s foundations may not be as secure as the applicant believes

It is a protected structure

Concerns relating to local geological conditions

Phase 3 structural impact assessment should be completed prior to a determination on the RO

The EIS is inadequate in relation to cumulative impacts of the Metro North, Luas BXD and DU projects

The PPS is insufficient and too flexible

A condition should apply requiring Metro North and DU works to occur at the same time

Concerns relating to the commercial viability of the Club during the construction phase

The DU in its current format has the potential to have significant and irreversible detrimental impacts on the Kildare Street & University Club

The DU should be realigned on SSG North to ensure that the tunnel does not impact upon the integrity of this building of great historic and architectural importance

The Club includes 14 bedrooms, 2 bars, dining rooms, library, gym, squash court and steam room

The building is particularly well known for its Michael Stapleton plastered ceilings

It contains single glazed sash windows

It is a protected structure

The house is in a delicate state of equilibrium

Proximity of the eastern shaft in SSG is of concern as is the tunnelling

The impact of utility diversions is not adequately addressed in the EIS

Concerns expressed in relation to noise and working hours

Impact on parking and loading bays in the area

The tunnels should be moved south into SSG and away from the protected structures along the north side of SSG

The PPS is deficient on a number of issues

The Notice to Treat period is unacceptable

The impacts of the Metro North, the Luas BXD and DU running consecutively may be widespread


An Bord Pleanala

A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan should be made available as part of the application

Further information should be requested, if not certain conditions should apply

No. 22 SSG is a protected structure, built in 1791, a fine example of Georgian architecture

The house is in use as a boutique townhouse hotel (‘The Cliff Town House’) and gourmet restaurant

An adequate assessment of the impacts on the property has not been carried out

The 7 m high hoarding for the construction compound at the eastern shaft is unsympathetic, it will intrude on the views from the townhouse

Concerns also relate to noise, dust, vermin, parking spaces, impact on deliveries, working hours and duration of construction phase

Property will be devalued

CIE show reckless regard to the owners and businesses of SSG and the cultural and architectural heritage of the buildings of the Green and the Green itself

This DU is not needed on SSG

The building compound will have an adverse impact on the commercial viability of the townhouse

In relation to Irish Life Assurance PLC, Ventasker Ltd., Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland & Tenants of St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre an agreement between CIE, RPA, DCC and the observers is required before the RO is confirmed

There should be no reliance on contractor-led construction mitigation measures

The optimal solution is that which minimises impacts on the environment and on third parties including impact on property rights, regardless of cost or construction efficiencies

SSG Shopping Centre, RCSI, SSG/RCSI car parks are some of the most important receptors in the SSG area

These properties form almost an entire city block

ABP recently granted permission for a 11 screen cinema on the rooftop of the SSG Shopping Centre car park, condition 9(a) of PL29S.237685 required a Construction Management Plan that takes account of the DU works

Access to the car parks is via Glover Alley

Negative impact of substratum land take on property value and future redevelopment rights

Disruption due to construction works, impacts on utilities

Noise, dust, vibration and differential settlement

Concerns about the cumulative impact of DU, Metro North and Luas BXD construction works

Uncertainty of timeframe for DU delivery would put observers’ land use and development rights in limbo for 10+ years

Observers must be represented on the Traffic Management Committee

The substratum land under SSG centre is of very real and substantial value

The health of SSG shopping centre is essential to the city’s vitality and vibrancy

Metro North, DU, Luas BXD, projects that were to run concurrently may now run consecutively


An Bord Pleanala

10-15 years of continuous noise, dust, vibration, HGV traffic and diversions

Construction site hoarding will affect ambience

CIE should support the proposal for a right turn onto Merrion Row from SSG east

CIE not contractor should be responsible for preparation of STMP

An agreed communications strategy is essential

Conditions recommended to the Board if Metro North does not proceed, a supplemental RO application must be lodged

