THE Port of Cork says it will resist any attempt to compulsory purchase its land in the city for the €1 billion Docklands redevelopment until it has found itself a new home.
A rift between port and council officials became apparent yesterday at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing into the development.
David Holland, SC, representing the port, told the hearing that while port management generally supported the redevelopment of the quays, they couldn’t allow the building of two bridges before they vacate the area, as it would threaten the company’s viability.
About 40% of all the Port of Cork’s profits are made on the city quays.
To facilitate the redevelopment of the docklands, the city council wants to provide access to and from the Lower Glanmire Road by building bridges across the River Lee at Tivoli and Water Street.
Port officials say it wouldn’t be practical to build these until they had relocated, even though river traffic would have priority.
As most ships berth and leave in the mornings and evenings, the bridges would be closed to rush-hour road traffic for anything up to 55 minutes at a time.
“The port, with great regret, has been forced, much against its will, to oppose the present (planning) application as (it) is highly damaging to port viability,” said Mr Holland.
He said the Port of Cork was being asked to move not for its own purposes, but for the benefit of the city.
“The city (council) seems to assume that if they wait long enough the city quays will fall cheaply into their lap, that the port will simply go away. It will not, because it cannot,” the senior counsel said.
Port of Cork officials argue that the land they own on the quays is worth €58.27 million, but neither the city council or developers have discussed a compensation package with them.
Last Tuesday the port chairman, Dermot O’Mahoney, said compensation should be paid by developers moving onto the site and due to the recession he would accept stage payments.
But speaking at the oral hearing in Rochestown Park Hotel, Mr Holland said: “At present there is no prospect of funding the relocation costs. For as long as that is so, for the foreseeable future, the port must remain at the city quays. Any plans ignoring that fact are built on sand.”
“Until proper funding is in place for the relocation of the port it will stay in the city quays and reserves the right to resist any attempt to move it,” he said.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label Cork port planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cork port planning. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Port may reapply for planning of terminal
THE location of a proposed €220 million container terminal should be known by Port of Cork directors next October and the possibility of reapplying for permission to build it in Ringaskiddy has not been ruled out.
Last year Bord Pleanála refused the Port of Cork permission to build the terminal at the Oyster Bank in Ringaskiddy, following major objections from residents living in the lower harbour.
Port of Cork’s chief executive, Brendan Keating, said the shock refusal had put plans for the deep water terminal back up to two years.
Initially it was hoped to have the Oyster Bank terminal operational by 2013. The new terminal is needed to cater for far larger cargo vessels, which are becoming the norm and which cannot berth at Tivoli.
However, port management has some breathing space, especially as there is an economic downturn and as the Tivoli docks still has five years before it reaches capacity.
“Yes, there is a slowdown in the market, but any port company worth its salt has to plan for the future. There will be a recovery,” Mr Keating said.
The port plans to revisit all 12 sites in the harbour it previously looked at before selecting the Oyster Bank.
Despite repeatedly denying that Ringaskiddy remained the optimum site, Mr Keating said Bord Pleanála recognised the lower harbour was the obvious location.
He said the recent review of the County Development Plan also strengthened the case for a deep water terminal in Ringaskiddy.
Port of Cork chairman, Dermot O’Mahony, said Bord Pleanála’s refusal centred on the inability of the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy road) to handle extra heavy goods traffic generated by the development.
The appeals board also decided a new container terminal should be served by a rail link, which Ringaskiddy lacks.
“They should make it (the N28) a dual carriageway, and the money should come out of the county council’s development contributions,” Mr O’Mahoney said.
The Government will soon publish a plan for sustainable transport and Port of Cork management hope this will include the development of more railways.
Mr Keating said the issues highlighted by Bord Pleanála would be looked at again in detail.
“We have to have the facilities, or we will lose business and that will affect the whole region,” the port’s chief executive said.
Port officials are also in discussion with Conocco Phillips about maximising throughput at the Whitegate refinery’s jetty. The refinery’s traffic accounts for about a third of the port’s annual income.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Last year Bord Pleanála refused the Port of Cork permission to build the terminal at the Oyster Bank in Ringaskiddy, following major objections from residents living in the lower harbour.
Port of Cork’s chief executive, Brendan Keating, said the shock refusal had put plans for the deep water terminal back up to two years.
Initially it was hoped to have the Oyster Bank terminal operational by 2013. The new terminal is needed to cater for far larger cargo vessels, which are becoming the norm and which cannot berth at Tivoli.
However, port management has some breathing space, especially as there is an economic downturn and as the Tivoli docks still has five years before it reaches capacity.
“Yes, there is a slowdown in the market, but any port company worth its salt has to plan for the future. There will be a recovery,” Mr Keating said.
The port plans to revisit all 12 sites in the harbour it previously looked at before selecting the Oyster Bank.
Despite repeatedly denying that Ringaskiddy remained the optimum site, Mr Keating said Bord Pleanála recognised the lower harbour was the obvious location.
