Minster for the Environment John Gormley said he plans to appoint an authorised officer to examine the detail of the contract for the controversial Poolbeg incinerator in Dublin.
Mr Gormley said he wanted to be clear on the contingent liabilities contained in the contract.
Dublin City Council, which is involved in the joint venture, has committed itself to supplying a minimum of 320,000 tonnes of municipal waste annually to the Covanta consortium, which is building the plant. If the council is unable to meet this target it must pay a fee for every tonne of waste below the agreed level.
Mr Gormley was also critical of a report published today by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) which claims his policy on waste incineration has “no underlying rationale” and is likely to impose “needless costs on the economy”.
Mr Gormley said on RTÉ’s News at One that it appeared the ERSI was allowing itself be used as part of a public relations campaign.
He said: “There are one or two aspects of the report which are helpful but I do regret that they have been drawn into what is clearly a public relations campaign on behalf of Dublin City Council and Covanta and it is no coincidence that the report was released today and it is simply to undermine Government waste policy.
"Certainly in my time in public life, I’ve never come across anything like this where ESRI is used in that way and I think they departed from their normal standards in that regard.”
The report, commissioned by Dublin City Council, says the Minister’s policy of setting a cap of 30 per cent on the incineration of municipal waste could damage Ireland’s reputation as a place to do business and “will thus harm economic development and competitiveness”.
The report, An Economic Approach to Municipal Waste Management Policy in Ireland says the cap on incineration “may well be effective”. It would result in more waste being diverted to landfill, thereby making it “much harder and more costly” to comply with the EU landfill directive.
“Arbitrary limits on incineration and consequent expansion of MBT [mechanical and biological treatment] have no place in waste management policy,” it says, disputing Mr Gormley’s contention that his new policy would create jobs and improve competitiveness.
Mr Gormley denied there was anything arbitrary about the figures.
He said: “First of all there was a comprehensive international review conducted by the very best economists, engineers, environmental experts from five different countries.
“Likewise a Section 60 [policy direction document] was commissioned and an SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) was done, again another 200 page document looking at it in detail.
“There’s nothing at all arbitrary about this.”
And Mr Gormley defended his approach saying MBT "has to be the cornerstone of waste policy in this country".
The ESRI report also claims that the recent international review of waste management practice – carried out for the Minister by consultants Eunomia – was “severely flawed” in setting its recommended levies for residual waste.
However, Dr Dominic Hogg lead author of Eunomia’s review said this afternoon that the ESRI report features a number of “factual errors” and “misplaced assumptions”.
“If ESRI were to correct the errors they have made, they would reach similar conclusions to those of our international expert team,” Dr Hogg said.
Earlier today the European president of Covanta, the US company planning to build the controversial Poolbeg incinerator in Dublin, defended its plans to provide capacity for treating 600,000 tonnes of municipal waste annually.
At a press briefing in Dublin this morning Scott Whitney, president of Covanta Energy in Europe, said he was confident there was sufficient waste available in Dublin to fuel the incinerator, which is known as a waste-to-energy plant.
Dublin City Council, which is involved in the joint venture, has committed itself to supplying a minimum of 320,000 tonnes of municipal waste annually to the Covanta consortium. Mr Whitney described this as “part of the financial underpinning of the project”.
Asked by The Irish Times whether Covanta was currently seeking contracts for the supply of waste from outside the Dublin region, Mr Whitney said the company was involved in talks with a number of suppliers and these talks were confidential. He declined to say if the talks included suppliers based outside of Dublin.
A spokesman for the Irish Waste Management Organisation, which has belatedly come out against the Poolbeg project, said it was his understanding that some of the suppliers involved in the talks were based in Co Wexford and Co Waterford.
Asked about Mr Gormley’s expressed wish that the size of the plant planned for Poolbeg, which is costed at €350 million, should be reduced to between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes, Mr Whitney pointed out that the Government had a responsibility to meet the terms of the EU Landfill Directive and he did not think this could be done without “utilising the full capacity of the facility we are planning”.
Preliminary construction has started on the site. Covanta says the three-year project will provide 500 buildings jobs and around 60 full-time positions once completed.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Principle of proportion integrated into judicial reviews
The recent Supreme Court judgment on judicial review means an applicant's fundamental rights must be considered if they are at stake in the decision, writes CAROL COULTER
ASYLUM JUDICIAL reviews have come to dominate the judicial review list, with 785 such cases in 2008, down from 1,024 cases the previous year.
Though preliminary figures for 2009 indicate a further slight fall, it is understandable that there would be concern that any relaxation of the test for admitting judicial reviews would increase these numbers.
This fear was expressed by the two judges who gave minority judgments in the recent Abosede Aunwatoyn Meadows case.
Mr Justice Hardiman and Mr Justice Kearns stated that the existing test for leave to take judicial review proceedings, as outlined in O'Keeffe -v- An Bord Pleanála , should not be modified.