In relation to Stephen Court on SSG north, this property is located opposite the DU eastern ventilation/intervention shaft construction compound

The extent of the substratum land acquisition at this building is excessive and will negatively impact on the observer’s land use and development rights

Uncertainty of timeframe for DU delivery would put observer’s land use and development rights in limbo for 10+ years

Traffic management in the SSG is of great concern

Substratum land that is only required temporarily must not be permanently acquired

10-15 years of continuous noise, dust, vibration, HGV traffic and diversions

Assumption of ‘reference design’ does not guarantee architectural excellence

East shaft compound will be the most dominant feature on SSG north for at least 5 years

Pedestrian safety around the east shaft construction compound must not be compromised

In relation to Mercer Building, Millin House, Mercer Court and Beaux Lane House, all owned by RCSI, the DU will impact on these properties due to the close proximity of the SSG station and also due to the proposed tunnelling beneath some of these properties

Noise levels at the Mercier Library is of concern

Permanent land take (substratum) will impact on future land use and redevelopment rights of these properties

The RCSI have significant concerns regarding the disruption of their ongoing medical, educational and research activities in the vicinity of SSG

RCSI remain committed to expanding the campus adjacent SSG

The RCSI properties are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration having regard to the residential and library uses in these properties

The most sensitive times for TBM works for RCSI would be during examination and pre-examination (i.e. post-Christmas period and May/early June)

A public information strategy should be conditioned like that of condition no. 7 of the Metro North RO

Notice to Treat period unacceptable

It would be preferable that all three construction projects (Luas BXD, Metro North & DU) are undertaken simultaneously

Consecutive versus concurrent construction concerns

Conditions recommended should the Board grant the RO


An Bord Pleanala

Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Muldoon, Mr Fricker, Mr Greer, Mr Feely, Mr McManus, Mr Lavery, Mr Slattery, Mr Flaherty, Mr Whelan, Mr McDaid, Mr Burns, Ms S. Whyte, Mr Ruane, Mr Cullen, Mr Conroy, Mr Casey, Ms Harmon and Ms C. White. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.

Module 10: Observer Submissions from the Christchurch Area (incl. Temple

Bar, Cook St., Island St. and Heuston Station areas)

Module 10 commenced and was completed on Day 52 of the Hearing being the 22/03/2011 List of Observers Presenting:

Mr Noel Leonard

Pat McDonagh (MD Supermacs), represented by Mr Barry Lucy of Sean Lucy & Associates

Flancrest Enterprises Ltd., represented by Mr Niall Sudway

The Atrium Management Company Ltd., represented by Mr Niall Sudway

Diageo Ireland, represented by Mr Christopher MacGarry, RPS Planning & Environment

Issues Raised:

Concerns relating to impacts on 40 Wapping Street

This property dates from the 1700s, rebuilt in the 1900, it accommodates three floors over a cellar

It is currently a public house with living accommodation over

Concerns of the impact the tunnelling will have on the basement/cellar

Impact on existing Supermac restaurant outlet in Heuston Station

Heuston is both a historic structure and a modern transport terminus and hub

It is considered logical and desirable to attempt to maintain the current area devoted to retail

The relocation of the above ground built elements within the concourse of Heuston can be conditioned

Implications for development at the site located at Island Street/Bridgefoot Street

The EIS is not based on a full set of working drawings

Work on the site which is a material asset of the company is now being impeded

The site is virtually sterilised until the DU is completed

Concerns relating to flexibility that might be allowed to the PPPCo

Impact on 29-30 Island Street apartment development

Diageo welcome the extensive engagement with the applicant since August 2010

Concerns remain relating to wells on the site


An Bord Pleanala

The DU must be designed and proposed to allow for potential future above ground development

Implications for the delivery of objectives of the Liberties LAP Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Fricker, Mr Muldoon, Mr Feely, Mr McManus, Mr Lavery, Mr Flaherty, Mr Feely and Mr Cullen. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated.