He said the recent review of the County Development Plan also strengthened the case for a deep water terminal in Ringaskiddy.
Port of Cork chairman, Dermot O’Mahony, said Bord Pleanála’s refusal centred on the inability of the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy road) to handle extra heavy goods traffic generated by the development.
The appeals board also decided a new container terminal should be served by a rail link, which Ringaskiddy lacks.
“They should make it (the N28) a dual carriageway, and the money should come out of the county council’s development contributions,” Mr O’Mahoney said.
The Government will soon publish a plan for sustainable transport and Port of Cork management hope this will include the development of more railways.
Mr Keating said the issues highlighted by Bord Pleanála would be looked at again in detail.
“We have to have the facilities, or we will lose business and that will affect the whole region,” the port’s chief executive said.
Port officials are also in discussion with Conocco Phillips about maximising throughput at the Whitegate refinery’s jetty. The refinery’s traffic accounts for about a third of the port’s annual income.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 30 June 2008
Minister urges Port of Cork to think again
MINISTER FOR Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin has urged the Port of Cork to consult more widely with local groups in Cork harbour when preparing any alternative plan for the transfer of its container terminal from Tivoli to another location in the harbour.
The Port of Cork had applied under the Strategic Infrastructure Act for permission to develop a new €160 million container terminal at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy, but An Bord Pleanála refused permission last Friday following a 15-day oral hearing into the matter in April.
The board said that while it accepted the need to move port activities from Tivoli, it believed that the Ringaskiddy site did not have an adequate road network.
Mr Martin said the board's decision clearly highlighted the need for a return to rail in the years to come as a means of transporting freight in order to reduce CO2 emission.
"There were a lot of concerns among local residents and environmental groups in terms of the specific plans by the port.
"I think the port will have to take those concerns on board and they will have to consult more with people in the harbour before they come back again," he said.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The Port of Cork had applied under the Strategic Infrastructure Act for permission to develop a new €160 million container terminal at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy, but An Bord Pleanála refused permission last Friday following a 15-day oral hearing into the matter in April.
The board said that while it accepted the need to move port activities from Tivoli, it believed that the Ringaskiddy site did not have an adequate road network.
Mr Martin said the board's decision clearly highlighted the need for a return to rail in the years to come as a means of transporting freight in order to reduce CO2 emission.
"There were a lot of concerns among local residents and environmental groups in terms of the specific plans by the port.
"I think the port will have to take those concerns on board and they will have to consult more with people in the harbour before they come back again," he said.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Docklands redevelopment could face delays
PARTS of the multi-billion euro regeneration of Cork’s docklands could be delayed by the Ringaskiddy decision.
The relocation of the Port of Cork’s activities downstream from the city centre is crucial for the city to proceed with its transformation of the sprawling docklands region.
But An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse planning permission for the new container terminal at Oysterbank has thrown a spanner in the works.
It effectively prevents the port’s efforts to move activities from their Tivoli container terminal, which has reached capacity, downstream.
This will almost certainly have a knock-on effect on the scheduling of its relocation of the rest of its activities at the city centre quays.
It was unclear last night how the decision will impact on the time-scale.
But in the meantime, city council plans to develop a local area plan to guide future development of the Tivoli site will almost certainly be delayed.
The council has already drawn up two master plans — a north docks local area plan (LAP) and a south docks LAP — to guide development of the docklands.
The 166-hectare region with 4kms of waterfront has the capacity to accommodate a population of at least 15,000, and a working population of almost 20,000.
Up to 6,000 homes will be built, alongside more than 500,000sq m of office space, educational institutions, retail outlets as well as culture and leisure facilities.
Meanwhile, yesterday’s decision may strengthen the port company’s interest in the 114-acre former IFI site at Marino Point, facing Passage West.
Critically, that Marino Point site, which is currently for sale for €40 million, has a rail head, as well as deep water berth/jetty and road access.
The Marino Point lands went back up for sale in January of this year, with expressions of interest sought by March. However, no sale decision has yet been reached. It is largely owned by hotel and bars owner Hugh O’Regan, who paid about €25m for it four years ago.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The relocation of the Port of Cork’s activities downstream from the city centre is crucial for the city to proceed with its transformation of the sprawling docklands region.
But An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse planning permission for the new container terminal at Oysterbank has thrown a spanner in the works.
It effectively prevents the port’s efforts to move activities from their Tivoli container terminal, which has reached capacity, downstream.
This will almost certainly have a knock-on effect on the scheduling of its relocation of the rest of its activities at the city centre quays.
It was unclear last night how the decision will impact on the time-scale.
But in the meantime, city council plans to develop a local area plan to guide future development of the Tivoli site will almost certainly be delayed.
The council has already drawn up two master plans — a north docks local area plan (LAP) and a south docks LAP — to guide development of the docklands.
The 166-hectare region with 4kms of waterfront has the capacity to accommodate a population of at least 15,000, and a working population of almost 20,000.
