South Dublin Branch News

BirdWatch Ireland welcomes rejection of proposal to infill part of Dublin Bay Press Release: 09.06.2010

BirdWatch Ireland welcomes today’s decision by An Bord Pleanála to refuse the Dublin Port Company permission to expand the port by infilling 52-acres of wildlife habitat in Dublin Bay. The board refused the application saying the area is due to be designated as a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive and that if the proposed development went ahead it might adversely impact on the birds of Dublin Bay and breach EU law. Commenting on the refusal, Siobhán Egan, BirdWatch Ireland’s Policy Officer, said, “An Bord Pleanála’s acknowledgement that this proposed infill would affect the integrity of the site as a Special Protection Area is particularly welcome. BirdWatch Ireland was involved in highlighting the role that even a small part of the larger bay might play for the different bird species for which the area is a vital refuge. The key point here is that the applicant needed to show without reasonable doubt that the loss of this area would not affect the bird interests of the site, as well as the ability of the site to support birds well into the future." “Dublin Bay is home to both nationally and internationally important bird species. The birds rely on different parts of the bay for a range of needs such as feeding and roosting, depending on the state of the weather and the tides. European law says that developments can only go ahead where it can be shown there will be no impact on species for which sites are designated: unless this is certain the sites cannot be compromised.” Alan Lauder, BirdWatch Ireland’s Head of Conservation, added, “It is real progress to see this kind of decision being made by a planning authority and the need for site integrity being recognised. Previously Ireland has failed to give enough regard to the enactment and enforcement of EU conservation laws and has already been reprimanded by the European Court of Justice. This sends a strong message that An Bord Pleanála and the Irish State are now facing up to their obligations under EU directives and see our rich and irreplaceable natural heritage as being core to sustainable development.” --------------------------------------- The Irish Times 10/06/2010: The company had hoped that the evidence of ornithologist Richard Nairn that the site was not a key part of the habitat used by birds in Dublin Bay or in the pSPA would be enough to persuade Bord Pleanála to grant planning permission. However, the planning inspector found the proposal did not “adequately establish that the proposal would not adversely affect both the integrity of this SPA and the natural heritage of Dublin Bay”.

Economic arguments should not be part of port inquiry - The Irish Times, 4th September 2009 Economic arguments at the core of the Dublin Port Company’s plans to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay may not be considered by a planning inquiry into the project, An Bord Pleanála was told yesterday. The board’s fast-track strategic infrastructure division is hearing an application by the port company for planning permission for the infill, which it said would increase unitised container traffic through the port by up to 50 per cent. The company said the expansion would be necessary to provide deep-water berths for larger ships, and was central to the economic prosperity of the State. However, speaking at the opening of the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing into the application yesterday, barrister Donall O’Laoire said the area in question was in the process of being designated as a special protected area under the EU Birds Directive. Mr O’Laoire, who represents Dublin Bay Watch and the Clontarf Residents Association, both of which oppose the plans, said the European Court had ruled that in circumstances where areas were candidates for protection, legislation from the birds directive applied. “This directive specifically states that economic and recreational arguments are not admissible,” he told An Bord Pleanála senior planning inspector Brendan Wyse. Mr O’Laoire was supported by barrister Ian Lumly of An Taisce, who said there were two further potential legal challenges to the inquiry. Firstly, questions arose “over the validity of the entire hearing” because of what he maintained were deficiencies in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Secondly, the port company had refused to divulge information on the carbon emissions of the proposed development, contrary to a European directive. Mr Wyse said he had taken the comments of both barristers into consideration and time could be allocated in the hearing to listen to full submissions on the topics raised. The inquiry continues.

Dublin Bay SPAs to be extended - 25th May 2008 Minister for the Environment John Gormley will shortly make an order extending the Dublin Bay Special Protection Area, an EU designation intended to protect wild birds, by almost 30 per cent ... HERE

BirdWatch Ireland PRESS RELEASE .. European Court of Justice judgement against Ireland - 14th December 2007 The Irish Government has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in relation to the designation and classification of Special Protections Areas (SPAs) for wild birds ... [132] According to the Commission, the first area of 4.5 hectares, the inclusion of which in the SPA had been proposed previously, was excluded from the initial extension project for the Sandymount Strand and Tolka Estuary SPA following representations by the Dublin Port Company, which wished to infill the area for a port extension. PRESS RELEASE here

Dublin Bay wintering bird survey, part of Irish Wetland Bird Survey (IWeBS). The wintering waterbird population of Dublin Bay is monitored by monthly co-ordinated counts across the bay. See a summary of the results for 2005-06.