Module 11: Observer Submissions from the Inchicore & War Memorial Park

Areas

Module 11 commenced on Day 52 of the Hearing being the 22/03/2011 and continued on Day 53 being the 23/03/2011, Day 54 being the 25/03/11, Day 55 being the 29/03/11, Day 56 being the 30/03/11, Day 57 being the 31/03/11, Day 58 being the 01/04/11, Day 59 being the 05/04/11 and Day 60 being the 06/04/11. List of Observers Presenting:

Aifric Ni Chianain & Gerard Greene and others (joint submission), represented by o Ms Aifric Ni Chianain o Ms Aoife Lawlor, Architect o Ms Ann Gorman o Mr John Kelly o Mr Matthew Kavanagh o Ms Jennifer McManus

Conor Flood & others, represented by Mr Flood

Gerard McGeough & Louisa MacDonald, represented by Mr McGeough and Mr Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consultant Engineers

Joseph Anthony Currivan

Ms Niamh Flood, Mr David Lawless and Ms May Flood-Lawless, represented by Mr D. Lawless

Ms Louise Carroll

Paul O’Shea & others

Aine Costigan

Ms Jo Homewood and Ned McLoughlin, represented by themselves, Cllr Rebecca Moynihan and Mr Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consultant Engineers

Seven Oaks management Company, represented by Ms Louise Hobdell

Inchicore Sports and Social Club, represented by o Mr Ned McLoughlin, Chairman of the club o Mr Henry O’Connor, Trustee of the club o Mr William Tate, Trustee of the club

Inchicore on Track (IOT), represented by


An Bord Pleanala

o Ms Jo Homewood, Chairwoman Inchicore Railway Estate Residents’ Association

o Mr John Beck o Mr Ed Bourke o Ms Deidre Farrell o Ms Chris Bennett o Mr Ned McLoughlin o Mr Graham Finlay o Mr Miles Friedman o Mr Darren Page, OTB Engineering o Mr Dorian Baker, OTB Engineering o Mr Aaron Shearer o Mr Niall O’Baoill

Ms Tessa Robinson & Mr Robert Purcell, represented by Mr Purcell

Sherling Group, represented by o Mr Frank Moore, MD Sherling Group o Mr Esmond Keane SC o Mr Oisin Collins BL

Issues Raised:

Concerns regarding impact on dwellings in Woodfield Avenue, tunnels proposed underneath this Victorian development

Concerns relate to cracking, subsidence and sinking, these are old dwellings

Applicant’s drawings are sketchy, the design is very underdeveloped

Houses above the tunnels were not show in submitted sections

Dewatering earth under the dwellings could collapse the houses

Concerns relating to impacts from blasting of cross-passages

Tunnel needs to go deeper

A specialist architect’s report is needed relating to brick facades cracking and structural damage being caused

Approximately 50% of Woodfield residents are over 65 years of age

Concerns relating to impacts on human health

Existing train traffic adjacent the development causes noise and vibration

Most of the original Woodfield residents worked for CIE

PPS is completely inadequate

Monetary and time limits unacceptable

Values of houses will fall

Residents of Woodfield and Murray Cottages feel strongly that their right to install geothermal heating will be denied

Reference to flooding incident in the area in March 2009, this information is missing from the EIS

Observers from Woodfield request Iarnrod Eireann give something back to the local community, funding needed to complete environmental improvements in Woodfield

ABP should note the residents of Woodfield and Murrays Cottages object to the compulsory acquisition of the substratum of land beneath their homes


An Bord Pleanala

Dwellings recently constructed in the area are not shown on the drawings submitted by CIE

The DU should be realigned, the tunnels should be further to the west and beneath Con Colbert Road/War Memorial Park

Lack of consultation with Woodflield and Murray’s Cottages

Impact on utilities and services is of concern

Imposition of zero value on land below 10m is objected to

Noise and vibration concerns

Objection to the use of the back lane at Abercorn Terrace/Abercorn Square as a main cycle and pedestrian access to proposed station