Up to 6,000 homes will be built, alongside more than 500,000sq m of office space, educational institutions, retail outlets as well as culture and leisure facilities.
Meanwhile, yesterday’s decision may strengthen the port company’s interest in the 114-acre former IFI site at Marino Point, facing Passage West.
Critically, that Marino Point site, which is currently for sale for €40 million, has a rail head, as well as deep water berth/jetty and road access.
The Marino Point lands went back up for sale in January of this year, with expressions of interest sought by March. However, no sale decision has yet been reached. It is largely owned by hotel and bars owner Hugh O’Regan, who paid about €25m for it four years ago.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Port reconsiders terminal after €160m plan veto
THE Port of Cork is considering scaled down plans for a new container terminal after its plans for a €160 million super terminal were shot down.
The board of the port company met yesterday to discuss its options after An Bórd Pleanála refused planning permission for the proposed new facility at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy.
The project was one of the first processed through the State’s Strategic Infrastructure Bill system designed to fast-track large infrastructural projects.
But after considering its inspector’s report, compiled after a three-week oral hearing held in April, the board said the project should not go ahead because of poor road infrastructure and the complete lack of rail links.
It was the first project refused using the fast-track process. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Solicitor Joe Noonan, who represented the Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Agency, said residents are delighted their argument the project could never proceed on planning grounds was accepted.
Port chief executive Brendan Keating described the decision as a setback and said the port must be “vigorous and comprehensive with new proposals”.
“The Port of Cork is adamant the growth in trade needs to be facilitated by the port and the economy of the region is dependent upon the port’s infrastructure which must have the capacity to handle growing volumes of trade,” he said.
Cork Chamber president Joe Gantly said he was disappointed with the decision which he said will have a knock-on impact on wider economic development in the region. He called on the Government to invest in crucial transport links around the city.
His calls were backed by Fine Gael TD Deirdre Clune: “The idea that this development could have been approved without the N28 being first upgraded was always unlikely.
“The Taoiseach must now decide if the relocation of the Port of Cork is a government priority."
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The board of the port company met yesterday to discuss its options after An Bórd Pleanála refused planning permission for the proposed new facility at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy.
The project was one of the first processed through the State’s Strategic Infrastructure Bill system designed to fast-track large infrastructural projects.
But after considering its inspector’s report, compiled after a three-week oral hearing held in April, the board said the project should not go ahead because of poor road infrastructure and the complete lack of rail links.
It was the first project refused using the fast-track process. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Solicitor Joe Noonan, who represented the Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Agency, said residents are delighted their argument the project could never proceed on planning grounds was accepted.
Port chief executive Brendan Keating described the decision as a setback and said the port must be “vigorous and comprehensive with new proposals”.
“The Port of Cork is adamant the growth in trade needs to be facilitated by the port and the economy of the region is dependent upon the port’s infrastructure which must have the capacity to handle growing volumes of trade,” he said.
Cork Chamber president Joe Gantly said he was disappointed with the decision which he said will have a knock-on impact on wider economic development in the region. He called on the Government to invest in crucial transport links around the city.
His calls were backed by Fine Gael TD Deirdre Clune: “The idea that this development could have been approved without the N28 being first upgraded was always unlikely.
“The Taoiseach must now decide if the relocation of the Port of Cork is a government priority."
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Cork container terminal plan rejected
THE DECISION by An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission to the Port of Cork for a new €160 million container terminal was greeted with disappointment by the port, while local environmental campaigners hailed the decision as a vindication of the planning process.
The Port of Cork had applied to An Bord Pleanála under the Strategic Infrastructure Act for permission to develop the new terminal on a 37-hectare site at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy in the lower harbour to replace the existing container terminal at Tivoli.
An Bord Pleanála held an oral hearing into the application which ran for 15 days before its inspector Paul Caprani, but yesterday the board ruled that the proposal was contrary to proper planning for the area and refused the application.
The board said that while it accepted the need to move port activities from Tivoli Docks, it believed that the Ringaskiddy site was not adequately served by a road network capable of taking the extra traffic generated.
The proposal would result in much port-related traffic traversing the city road network and would exacerbate serious traffic congestion at strategic interchanges at Bloomfield, Dunkettle, Kinsale Road and the Jack Lynch Tunnel, said the board. Moving the container terminal to Ringaskiddy would also mean that it would be unable to use rail freight facilities and would therefore represent "a retrograde step" in sustainable transport planning, An Bord Pleanála ruled.
Port chief executive Brendan Keating said he was very disappointed with the decision but that the port would spend the next three months examining the decision and teasing out its implications for development.
"This is a setback and means that we must be vigorous and comprehensive with new proposals," said Mr Keating, adding the port would only look at seeking a judicial review of the board's decision as "a very last option".
Mr Keating said that the port will be able to continue operating at Tivoli up until 2012, but will face a serious challenge to cope with container traffic after that.