The majority - the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Murray, Mrs Justice Denham and Mr Justice Fennelly - granted Ms Meadows leave to judicially review the Minister's decision, but found this to be compatible with the O'Keeffe judgment.
The Nigerian applicant had challenged a High Court refusal to grant leave for judicial review of a deportation order made after her asylum application had been refused both by the Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The two decision-making bodies, ORAC and the RAT, had concluded that she had not established a credible connection between her circumstances and the threat of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Their decisions had not been challenged, though the decisions of both bodies frequently are the subject of judicial review.
She had then sought leave to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds, arguing her rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition on torture) were under threat, and that she was at risk of serious assault - FGM - were she to be returned to Nigeria.
She had submitted extensive additional material on incidence of FGM in Nigeria to the Minister for Justice in support of her application to remain on humanitarian grounds.
This argument is separate from an asylum application, where under Section 5 of the 1996 Refugee Act (prohibition of refoulement), a person may be allowed to remain in the State even if they do not qualify for recognition as a refugee if there is a risk to their life or freedom on a number of specified grounds, or a risk of serious assault.
In rejecting her application, the Minister stated that the provisions of Section 5 had been complied with. He did not respond specifically to the material she had submitted, or her claim to be personally under threat.
In challenging the deportation order, her counsel argued that the "anxious scrutiny" test adopted in England should be applied. In a number of English cases since 1987 it was argued successfully that there should be enhanced scrutiny of administrative decisions that impacted on a person's rights, beyond the existing test of "unreasonableness".
Mr Justice Hardiman considered that this would introduce a two-tier standard for judicial reviews, one for cases thought to involve constitutional or other fundamental rights, and a higher or more demanding one for those which did not, where the "unreasonableness" of the decision would have to be established.
He rejected the applicability of "proportionality" to judicial review of a decision of this kind, though he acknowledged it was appropriate to determining whether a statutory provision was compatible with the Constitution. He also rejected the argument that the Minister was required to give detailed reasons for his decision.
Giving one of the majority judgments, Mr Justice Murray considered that it was appropriate to consider proportionality. "Where there are grave or serious limitations on the rights and in particular the fundamental rights of individuals as a consequence of an administrative decision, the more substantial must be the countervailing considerations that justify it."
Citing the Fajujonu case, he stressed that there was nothing new in considering the principle of proportionality in such cases, and that it "may be applied for the purpose of determining whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, an administrative decision may properly be considered to flow from the premises on which it is based and be in accord with fundamental reason and common sense." This was in accordance with the principles of Keegan and O'Keeffe , he said.
Granting leave, he said: "An administrative decision affecting the rights and obligations of persons should at least disclose the essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken." Otherwise the right of access to the courts to have a decision reviewed would be so circumscribed as to be "unacceptably ineffective".
Mr Justice Fennelly said: "The difficulty posed by the form of the Minister's decision is not merely his failure to provide reason for his decision, though that is undoubtedly the case, but that the decision is defective as a result.
"There is a complaint of a serious risk of exposure to what is arguably an infringement of life or freedom (as defined in section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1995) and nothing on the other side, nothing to explain how the Minister came to the conclusion that the appellant should, nonetheless, be deported.
"The Minister might have had any one of a range of reasons for his decision, but the court simply does not know."
After examining jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on judicial review in relation to the UK experience, and referring to the question posed by the appellant on the adequacy of the O'Keeffe and Keegan test, Mr Justice Fennelly said: "I do not consider it necessary to change the test.
"Properly understood, it is capable of according an appropriate level of protection of fundamental rights."
What this judgment does is explicitly integrate the principle of proportionality into the existing law on judicial review, though Mr Justice Murray stated it was already implicitly there.
It does not provide the basis for challenges to future deportation orders made after a person has sought to remain in Ireland on humanitarian grounds, provided that the application is considered and the reasons for rejecting it are outlined, and it is not a mere rubber-stamping of the earlier refusal of refugee status.
A general statement of policy considerations, or that the relevant section of the Act has been taken into account without saying how, will no longer be sufficient for refusal of leave to remain.
While this will impose additional demands on the Minister's officials, they are not unduly onerous, and will help ensure that the highest and most transparent standards are applied in dealing with asylum applicants.
If they are, it should reduce the number of judicial reviews sought.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
ASYLUM JUDICIAL reviews have come to dominate the judicial review list, with 785 such cases in 2008, down from 1,024 cases the previous year.
Though preliminary figures for 2009 indicate a further slight fall, it is understandable that there would be concern that any relaxation of the test for admitting judicial reviews would increase these numbers.
This fear was expressed by the two judges who gave minority judgments in the recent Abosede Aunwatoyn Meadows case.
Mr Justice Hardiman and Mr Justice Kearns stated that the existing test for leave to take judicial review proceedings, as outlined in O'Keeffe -v- An Bord Pleanála , should not be modified.
The majority - the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Murray, Mrs Justice Denham and Mr Justice Fennelly - granted Ms Meadows leave to judicially review the Minister's decision, but found this to be compatible with the O'Keeffe judgment.