Concerns about the use of this lane relate to security, privacy, anti-social behaviour, environmental impact, safety and better alternative available

Concerns raised of impacts on No. 1 St. Patrick’s Terrace, a traditional Victorian dwelling

Proximity of proposed works to No. 1 is of concern

Objection to acquisition of substratum of land

Proximity to TBM reception chamber

Impact concerns relate to noise, vibration, light pollution, impacts on structure, dust generated, health impacts, vermin, PPS and timescale of construction

TBM chamber and tunnel alignment should be relocated away from No. 1

Tunnels should be deeper

Proposed station in ‘no man’s land’

Impact on existing residential area as a result of activities during the operational stage relating to pedestrian flows, car parking, public access, reduced security, reduced privacy and increase of anti-social behaviour

CIE should be directed to engage directly with occupants of No. 1 St. Patrick’s Terrace

CIE boundary wall adjacent St. Patrick’s Terrace will collapse when works begin

Existing water based infrastructure cannot cope with additional loading

Concerns relating to contaminants within the soil inside the CIE Works given the history of industrial use there

Occupants of No. 3 St Georges Villas raised concerns about being surrounded by construction sites and proposed working hours

Concerned about potential of light pollution

Proposed hoarding height inadequate at Inchicore

Monitoring required in relation to ground borne noise

Blasting and large scale demolition proposed in proximity to homes

EIS is vague and highly technical

Future rail lines connecting to the Inchicore station will impact on the Kylemore/Le Fanu area

Future pylons, substations and possibly stations to the west of the Inchicore station will impact on the receiving environment

Increase in train frequency will impact on residents


An Bord Pleanala

The EIS is undecipherable and could not be interpreted fully by ordinary people during the limited time available for viewing

The Hearing Transcripts should have been made available

The RO should be refused until such time as the second phase of the interconnector has been properly planned

Station should be in Inchicore village

Sound barriers were put in East Wall but not in Cherry Orchard

CPO of substratum of 1-9 Inchicore Terrace North may increase home insurance, have adverse restrictions on these houses and affect their value, object to CPO of substratum

Concerns relating to impacts of groundborne noise and vibration

Objection to the tunnelling under Wheaton Court (North Terrace) apartment development

20 days of tunnelling 24/7 is of concern

Impacts arising from the DU at operational stage beneath the apartment block

Question regarding the Sarsfield Road retaining wall

Objection to the temporary possession of Wheaton Court car park

Impact on value of apartments due to DU

Objection to CPO of substratum of Wheaton Court

Impact on cost of home insurance

Inchicore playing field shaft should be relocated to Horsefield

Impact of use of the Khyber-Pass as access to the station, the Khyber-Pass is adjacent the Seven Oaks apartment development

The Khyber-Pass is used as an emergency vehicle access to the residential development, pedestrianisation of this access would have implications for Seven Oaks

Safety and security is of concern

Impact of development on No. 1 St Georges Villas in the Railway Estate

Occupiers work from home

Objection to the CPO of substratum at No. 1 St Georges Villas and temporary acquisition of adjacent land

Working hours are unacceptable

EIS is insufficient in many areas

Object to 10 year Notice to Treat

Abandonment of launch pit and cut and cover trench at the playing pitch is welcomed and should be further conditioned out by the Board

CIE do not always seem to value the heritage of the Railway Estate

Provision of monitoring and liaison also needs to be made explicit

The C19th boundary walls should not be further damaged

Six and a half years of construction works will have an impact on No. 1

It is unclear how long the period will be for the 24 hr. working for the installation of railway track and systems

The Railway Works have been used for heavy industry for over 150 years and as such many contaminants may be in the spoil that is excavated


An Bord Pleanala

Parking for staff is going to be an issue for the area

Flooding on Inchicore Parade and in the back lane is caused by the volumes of water that run off the works