However, An Bord Pleanála's decision was welcomed by Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association which had objected to the proposal and pointed out that the National Roads Authority had indicated that it would be 2011 before it could start upgrading the N28 to Ringaskiddy.
The protection association's solicitor Joe Noonan said the port plan was a bad proposal - a view that was shared by Cork County Council, the Department of Defence and the coastal zone management unit at the marine department, he said.
"The real thing that's needed is a master plan for the harbour and Cork County Council is recognising that - a plan that would take into account all of the various interests around the harbour such as tourism, residential, leisure and industrial, including port-related activities," said Mr Noonan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The Port of Cork had applied to An Bord Pleanála under the Strategic Infrastructure Act for permission to develop the new terminal on a 37-hectare site at Oysterbank in Ringaskiddy in the lower harbour to replace the existing container terminal at Tivoli.
An Bord Pleanála held an oral hearing into the application which ran for 15 days before its inspector Paul Caprani, but yesterday the board ruled that the proposal was contrary to proper planning for the area and refused the application.
The board said that while it accepted the need to move port activities from Tivoli Docks, it believed that the Ringaskiddy site was not adequately served by a road network capable of taking the extra traffic generated.
The proposal would result in much port-related traffic traversing the city road network and would exacerbate serious traffic congestion at strategic interchanges at Bloomfield, Dunkettle, Kinsale Road and the Jack Lynch Tunnel, said the board. Moving the container terminal to Ringaskiddy would also mean that it would be unable to use rail freight facilities and would therefore represent "a retrograde step" in sustainable transport planning, An Bord Pleanála ruled.
Port chief executive Brendan Keating said he was very disappointed with the decision but that the port would spend the next three months examining the decision and teasing out its implications for development.
"This is a setback and means that we must be vigorous and comprehensive with new proposals," said Mr Keating, adding the port would only look at seeking a judicial review of the board's decision as "a very last option".
Mr Keating said that the port will be able to continue operating at Tivoli up until 2012, but will face a serious challenge to cope with container traffic after that.
However, An Bord Pleanála's decision was welcomed by Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association which had objected to the proposal and pointed out that the National Roads Authority had indicated that it would be 2011 before it could start upgrading the N28 to Ringaskiddy.
The protection association's solicitor Joe Noonan said the port plan was a bad proposal - a view that was shared by Cork County Council, the Department of Defence and the coastal zone management unit at the marine department, he said.
"The real thing that's needed is a master plan for the harbour and Cork County Council is recognising that - a plan that would take into account all of the various interests around the harbour such as tourism, residential, leisure and industrial, including port-related activities," said Mr Noonan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Rival ports under threat by terminal development
A NEW €226 million container terminal in Co Cork could affect the economic viability of ports in Waterford and Dublin, and result in traffic gridlock and more deaths on the roads.
These claims were made at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing yesterday by experts employed by the Port of Waterford, which is objecting to the Port of Cork’s plans to build a massive container terminal at the Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy.
Andrew Thurley, a director of economics at PricewaterhouseCoopers, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal’s large scale and planned capacity posed significant risks to other ports and could have “adverse socio-economic implications” on these ports’ hinterlands.
He added that the Ringaskiddy terminal could have over-capacity and could divert tonnage from other ports, potentially threatening the future viability of Dublin and Waterford ports in particular.
“The imminent opening of the improved N8 (Cork-Dublin road) will reduce onward distribution costs from Cork to Dublin, and improve the competitiveness of Cork port users in serving the Greater Dublin market,” Mr Thurley said.
This, he added, would allow the Port of Cork to expand its business catchment area.
Stephen Wood, an associate director of independent planning consultants Colin Buchanan, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal posed significant risks to proper planning and sustainable development.
In particular, he said there was considerable concern about the impacts of HGV traffic during the construction and operation of the container terminal.
Mr Wood claimed construction would involve one HGV per minute bringing in-fill to the Oyster Bank site.
Also, he said when operational the terminal would “clearly add to congestion at the Jack Lynch tunnel and Dunkettle roundabout.”
Mr Wood maintained that the terminal’s construction shouldn’t begin until the N28 is upgraded.
He also referred to the fact that the Port of Cork overlooked the possibility of locating the proposed new terminal at the old IFI site at Marino Point, an alternative harbour site, which could have a spur-line rail connection to the Cork-Cobh line.
“It would be quite unfortunate if An Bord Pleanála was to give the go-ahead to such a strategically important transport development, which effectively locks in dependency on road freight and locks out the possibility of rail freight,” Mr Wood added.
Hugh Chaplain, director of transport for Colin Buchanan, was also critical of the Port of Cork’s decision not to look at a location with a rail connection.
He said that between 1994 and 2004 the cost of injuries and fatalities involving road freight vehicles in this country exceeded €5 billion.
During that period a total of 1,036 fatalities and 13,618 injuries were recorded as a result of road freight accidents. No rail freight train casualties were recorded during the same period.