Dublin Port's expansion plan to be fast-tracked by Tim O'Brien, The Irish Times, 29 November 2007

An Bord Pleanála has ruled that Dublin Port Company's plan to infill 21 hectares of the bay represents strategic infrastructural development and should be heard under its fast-track process for projects of national importance. The ruling, which was opposed by the campaign group Dublin Bay Watch, is a major boost for the port company which claims it is rapidly reaching capacity. Involved in the development is the construction of new quays along the southern and eastern edge of the 21-hectare site in the north bay near Clontarf promenade. Three new berths for roll-on, roll-off ferries would be provided on the southern quay, while a fourth berth for load-on, load-off ferries would be provided on the eastern quay. The development also envisages ancillary surface storage and dockland circulation areas. However, the company told An Bord Pleanála this configuration may change to avoid a potential designation of the northern part of the plan as a special protected area (SPA) for birds, by the Department of the Environment Submissions and observations critical of the plan were received from Sean Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus; Dublin Bay Watch; Clontarf resident's Association and Independent TD Finian McGrath. An Bord Pleanála documentation also notes that the Department of the Environment reported that Ireland had been brought to the European Court of Justice for allegedly not implementing the requirements of the EU birds directive. The papers note that part of the EU case was that the SPA designations had not been put in place in certain locations. The department indicated it was likely based on the opinion of the advocate general that Ireland would have to extend the earlier SPA designations in Dublin "to include the proposed development area". In response the company told the board it believed the SPA affected only 4.5 hectares of the proposed 21-hectare infill and that the development could be reconfigured at planning permission stage. Clontarf councillor Gerry Breen (FG), who is also chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, said a "huge question" remained about whether the infill was needed at all. "There is about 10 million tonnes of cargo destined for the new port at Bremore near Drogheda in its first year of operation, and it is probably about five years before the Dublin Bay extension would be up and running. By that time it would not be needed."

Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA order made without proper authority .. Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly has found that an order purporting to extend the Special Protection Area (SPA) for wild birds in Dublin Bay was made "without proper authority" and "contrary "to fair or sound administration". The proposed extension to the Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA, made under the EU Birds Directive in 1999, is also the subject of a European Commmision legal action against Ireland Over its failure to properly implement the directive. Dublin Baywatch had complained that Duchas, the Heritage Service (now NPWS), had altered the SPA area to exclude a 52 acre area proposed for infilling by Dublin Port. Records obtained from Duchas under the Freedom of Information Act showed this had been done following informal contact with the port company, and no scientific evidence had been produced to justify the amendment. Ms O'Reilly concluded there was "prima facie evidence" that the department's actions were "taken without proper authority, that they were based on an undesirable administrative practice and were contrary to fair or sound administration". It also raises questions as to the validity of the order. Mainly from Frank McDonald, The Irish Times 27.05.2005

A Northside environmental group has hailed as "great news" a recent announcement from Brussels that legal action is being taken against the Irish Government for failing to adequately pro­tect Dublin Bay.

Bay Group Applaud European Court Threat by Neil Fetherston in Northside 03.03.2004