The construction works will have major severance impact on St Georges Villas

The homes at St Georges Villas are at the very shallowest point in the tunnelling process in the city

What is proposed for the Inchicore Works is ill thought out in terms of urban planning and design

The proposal aims to radically change how the two distinct but integral entities i.e. the Works and the Estate, function

The location of the proposed Inchicore Station is inappropriate and should not be permitted

Cumulative impacts have not been properly addressed

The Board should adopt the WHO NNG noise criteria in respect of in-bedroom levels

Families at No. 1 St Georges Villas and No. 1 St Patricks Terrace should be relocated for the period of approach, pass and departure of the TBM

Concerns expressed relating to construction impacts the development will have on the Inchicore Sports and Social Club, the club building was built in c.1860, tunnelling is proposed underneath the club and the playing field shaft is adjacent the club

‘Inchicore on Track’ is a sub-committee of the Inchicore Railway Estate Residents’ Association

The DU is a deeply flawed project and the community of the Railway Estate will be left living with this for the rest of their lives

The proposed station is not properly planned, in its current position it is not welcome and it is not supported

Scale and duration of the impacts on the Railway Estate and Works is of concern

A dramatic change of use is proposed with the development of the station as a transport hub in the centre of private land currently zoned industrial Z6

It will turn the enclosed works into an open public space and create new public rights of way into and out of adjoining residential estates

Specifics and details are consistently not being presented in the EIS

It is impossible to assess the impacts given the current level of information

Displacement of responsibility to the contractor

The specific status of the agreement between DCC and CIE is entirely uncertain

History and evolution of the Works and the Estate is outlined to the Hearing

The Murray O’Laoire model of development for the Works is entirely ill thought out

There is a strong sense of community in the Estate

At the moment just less than half the houses still have railway workers or descendants living in them

The consequence of a flawed consultation process is a flawed EIA and as a result a flawed and incomplete proposal

Inchicore was not considered as part of Phases 1 and 2 of the DU project

It is vital that the Residents’ Association is recognised as a stakeholder in the development of a masterplan for the Works site and that this plan is finalised before the station is sited and built


An Bord Pleanala

Concerns relating to security, traffic and noise during the operation of the station

The station has been sited with no concern for planning at all, it is over 1 km from the centres of Inchicore, Bluebell and Ballyfermot

A number of alternative station locations both within the Railway Works site and outside it have been mooted by residents of Inchicore and others

The Inspector is urged to consider whether or not consideration of the cumulative impacts of the DU and the Kildare Route Project was a necessary obligation of the EIA Directive

The Kildare Route Project should have been included in the EIS and considered together at the Hearing

Concerns expressed relating to security issues during match days at nearby Richmond Park at operational stage of the DU

Extent of demolition works in the Railway Works site is of concern

The proposed station and development of the Railway Works will be detrimental to the regeneration of Inchicore

They are in conflict with the Inchicore Framework Plan

The proposed development of the Railway Works will kill off the existing, struggling, local enterprise in Inchicore village

Concerns expressed in relation to proposed temporary land take in the Inchicore area

Impact on Sarsfield Road Retaining Walls from proposed anchors

Dublin Fire Brigade should give evidence in relation to the siting of the Inchicore playing field shaft

The substation should be located at least 100m from existing homes

In terms of architectural heritage the problem with the EIS is that it describes buildings largely as individual structures rather than as a group

The CIE Works site and the Railway Estate are unique and of national importance

Both share a history which finds its expression in the form of a complete built urban quarter, residential and industrial

The Inchicore Railway Works site is not dealt with as the largest site in the Irish State of railway industrial architectural heritage a huge portion of which is still intact

One specific cause for concern is the Pattern Loft and its contents

The applicant’s Industrial Heritage Assessment was carried out after the route had been determined

Firstly the DU was to stop at Heuston, then it was to come to Inchicore as a turn back only, then as a terminus station and more recently with a facility to continue on until Hazelhatch

IOT needs clarification from ABP as to what they regard the legal status of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between CIE and DCC to be

