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.
The extension, described by a spokesman for the Minister as "one of the biggest nature protection initiatives" in a decade, will almost certainly put an end to the Dublin Port Company's long-standing plans for a further infill of 52 acres to expand the port's capacity. The original Dublin Bay Special Protection Area was designated in 1999, but from the outset there have been complaints that the area it covered was too small and did not include key areas close to Dublin Port in the Tolka estuary - following representations from the port.
When the draft designation was first advertised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the port company objected to the inclusion of the area it had earmarked for expansion.
A "mapping error" was admitted, and this area was not included in the final map.
The European Commission subsequently initiated legal action against Ireland and other EU member states in the European Court of Justice for allegedly not making sufficient progress in meeting the requirements of the EU Birds Directive.
The commission's case was based on a number of instances where Special Protection Area designations should have been put in place on the basis of the scientific evidence, but were not. One of these was the area proposed for development by the Dublin Port Company.
The judgment of the court, handed down last December, confirmed that Ireland was required to extend the earlier special area designation in Dublin Bay to include this area. Failure to do so could lead to a massive penalty and daily fines being imposed.
Since then, the Department of the Environment has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Dublin Bay special area and the Minister has approved a significant increase in the size of the area from 1,700 hectares to 2,190 hectares, including the area omitted in 1999.
Dublin Bay is of considerable ecological importance and is recognised as being so by the designation of substantial portions of its area under national and EU legislation and also under wider- ranging international agreements, such as the UN Biosphere Reserve on Bull Island.
In discussions with the European Commission, Ireland has already agreed to redesignate all previously designated special protection areas, ensuring that they are given full protection and formally notifying owners/users of specific "notifiable activities" that require Ministerial consent.
In the case of Dublin Bay, a process of consultation with interested bodies has commenced with a view to ensuring that all development proposals are properly assessed to avoid any adverse impact on the populations of protected bird species in the bay.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label dublin bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dublin bay. Show all posts
Monday, 28 April 2008
Dublin Bay bird protection extended
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.
The extension, described by a spokesman for the Minister as "one of the biggest nature protection initiatives" in a decade, will almost certainly put an end to the Dublin Port Company's long-standing plans for a further infill of 52 acres to expand the port's capacity. The original Dublin Bay Special Protection Area was designated in 1999, but from the outset there have been complaints that the area it covered was too small and did not include key areas close to Dublin Port in the Tolka estuary - following representations from the port.
When the draft designation was first advertised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the port company objected to the inclusion of the area it had earmarked for expansion.
A "mapping error" was admitted, and this area was not included in the final map.
The European Commission subsequently initiated legal action against Ireland and other EU member states in the European Court of Justice for allegedly not making sufficient progress in meeting the requirements of the EU Birds Directive.
The commission's case was based on a number of instances where Special Protection Area designations should have been put in place on the basis of the scientific evidence, but were not. One of these was the area proposed for development by the Dublin Port Company.
The judgment of the court, handed down last December, confirmed that Ireland was required to extend the earlier special area designation in Dublin Bay to include this area. Failure to do so could lead to a massive penalty and daily fines being imposed.
Since then, the Department of the Environment has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Dublin Bay special area and the Minister has approved a significant increase in the size of the area from 1,700 hectares to 2,190 hectares, including the area omitted in 1999.
Dublin Bay is of considerable ecological importance and is recognised as being so by the designation of substantial portions of its area under national and EU legislation and also under wider- ranging international agreements, such as the UN Biosphere Reserve on Bull Island.
In discussions with the European Commission, Ireland has already agreed to redesignate all previously designated special protection areas, ensuring that they are given full protection and formally notifying owners/users of specific "notifiable activities" that require Ministerial consent.
In the case of Dublin Bay, a process of consultation with interested bodies has commenced with a view to ensuring that all development proposals are properly assessed to avoid any adverse impact on the populations of protected bird species in the bay.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The extension, described by a spokesman for the Minister as "one of the biggest nature protection initiatives" in a decade, will almost certainly put an end to the Dublin Port Company's long-standing plans for a further infill of 52 acres to expand the port's capacity. The original Dublin Bay Special Protection Area was designated in 1999, but from the outset there have been complaints that the area it covered was too small and did not include key areas close to Dublin Port in the Tolka estuary - following representations from the port.
When the draft designation was first advertised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the port company objected to the inclusion of the area it had earmarked for expansion.
A "mapping error" was admitted, and this area was not included in the final map.
The European Commission subsequently initiated legal action against Ireland and other EU member states in the European Court of Justice for allegedly not making sufficient progress in meeting the requirements of the EU Birds Directive.
The commission's case was based on a number of instances where Special Protection Area designations should have been put in place on the basis of the scientific evidence, but were not. One of these was the area proposed for development by the Dublin Port Company.