The bay area is specifically mentioned in a communique from Europe as an area where there the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are inadequate. A spokesman for the EU stat­ed: "The principal issue in rela­tion to Dublin Bay was the rationale for excluding certain areas of the bay, notably the area for the proposed infill beside Dublin Port. This ration­ale did not appear to take prop­er account of the appropriate­ness of safeguarding a com­plete wetland system." A spokesman for Dublin Bay Watch (DBW), Joe Nolan, claimed this announcement as a major result for the residents around the bay and the sur­rounding areas. "This is just reward for years of hard work," he said. "We have been lobbying Europe for four years now ever since dis­covering that the boundaries of the SPA were changed. No scientific evidence has ever been produced to explain the rea­sons why the boundaries were changed. Furthermore, a recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency stated that no more developments should take place in estuaries due to the risk of flooding." Mr Nolan said that a major part of the DBW presentation to Europe was the commissioning of an expert ornithological study of the port's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by Jackie Hunt, formerly of Birdwatch Ireland. Ms Hunt's report to Europe states in part: "The port's EIS is seriously flawed in it's assess­ment of the infill and dredging works on the Tolka Estuary bird populations and on the Sandymount Strand /Tolka Estuary SPA." As a result Mr Nolan has called on the Government to reject an application by the Dublin Port Company (DPC) to infill 52 acres of the bay. "The only people that deem this infill necessary is the DPC and it's advisors and the prime reason for this infill cannot be for extra deep sea berthage or extra container storage capaci­ty as the port has claimed - DPC already has ample sup­plies of both." Mr Nolan insisted that the proposed infill would greatly enhance the balance sheet of DPC prior to any privatisation if it were granted. The Tanaiste has already stated that her preference is to privatise the ports said Mr Nolan. "Dublin Bay Watch would like to thank the commis­sion for listening and investigat­ing our complaint thoroughly. The group expects to be in a position to make further announcements on this matter in due course.

Port Company told it must seek planning permission for infill. 09.09.2002 "Although the fight to protect Dublin Bay is not by any means over, at least the future of one of the city's most valuable public resources will now be decided in the open and by the public." Councillor Gerry Breen, chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, commenting on the decision by the Department of the Marine that Planning Permission is required for the port's proposed 52 acre infill. The Port Company must now decide whether it wishes to go through a lengthy and costly Bord Pleanála hearing or look for alternatives. This can only be good news for the future of Dublin Bay as a wildbird habitat. Dublin Bay Watch had previously questioned the redrawing by Duchas, the Heritage Service, of a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds excluding the proposed infill after meetings with the port company in 1999 - a matter now being investigated by the European Commission. Dublin Bay Watch.

Brussels rebukes State for failure to protect wild bird population from the Irish Times 03/12/2001 The reasoned opinion (of the European Commission) notes a "significant problem of partial classification": a failure to classify SPAs in accordance with ornithological criteria as laid down by case law determined by the European Court of Justice. This appeared to be the result of a "pragmatic approach" by the State in the period 1994-96 to limit classification to areas of public ownership "and leave out areas seriously contested by economic interests, in particular port related interests". Maps of Dublin Bay EU designated Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds & Special Areas for Conservation (SAC)to protect wildlife habitats here

Infilling threat to Dublin Bay - April 2001 The revised EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the Dublin Port Company's proposed infill of 21ha of the bay is now ready. In February 2000, the Minister for the Marine Frank Fahey stated in the Dail that "new statutory arrangements are clearly needed to provide for the integrated management of the coastal zone, including the greater Dublin Bay and adjoining land area". However, he said "it would not be reasonable to defer consideration of the Dublin Port Company's application until a new legislative framework is in place". He also said "in the short term we are anxious to allow Dublin Port to proceed with it's development". As of now it appears that Minister Fahey will approve the Port Company's application even though his Department has received ten thousand new objections to it. From: www.dublinbaywatch.net 06/03/2000 The Dept. of the Marine & Natural Resources has informed Councillor Gerry Breen chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, that the Minister, being concerned about the adequacy of the EIS prepared by the Dublin Port Company, has commissioned independent consultants to address the issue. The Port Company will have to carry out a full EIS on its proposed in-fill.

29/01/2000 A comment from architect Niall McCullough in his article "Seeking the vision to progress by design" in the Irish Times. While the city grows, its context gets insufficient attention. Dublin Bay is its greatest asset and yet it remains dirty, its foreground filled with industrial material which is increasing yearly and which is insufficiently accountable to public will. While every other country in Europe moves to link leisure and water, Dublin shrinks behind a steel and sewage wall.

25/01/2000 The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources today stated that the Dublin Port Company would have to obtain full planning permission if it wished to proceed with its proposed 21 hectare in-fill in Dublin Bay. Under an anomaly in the Foreshore Act planning permission is not required except under a ministerial order. The announcement was welcomed by the Dublin Bay Watch group who have opposed the development. "The port has enough capacity but it is not using it properly or cleverly. They have not shown themselves worthy or responsible enough to capture another 52 acres of our bay" said Mr. Gerry Breen, a local Fine Gael councillor.