It is not immediately clear as to what is to be demolished within the Works site, buildings were looked as individually not collectively

CIE should be required by ABP to restore the sports club and playing grounds

OTB Engineering for IOT suggest a minor adjustment be made to the alignment of the tunnels, removing the tunnels from beneath any private dwellings and relocating the playing field shaft


An Bord Pleanala

Alternative site for the shaft suggested at Horses Field

CIE do not appear to have considered in any depth options for relocating the station at Kylemore Road

The relative inaccessibility of CIE’s proposed station to those living north and west of the site has not been addressed by CIE

The location and layout of the draft RO Inchicore sub-surface station has several underlying weaknesses

It would be better to locate the station on the railway it is intending to serve rather than to offset from it

Many of the constraints on the development of the railway would appear to be self-imposed by CIE

It would be possible to deliver the required railway works substantially within the existing railway corridor

IE should address its Corporate Social Responsibility through appropriate Community Gain measures

There is shock and disillusionment in the community with the undue haste and extent of poor quality planning involved in preparing the RO/EIS

Amenity development proposals for the Estate should be conditioned on the applicant

CIE should be required to participate in an integrated approach to visioning the future of the Inchicore Works/Estate ideally through the Area Master Plan mechanism as currently under consideration by DCC and local residents

10 year Notice to Treat period not permitted under the legislation

There has not been sufficient optioneering of the project in respect to Inchicore

The EIS is deficient in a number of respects

There has been insufficient consultation with the local community

The Board should request FI or modify the RO on a number of points

IOT proposes to submit a schedule of costs incurred and requests that the Board direct that CIE discharge some or all of those costs

Residents of St. Patricks Terrace are concerned about the duration of the construction works

The construction sites in the area will be enormous

The Terrace and St Georges Villas are most proximate to the construction sites

Noise, vibration, dust, vermin and light pollution are all potential impacts

At operational stage there will be ad hoc parking in the area as no park and ride facility is being proposed

Proximity of ESB sub-station to St Patrick’s Terrace

Concerns over asbestos and other materials being released into the atmosphere when buildings in the Works are being demolished

The timetable for acquisition of a portion of the Sherling Group facility at Kylemore Way is of concern

The extent of the that permanent and temporary land acquisition is also of concern

These issues are fundamental to the survival of the Sherling Group’s business at Inchicore


An Bord Pleanala

The proposed acquisition of the Sherling Group land will have a permanent, severe and catastrophic detrimental impact on business operations at this location

If CIE have the 10 year Notice to Treat option Sherling will be unable to make any long term business plans and will be unable or severely restricted in its ability to sell or mortgage the site to fund the relocation of the Group’s business in advance of the acquisition of the lands

Concerns over the presence of asbestos in the structure it is proposed to demolish Response from the Applicant: In response to the above submissions the applicant presented the following expert witnesses: Mr Fricker, Mr Feely, Mr Lavery, Mr Cullen, Mr Muldoon, Mr McManus, Ms Harmon, Mr Ruane, Mr Flaherty, Ms C. White, Mr McDaid, Ms S. Whyte, Mr Casey, Mr Greer, Dr Hogan, Ms Manning, Mr Masterson and Mr Whelan. The applicant’s team was led by Mr Bradley SC and Mr O’Donnell BL. Cross-questioning between the applicant and observers was facilitated. Following the completion of Module 11 the applicant made a number of submissions in response to previous queries from the Inspectorate, these included:

‘Dart Underground Oral Hearing. Response to Queries. Fire Safety Standards and Legislation – CIE Response’ presented to the Hearing by Mr Flaherty

‘Definition of Hierarchy of Design Standards used for Dart Underground Railway Order – March 2011’ presented to the Hearing by Mr Flaherty

‘Settlement of Permanent Structures and Utilities: St Stephen’s Green’, ‘Settlement of Permanent Structures and Utilities: Heuston’ and Settlement of Permanent Structures and Utilities: Inchicore’ presented to the Hearing by Simon Fricker