“The key issue for the planning inspector to consider in regard to rail freight, is whether it’s acceptable for a port facility to be granted planning when no serious consideration has been given to the long-term provision of rail access as an alternative to a road only solution,” Mr Chaplain said.
Cormac McTernan, a chartered town planner with Colin Buchanan, said the Port of Waterford — which is connected to the national rail network — demonstrated that rail freight transport can be viable in Ireland.
He added that the Government’s current consultation on Sustainable Travel and Transport suggests a policy shift in favour of using rail freight.
Mr McTernan also claimed the information within the Port of Cork’s Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Marino Point was inadequate in relation to fully assessing its suitability as a viable alternative to Ringaskiddy.
Independent objector Daniel Teegan, a property developer from Monkstown, claimed the Port of Cork wanted to make huge profits from redeveloping the Tivoli docks, and this was the “driving force” behind its plans to move operations to Ringaskiddy.
Mr Teegan said that if allowed proceed, the new container terminal would create “a hostile environment for local residents; a living nightmare in fact.”
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
These claims were made at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing yesterday by experts employed by the Port of Waterford, which is objecting to the Port of Cork’s plans to build a massive container terminal at the Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy.
Andrew Thurley, a director of economics at PricewaterhouseCoopers, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal’s large scale and planned capacity posed significant risks to other ports and could have “adverse socio-economic implications” on these ports’ hinterlands.
He added that the Ringaskiddy terminal could have over-capacity and could divert tonnage from other ports, potentially threatening the future viability of Dublin and Waterford ports in particular.
“The imminent opening of the improved N8 (Cork-Dublin road) will reduce onward distribution costs from Cork to Dublin, and improve the competitiveness of Cork port users in serving the Greater Dublin market,” Mr Thurley said.
This, he added, would allow the Port of Cork to expand its business catchment area.
Stephen Wood, an associate director of independent planning consultants Colin Buchanan, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal posed significant risks to proper planning and sustainable development.
In particular, he said there was considerable concern about the impacts of HGV traffic during the construction and operation of the container terminal.
Mr Wood claimed construction would involve one HGV per minute bringing in-fill to the Oyster Bank site.
Also, he said when operational the terminal would “clearly add to congestion at the Jack Lynch tunnel and Dunkettle roundabout.”
Mr Wood maintained that the terminal’s construction shouldn’t begin until the N28 is upgraded.
He also referred to the fact that the Port of Cork overlooked the possibility of locating the proposed new terminal at the old IFI site at Marino Point, an alternative harbour site, which could have a spur-line rail connection to the Cork-Cobh line.
“It would be quite unfortunate if An Bord Pleanála was to give the go-ahead to such a strategically important transport development, which effectively locks in dependency on road freight and locks out the possibility of rail freight,” Mr Wood added.
Hugh Chaplain, director of transport for Colin Buchanan, was also critical of the Port of Cork’s decision not to look at a location with a rail connection.
He said that between 1994 and 2004 the cost of injuries and fatalities involving road freight vehicles in this country exceeded €5 billion.
During that period a total of 1,036 fatalities and 13,618 injuries were recorded as a result of road freight accidents. No rail freight train casualties were recorded during the same period.
“The key issue for the planning inspector to consider in regard to rail freight, is whether it’s acceptable for a port facility to be granted planning when no serious consideration has been given to the long-term provision of rail access as an alternative to a road only solution,” Mr Chaplain said.
Cormac McTernan, a chartered town planner with Colin Buchanan, said the Port of Waterford — which is connected to the national rail network — demonstrated that rail freight transport can be viable in Ireland.
He added that the Government’s current consultation on Sustainable Travel and Transport suggests a policy shift in favour of using rail freight.
Mr McTernan also claimed the information within the Port of Cork’s Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Marino Point was inadequate in relation to fully assessing its suitability as a viable alternative to Ringaskiddy.
Independent objector Daniel Teegan, a property developer from Monkstown, claimed the Port of Cork wanted to make huge profits from redeveloping the Tivoli docks, and this was the “driving force” behind its plans to move operations to Ringaskiddy.
Mr Teegan said that if allowed proceed, the new container terminal would create “a hostile environment for local residents; a living nightmare in fact.”
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Rival ports under threat by terminal development
A NEW €226 million container terminal in Co Cork could affect the economic viability of ports in Waterford and Dublin, and result in traffic gridlock and more deaths on the roads.
These claims were made at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing yesterday by experts employed by the Port of Waterford, which is objecting to the Port of Cork’s plans to build a massive container terminal at the Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy.
Andrew Thurley, a director of economics at PricewaterhouseCoopers, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal’s large scale and planned capacity posed significant risks to other ports and could have “adverse socio-economic implications” on these ports’ hinterlands.
He added that the Ringaskiddy terminal could have over-capacity and could divert tonnage from other ports, potentially threatening the future viability of Dublin and Waterford ports in particular.