The judgment of the court, handed down last December, confirmed that Ireland was required to extend the earlier special area designation in Dublin Bay to include this area. Failure to do so could lead to a massive penalty and daily fines being imposed.
Since then, the Department of the Environment has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Dublin Bay special area and the Minister has approved a significant increase in the size of the area from 1,700 hectares to 2,190 hectares, including the area omitted in 1999.
Dublin Bay is of considerable ecological importance and is recognised as being so by the designation of substantial portions of its area under national and EU legislation and also under wider- ranging international agreements, such as the UN Biosphere Reserve on Bull Island.
In discussions with the European Commission, Ireland has already agreed to redesignate all previously designated special protection areas, ensuring that they are given full protection and formally notifying owners/users of specific "notifiable activities" that require Ministerial consent.
In the case of Dublin Bay, a process of consultation with interested bodies has commenced with a view to ensuring that all development proposals are properly assessed to avoid any adverse impact on the populations of protected bird species in the bay.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Plan to move Dublin Port meets wide approval
THREE-QUARTERS of respondents to a Dublin City Council study on the future of Dublin Bay have said that they want Dublin Port moved out of the city to an alternative location on the east coast, while just over 6 per cent said that the port should stay.
Some 400 submissions were made to the council on its plan, which proposed relocation of the port and development of a new "city quarter" on port lands.
The plan, which also considers the environmental issues surrounding the future of the bay, was released to public consultation last year. The report on the submissions received has now been published by the council.
The report, by consultants CDM, found that the "overwhelming majority" of respondents favoured relocating the port. The following were suggested as possible locations: Drogheda, Co Louth; Bremore near Balbriggan in north Co Dublin; Greenore, Co Louth; and Arklow, Co Wicklow.
Just 26 respondents were against moving the port. Of these, 20 were members of the public or residents' associations, and two were yacht/boat clubs. The remaining objectors were Dublin Port Company (DPC), Ecocem (a tenant on port lands), Tommy Broughan, Labour's transport and marine spokesman, Labour TD Ruairí Quinn and Fianna Fáil senator Ivor Callely.
The report is critical of the port company's response to the study. It says that while the company commissioned several reports in response to it, "very few new facts were presented" and the potential benefits put forward were not addressed by the submission.
The report also notes that the port company claimed an identical-sized land bank to what it currently owns in Dublin Bay would need to be acquired before the port could be relocated.
In its submission, Dublin Port Company said that moving would increase travel times and costs and would damage Ireland's attractiveness as a business location. The Harbours Act 1946 stated that the DPC had the right to revoke property rights given to tenants only if the land was needed for port-related uses, it said. It claimed that the €750 million spent on the Dublin Port Tunnel would be largely wasted if it was not used by port traffic.
The council's study said that relocation of the port would be the best option for the future of the area in terms of housing and social needs, the local and national economy and the environment. Relocation would also be the best option for the efficiency of port operations and for the growth of its market in exports and imports.
Under the relocation proposal almost 260 hectares of port land would be redeveloped, providing 28,000 new housing units, 1.19 million sq m (12.8 million sq ft) of office space and 300,000 sq m (3.23 million sq ft) of retail space. The entire project would be completed in 25 years.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Some 400 submissions were made to the council on its plan, which proposed relocation of the port and development of a new "city quarter" on port lands.
The plan, which also considers the environmental issues surrounding the future of the bay, was released to public consultation last year. The report on the submissions received has now been published by the council.
The report, by consultants CDM, found that the "overwhelming majority" of respondents favoured relocating the port. The following were suggested as possible locations: Drogheda, Co Louth; Bremore near Balbriggan in north Co Dublin; Greenore, Co Louth; and Arklow, Co Wicklow.
Just 26 respondents were against moving the port. Of these, 20 were members of the public or residents' associations, and two were yacht/boat clubs. The remaining objectors were Dublin Port Company (DPC), Ecocem (a tenant on port lands), Tommy Broughan, Labour's transport and marine spokesman, Labour TD Ruairí Quinn and Fianna Fáil senator Ivor Callely.
The report is critical of the port company's response to the study. It says that while the company commissioned several reports in response to it, "very few new facts were presented" and the potential benefits put forward were not addressed by the submission.
The report also notes that the port company claimed an identical-sized land bank to what it currently owns in Dublin Bay would need to be acquired before the port could be relocated.
In its submission, Dublin Port Company said that moving would increase travel times and costs and would damage Ireland's attractiveness as a business location. The Harbours Act 1946 stated that the DPC had the right to revoke property rights given to tenants only if the land was needed for port-related uses, it said. It claimed that the €750 million spent on the Dublin Port Tunnel would be largely wasted if it was not used by port traffic.
The council's study said that relocation of the port would be the best option for the future of the area in terms of housing and social needs, the local and national economy and the environment. Relocation would also be the best option for the efficiency of port operations and for the growth of its market in exports and imports.