‘Dart Underground – Railway Order Application – Schedule of Proposed Amendments to Book of Reference’ presented by Mr Flaherty

Legal Submissions

A substantial part of Day 61, being the 07/04/2011, was taken up with submissions on the Grand Canal Theatre tests carried out by the owners/operators of the GCT and by the applicant. Following those submissions the Inspector then heard the applicant’s response to the legal submissions made by observers in previous modules. The applicant’s legal submission commenced in the afternoon of Day 61 and was delivered by Mr Conleth Bradley SC. It continued on Day 62 being the 08/04/2011 and was delivered by Mr Conleth Bradley SC and Mr Michael O’Donnell BL. Further legal submissions were then heard from the following:

Mr Colm Allen for O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Properties

Mr Eamon Galligan SC for Grand Canal Theatre Company Ltd.

Mr Esmond Keane SC for Sherling & Sons Ltd.

Mr Gareth Simons SC for Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd.


An Bord Pleanala

Mr Damian MacGarry for Edith MacGarry & Damian MacGarry

Ms Elaine Fox, Eversheds O’Donnell Sweeney, for Mr Rory O’Meara

Module 12: Closing Statements

Following completion of the legal submissions the applicant responded to the Inspectorate’s ‘wrap up’ question. This was then followed by the closing statements made by the following: From Module 11- Inchicore & War Memorial Park Areas:

Mr Frank Moore, MD Sherling Group

Mr John Beck for ‘Inchicore on Track’ From Module 10- Christchurch Area:

Ms Danielle Cunihan from Arthur Cox for Diageo Ireland From Module 9- St. Stephen’s Green Area:

Mr John Spain, JPS, for Royal College of Surgeons

Mr Tom Philips, Tom Philips & Associates, for St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre, RCSI, Irish Life Assurance PLC and Ventasker Ltd.

Mr John Spain, JPS, for Kildare Street & University Club

Mr John Spain, JPS, for Ampleforth Ltd (FitzWilliam Hotel) From Module 8- Pearse Station Area:

Mr David Hughes for Erne Street Upper Residents’ Association

Mr Eamon Galligan SC for Grand Canal Theatre Company Ltd.

Mr Damian MacGarry for Edith MacGarry & Damian MacGarry

Mr David Hughes From Module 7- Docklands Area:

Mr Tony McDonnell for Tony, Hilda and Derek McDonnell and the North Port Dwellers Residents’ Association

Mr John Spain, JPS, for Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd. From Module 6- East Wall Area:

Ms Marie Broderick for Protect East Wall

Ms Angela Broderick for West Road Residents

Mr Brendan Buck for Ossory Business Park, Michael Kennedy, Declan Rodgers

Mr K. Glynn for Elizabeth Corrigan

Mr K. Glynn for Patricia Rainsford From Module 2 – Local Authority

Mr Gerard Meehan BL for Dublin City Council From Module 1 – the applicant

Mr Peter Muldoon and Mr Conleth Bradley for the applicant Hearing closed on Day 62 being the 08/04/2011


An Bord Pleanala

Note: Appendix A attached to this report contains a list of documents, plans and particulars submitted by the applicant and the observers at the Hearing. Transcripts of the entire Hearing are on file for the Board’s attention, there are 63 books covering the 62 days of the Hearing (Day 62 was split over two books). Inspector’s recommendations to the Board arising from clarifications and information submitted by the applicant and observers at the Hearing are incorporated into the Inspector’s Report on the Railway Order application. ________________ Tom Rabbette Senior Planning Inspector 19th October 2011

NA0005 - Oral Hearing Report - An Bord Pleanála · Dart Underground 29S.NA0005 Oral Hearing Report...

Documents

Transcript of NA0005 - Oral Hearing Report - An Bord Pleanála · Dart Underground 29S.NA0005 Oral Hearing Report...