“The imminent opening of the improved N8 (Cork-Dublin road) will reduce onward distribution costs from Cork to Dublin, and improve the competitiveness of Cork port users in serving the Greater Dublin market,” Mr Thurley said.
This, he added, would allow the Port of Cork to expand its business catchment area.
Stephen Wood, an associate director of independent planning consultants Colin Buchanan, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal posed significant risks to proper planning and sustainable development.
In particular, he said there was considerable concern about the impacts of HGV traffic during the construction and operation of the container terminal.
Mr Wood claimed construction would involve one HGV per minute bringing in-fill to the Oyster Bank site.
Also, he said when operational the terminal would “clearly add to congestion at the Jack Lynch tunnel and Dunkettle roundabout.”
Mr Wood maintained that the terminal’s construction shouldn’t begin until the N28 is upgraded.
He also referred to the fact that the Port of Cork overlooked the possibility of locating the proposed new terminal at the old IFI site at Marino Point, an alternative harbour site, which could have a spur-line rail connection to the Cork-Cobh line.
“It would be quite unfortunate if An Bord Pleanála was to give the go-ahead to such a strategically important transport development, which effectively locks in dependency on road freight and locks out the possibility of rail freight,” Mr Wood added.
Hugh Chaplain, director of transport for Colin Buchanan, was also critical of the Port of Cork’s decision not to look at a location with a rail connection.
He said that between 1994 and 2004 the cost of injuries and fatalities involving road freight vehicles in this country exceeded €5 billion.
During that period a total of 1,036 fatalities and 13,618 injuries were recorded as a result of road freight accidents. No rail freight train casualties were recorded during the same period.
“The key issue for the planning inspector to consider in regard to rail freight, is whether it’s acceptable for a port facility to be granted planning when no serious consideration has been given to the long-term provision of rail access as an alternative to a road only solution,” Mr Chaplain said.
Cormac McTernan, a chartered town planner with Colin Buchanan, said the Port of Waterford — which is connected to the national rail network — demonstrated that rail freight transport can be viable in Ireland.
He added that the Government’s current consultation on Sustainable Travel and Transport suggests a policy shift in favour of using rail freight.
Mr McTernan also claimed the information within the Port of Cork’s Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Marino Point was inadequate in relation to fully assessing its suitability as a viable alternative to Ringaskiddy.
Independent objector Daniel Teegan, a property developer from Monkstown, claimed the Port of Cork wanted to make huge profits from redeveloping the Tivoli docks, and this was the “driving force” behind its plans to move operations to Ringaskiddy.
Mr Teegan said that if allowed proceed, the new container terminal would create “a hostile environment for local residents; a living nightmare in fact.”
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
These claims were made at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing yesterday by experts employed by the Port of Waterford, which is objecting to the Port of Cork’s plans to build a massive container terminal at the Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy.
Andrew Thurley, a director of economics at PricewaterhouseCoopers, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal’s large scale and planned capacity posed significant risks to other ports and could have “adverse socio-economic implications” on these ports’ hinterlands.
He added that the Ringaskiddy terminal could have over-capacity and could divert tonnage from other ports, potentially threatening the future viability of Dublin and Waterford ports in particular.
“The imminent opening of the improved N8 (Cork-Dublin road) will reduce onward distribution costs from Cork to Dublin, and improve the competitiveness of Cork port users in serving the Greater Dublin market,” Mr Thurley said.
This, he added, would allow the Port of Cork to expand its business catchment area.
Stephen Wood, an associate director of independent planning consultants Colin Buchanan, claimed the Ringaskiddy terminal posed significant risks to proper planning and sustainable development.
In particular, he said there was considerable concern about the impacts of HGV traffic during the construction and operation of the container terminal.
Mr Wood claimed construction would involve one HGV per minute bringing in-fill to the Oyster Bank site.
Also, he said when operational the terminal would “clearly add to congestion at the Jack Lynch tunnel and Dunkettle roundabout.”
Mr Wood maintained that the terminal’s construction shouldn’t begin until the N28 is upgraded.
He also referred to the fact that the Port of Cork overlooked the possibility of locating the proposed new terminal at the old IFI site at Marino Point, an alternative harbour site, which could have a spur-line rail connection to the Cork-Cobh line.
“It would be quite unfortunate if An Bord Pleanála was to give the go-ahead to such a strategically important transport development, which effectively locks in dependency on road freight and locks out the possibility of rail freight,” Mr Wood added.
Hugh Chaplain, director of transport for Colin Buchanan, was also critical of the Port of Cork’s decision not to look at a location with a rail connection.
He said that between 1994 and 2004 the cost of injuries and fatalities involving road freight vehicles in this country exceeded €5 billion.
During that period a total of 1,036 fatalities and 13,618 injuries were recorded as a result of road freight accidents. No rail freight train casualties were recorded during the same period.
“The key issue for the planning inspector to consider in regard to rail freight, is whether it’s acceptable for a port facility to be granted planning when no serious consideration has been given to the long-term provision of rail access as an alternative to a road only solution,” Mr Chaplain said.