Under the relocation proposal almost 260 hectares of port land would be redeveloped, providing 28,000 new housing units, 1.19 million sq m (12.8 million sq ft) of office space and 300,000 sq m (3.23 million sq ft) of retail space. The entire project would be completed in 25 years.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 8 June 2007
Incinerator will cost public ‘up to €33m a year’
CARBON dioxide emissions from a planned incinerator on Dublin Bay will cost the taxpayer up to €33 million annually, it was claimed yesterday.
At the final day of oral hearings at An Bord Pleanála’s headquarters on the planned incinerator at Poolbeg, an expert warned of potential financial, environmental and health costs.
Local resident and scientist Joe McCarthy objected to the 15-acre incinerator site, criticising submissions by its planned operators, Dublin City Council.
He said the projected output of three quarters of a million tonnes of CO2 annually would leave a bill of between €13.3m and €33.35m to foot the planned carbon credits under the environmental Kyoto Pact.
In addition, Mr McCarthy told inspector Padraic Thornton hearing the case that landfill was a better option to dispose of Dublin’s waste.
Using incineration would be six times worse for carbon emissions than landfill, the hearing heard. Over 25 years, the incinerator would produce 17.3 million tonnes of CO2, while landfill would only result in 3 million, said Mr McCarthy.
Submissions by DCC’s own expert witness Dr Edward Porter were “confusing” and his theories on the Poolbeg site were also inconsistent with international research, claimed Mr McCarthy.
But DCC disagreed and stood over its claim the planned waste disposal facility is better from a climate perspective than landfilling alone or landfilling combined with anaerobic digestion.
Both Dr Porter and Mr McCarthy disagreed fundamentally on the make-up of the carbon emissions and the electricity credit or production from the incinerator.
The planned opening of the incinerator is 2012. It could handle up to 600,000 tonnes of household and non-hazardous waste, taking in 25% of the city’s refuse.
Speaking after the hearing, the objecting scientist added: “Two thirds of a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, that’s a huge impact on the current climate problem. But also the issue of health. It will spew out 1,000 different compounds but we won’t know what they are because it’s whatever you put in your bin.”
On top of the carbon credit emission costs, the transport of rubbish to the incinerator is expected to cost €88 a tonne, say objecting residents in Ringsend and Irishtown, who have warned of inevitable traffic chaos.
“Incineration costs more than landfill and it’s worse for the environment, and it has a terrible effect on your health,” claimed the expert.
Officials with An Bord Pleanála say it will take some time to consider the nearly 3,000 objections made about the incinerator and expect a decision to be announced in the autumn.
Irish Examiner
At the final day of oral hearings at An Bord Pleanála’s headquarters on the planned incinerator at Poolbeg, an expert warned of potential financial, environmental and health costs.
Local resident and scientist Joe McCarthy objected to the 15-acre incinerator site, criticising submissions by its planned operators, Dublin City Council.
He said the projected output of three quarters of a million tonnes of CO2 annually would leave a bill of between €13.3m and €33.35m to foot the planned carbon credits under the environmental Kyoto Pact.
In addition, Mr McCarthy told inspector Padraic Thornton hearing the case that landfill was a better option to dispose of Dublin’s waste.
Using incineration would be six times worse for carbon emissions than landfill, the hearing heard. Over 25 years, the incinerator would produce 17.3 million tonnes of CO2, while landfill would only result in 3 million, said Mr McCarthy.
Submissions by DCC’s own expert witness Dr Edward Porter were “confusing” and his theories on the Poolbeg site were also inconsistent with international research, claimed Mr McCarthy.
But DCC disagreed and stood over its claim the planned waste disposal facility is better from a climate perspective than landfilling alone or landfilling combined with anaerobic digestion.
Both Dr Porter and Mr McCarthy disagreed fundamentally on the make-up of the carbon emissions and the electricity credit or production from the incinerator.
The planned opening of the incinerator is 2012. It could handle up to 600,000 tonnes of household and non-hazardous waste, taking in 25% of the city’s refuse.
Speaking after the hearing, the objecting scientist added: “Two thirds of a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, that’s a huge impact on the current climate problem. But also the issue of health. It will spew out 1,000 different compounds but we won’t know what they are because it’s whatever you put in your bin.”
On top of the carbon credit emission costs, the transport of rubbish to the incinerator is expected to cost €88 a tonne, say objecting residents in Ringsend and Irishtown, who have warned of inevitable traffic chaos.
“Incineration costs more than landfill and it’s worse for the environment, and it has a terrible effect on your health,” claimed the expert.
Officials with An Bord Pleanála say it will take some time to consider the nearly 3,000 objections made about the incinerator and expect a decision to be announced in the autumn.
Irish Examiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)