Cormac McTernan, a chartered town planner with Colin Buchanan, said the Port of Waterford — which is connected to the national rail network — demonstrated that rail freight transport can be viable in Ireland.
He added that the Government’s current consultation on Sustainable Travel and Transport suggests a policy shift in favour of using rail freight.
Mr McTernan also claimed the information within the Port of Cork’s Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Marino Point was inadequate in relation to fully assessing its suitability as a viable alternative to Ringaskiddy.
Independent objector Daniel Teegan, a property developer from Monkstown, claimed the Port of Cork wanted to make huge profits from redeveloping the Tivoli docks, and this was the “driving force” behind its plans to move operations to Ringaskiddy.
Mr Teegan said that if allowed proceed, the new container terminal would create “a hostile environment for local residents; a living nightmare in fact.”
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Waterford objection to Cork port plan 'anti-competitive'
AN OBJECTION by the Port of Waterford to plans by the Port of Cork to build a €226 million cargo terminal at Ringaskiddy has been described as "deeply flawed in substance and anti-competitive in its motivation".
The submission made to An Bord Pleanála by the Port of Waterford - on grounds that ample port capacity already exists in Ireland - has caused a deep rift between the two port companies.
On the first day of the oral hearing into the proposed development at Ringaskiddy yesterday, the chief executive of the Port of Cork, Brendan Keating, said the objection by the Port of Waterford was to be regretted.
More than 500 submissions have been received by the planning appeals board in relation to the plans by the Port of Cork to relocate its city operations to the Oyster Bank. The oral hearing is expected to take up to three weeks.
In his opening statement, David Holland SC, for the Port of Cork, said the reason for the proposed development was simple. The port's existing container terminal at Tivoli would shortly exceed its capacity - not merely for want of land but because of severe limitations on the size and number of ships that could dock there.
He accused the Port of Waterford of having abandoned the "traditional and proper co-operation and respect between competing nationally-important ports".
Joe Noonan, solicitor for Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association, expressed his concern that the National Roads Authority and Health and Safety Authority would not be attending the hearing. He asked the hearing inspector, Paul Caprani, that they be directed to attend and answer questions.
Environmental officer with Fáilte Ireland Mary Stack said they wanted the hearing to consider the potential negative impact of the proposed development in relation to visual amenity, future navigability and water quality. In a statement yesterday, the Port of Waterford said it believed that what was proposed by the Port of Cork was "unwarranted and unnecessary in a context where ample port capacity exists on the island of Ireland".
"We further contend that the application made by Port of Cork is ill-conceived, unviable and unsustainable."
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The submission made to An Bord Pleanála by the Port of Waterford - on grounds that ample port capacity already exists in Ireland - has caused a deep rift between the two port companies.
On the first day of the oral hearing into the proposed development at Ringaskiddy yesterday, the chief executive of the Port of Cork, Brendan Keating, said the objection by the Port of Waterford was to be regretted.
More than 500 submissions have been received by the planning appeals board in relation to the plans by the Port of Cork to relocate its city operations to the Oyster Bank. The oral hearing is expected to take up to three weeks.
In his opening statement, David Holland SC, for the Port of Cork, said the reason for the proposed development was simple. The port's existing container terminal at Tivoli would shortly exceed its capacity - not merely for want of land but because of severe limitations on the size and number of ships that could dock there.
He accused the Port of Waterford of having abandoned the "traditional and proper co-operation and respect between competing nationally-important ports".
Joe Noonan, solicitor for Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association, expressed his concern that the National Roads Authority and Health and Safety Authority would not be attending the hearing. He asked the hearing inspector, Paul Caprani, that they be directed to attend and answer questions.
Environmental officer with Fáilte Ireland Mary Stack said they wanted the hearing to consider the potential negative impact of the proposed development in relation to visual amenity, future navigability and water quality. In a statement yesterday, the Port of Waterford said it believed that what was proposed by the Port of Cork was "unwarranted and unnecessary in a context where ample port capacity exists on the island of Ireland".
"We further contend that the application made by Port of Cork is ill-conceived, unviable and unsustainable."
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Cork Port claims rival objections are flawed
THE Port of Cork yesterday rubbished a rival port’s objection to its plans to build a €226 million container and cargo terminal at Ringaskiddy in Co Cork.
Port of Cork chief executive Brendan Keating described the Port of Waterford’s objection as “deeply flawed in substance” and “anti-competitive in its motivation”.
Mr Keating made the comments during his submission on the opening day of An Bord Pleanála’s oral hearing into the infrastructure project.
The proposal involves the development of a new container terminal and multi-purpose roll-on/ roll-off berth on 37 hectares at Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy. The proposal includes plans to reclaim 18 hectares.
The Port of Waterford confirmed yesterday that it had lodged an objection against the project in January.
“The Port of Waterford is of the firm view that what is proposed is unwarranted and unnecessary in a context where ample port capacity exists on the island of Ireland,” a spokesman said.
“We further contend that the application made by Port of Cork is ill-conceived, unviable and unsustainable.”
But Mr Keating said the submission is to be regretted, and pointed out errors in the figures.
He said Waterford claimed Cork handled 970,000 containers in 2006. The figure was actually 184,000 units with 4,410 roll-on roll-off freight units, he said.
“This significant errorundermines many of thearguments in the submission,” he added.
He also claimed Waterford had failed to take account of recent reports on capacity prepared by the IrishExporters Association and IBEC.
He said capacity at Cork was not keeping pace with growth, forcing it to turn business away, especially at weekends.
The new facility at Oyster Bank is crucial for Cork, the local region and for the nation, he said.
David Holland, SC for the Port of Cork, accused the Port of Waterford of having abandoned the traditional and proper co-operation and respect between competing nationally important ports to make an unprecedented submission.
He said the Port of Cork and its expert advisers are of the view that the proposed development will notinvolve any unacceptable environmental damage, is a development of national importance and will constitute a signal contribution to the well-being of Cork, the south-west and mid-west.
If this project does not proceed, it will damage the future economic development, he said.
In his opening address, board inspector Paul Caprani said the National Roads Authority and the Health and Safety Authority had both turned down his request to attend the hearing.
Joe Noonan, solicitor for Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association (CHEPA), said he was concerned by this development and requested that both organisations be directed to attend and answer questions.
Mr Caprani said he would consider the issue later.
Speaking afterwards, CHEPA chairman and Mayor of Passage West, Cllr Dominick Donnelly, urged the board to use its statutory powers to force the NRA to attend.
Environmental officer with Fáilte Ireland Mary Stack told the hearing her organisation wanted the hearing to consider thepotentially negative impact of the proposed development in relation to visual amenity, future navigability and water quality for theviability of tourism amenities in the harbour area.
More than 500 submissions have been received by the planning appeals board in relation to the project.
The hearing continues today when the Port of Cork’s engineering experts are expected to justify the project’s massive reclamation and dredging operation.
The hearing is expected to take up to three weeks and a decision is due in early June.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Port of Cork chief executive Brendan Keating described the Port of Waterford’s objection as “deeply flawed in substance” and “anti-competitive in its motivation”.
Mr Keating made the comments during his submission on the opening day of An Bord Pleanála’s oral hearing into the infrastructure project.
The proposal involves the development of a new container terminal and multi-purpose roll-on/ roll-off berth on 37 hectares at Oyster Bank, Ringaskiddy. The proposal includes plans to reclaim 18 hectares.
The Port of Waterford confirmed yesterday that it had lodged an objection against the project in January.
“The Port of Waterford is of the firm view that what is proposed is unwarranted and unnecessary in a context where ample port capacity exists on the island of Ireland,” a spokesman said.
“We further contend that the application made by Port of Cork is ill-conceived, unviable and unsustainable.”
But Mr Keating said the submission is to be regretted, and pointed out errors in the figures.
He said Waterford claimed Cork handled 970,000 containers in 2006. The figure was actually 184,000 units with 4,410 roll-on roll-off freight units, he said.
“This significant errorundermines many of thearguments in the submission,” he added.
He also claimed Waterford had failed to take account of recent reports on capacity prepared by the IrishExporters Association and IBEC.
He said capacity at Cork was not keeping pace with growth, forcing it to turn business away, especially at weekends.
The new facility at Oyster Bank is crucial for Cork, the local region and for the nation, he said.
David Holland, SC for the Port of Cork, accused the Port of Waterford of having abandoned the traditional and proper co-operation and respect between competing nationally important ports to make an unprecedented submission.
He said the Port of Cork and its expert advisers are of the view that the proposed development will notinvolve any unacceptable environmental damage, is a development of national importance and will constitute a signal contribution to the well-being of Cork, the south-west and mid-west.
If this project does not proceed, it will damage the future economic development, he said.
In his opening address, board inspector Paul Caprani said the National Roads Authority and the Health and Safety Authority had both turned down his request to attend the hearing.
Joe Noonan, solicitor for Cork Harbour Environmental Protection Association (CHEPA), said he was concerned by this development and requested that both organisations be directed to attend and answer questions.
Mr Caprani said he would consider the issue later.
Speaking afterwards, CHEPA chairman and Mayor of Passage West, Cllr Dominick Donnelly, urged the board to use its statutory powers to force the NRA to attend.
Environmental officer with Fáilte Ireland Mary Stack told the hearing her organisation wanted the hearing to consider thepotentially negative impact of the proposed development in relation to visual amenity, future navigability and water quality for theviability of tourism amenities in the harbour area.
More than 500 submissions have been received by the planning appeals board in relation to the project.
The hearing continues today when the Port of Cork’s engineering experts are expected to justify the project’s massive reclamation and dredging operation.
The hearing is expected to take up to three weeks and a decision is due in early June.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)