The Nigerian applicant had challenged a High Court refusal to grant leave for judicial review of a deportation order made after her asylum application had been refused both by the Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The two decision-making bodies, ORAC and the RAT, had concluded that she had not established a credible connection between her circumstances and the threat of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Their decisions had not been challenged, though the decisions of both bodies frequently are the subject of judicial review.
She had then sought leave to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds, arguing her rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition on torture) were under threat, and that she was at risk of serious assault - FGM - were she to be returned to Nigeria.
She had submitted extensive additional material on incidence of FGM in Nigeria to the Minister for Justice in support of her application to remain on humanitarian grounds.
This argument is separate from an asylum application, where under Section 5 of the 1996 Refugee Act (prohibition of refoulement), a person may be allowed to remain in the State even if they do not qualify for recognition as a refugee if there is a risk to their life or freedom on a number of specified grounds, or a risk of serious assault.
In rejecting her application, the Minister stated that the provisions of Section 5 had been complied with. He did not respond specifically to the material she had submitted, or her claim to be personally under threat.
In challenging the deportation order, her counsel argued that the "anxious scrutiny" test adopted in England should be applied. In a number of English cases since 1987 it was argued successfully that there should be enhanced scrutiny of administrative decisions that impacted on a person's rights, beyond the existing test of "unreasonableness".
Mr Justice Hardiman considered that this would introduce a two-tier standard for judicial reviews, one for cases thought to involve constitutional or other fundamental rights, and a higher or more demanding one for those which did not, where the "unreasonableness" of the decision would have to be established.
He rejected the applicability of "proportionality" to judicial review of a decision of this kind, though he acknowledged it was appropriate to determining whether a statutory provision was compatible with the Constitution. He also rejected the argument that the Minister was required to give detailed reasons for his decision.
Giving one of the majority judgments, Mr Justice Murray considered that it was appropriate to consider proportionality. "Where there are grave or serious limitations on the rights and in particular the fundamental rights of individuals as a consequence of an administrative decision, the more substantial must be the countervailing considerations that justify it."
Citing the Fajujonu case, he stressed that there was nothing new in considering the principle of proportionality in such cases, and that it "may be applied for the purpose of determining whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, an administrative decision may properly be considered to flow from the premises on which it is based and be in accord with fundamental reason and common sense." This was in accordance with the principles of Keegan and O'Keeffe , he said.
Granting leave, he said: "An administrative decision affecting the rights and obligations of persons should at least disclose the essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken." Otherwise the right of access to the courts to have a decision reviewed would be so circumscribed as to be "unacceptably ineffective".
Mr Justice Fennelly said: "The difficulty posed by the form of the Minister's decision is not merely his failure to provide reason for his decision, though that is undoubtedly the case, but that the decision is defective as a result.
"There is a complaint of a serious risk of exposure to what is arguably an infringement of life or freedom (as defined in section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1995) and nothing on the other side, nothing to explain how the Minister came to the conclusion that the appellant should, nonetheless, be deported.
"The Minister might have had any one of a range of reasons for his decision, but the court simply does not know."
After examining jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on judicial review in relation to the UK experience, and referring to the question posed by the appellant on the adequacy of the O'Keeffe and Keegan test, Mr Justice Fennelly said: "I do not consider it necessary to change the test.
"Properly understood, it is capable of according an appropriate level of protection of fundamental rights."
What this judgment does is explicitly integrate the principle of proportionality into the existing law on judicial review, though Mr Justice Murray stated it was already implicitly there.
It does not provide the basis for challenges to future deportation orders made after a person has sought to remain in Ireland on humanitarian grounds, provided that the application is considered and the reasons for rejecting it are outlined, and it is not a mere rubber-stamping of the earlier refusal of refugee status.
A general statement of policy considerations, or that the relevant section of the Act has been taken into account without saying how, will no longer be sufficient for refusal of leave to remain.
While this will impose additional demands on the Minister's officials, they are not unduly onerous, and will help ensure that the highest and most transparent standards are applied in dealing with asylum applicants.
If they are, it should reduce the number of judicial reviews sought.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Metro North hearings put back to March so public can view changes
AN BORD Pleanála hearings into Metro North, the proposed underground rail link between St Stephen’s Green and Swords, have been suspended, at least until March.
The suspension is to allow the public and interested parties to review changes to three aspects of the project’s design. The changes cover the Mater hospital, Ballymun and Seatown stops.
The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) said the changes to the hospital stop will include a second entrance, accessed from Eccles Street, within the proposed national paediatric hospital.
The agency said this enabled it to move emergency ventilation fans, part of the station structure and emergency escape routes a further 20m away from the Mater Private hospital.
Changes to the Ballymun and Seatown stops were more minor in nature, but utilised lands not identified in the original environmental impact assessment.
The changes can be viewed on the RPA website and at its officers and at An Bord Pleanála.
The deadline for submissions on the changes is next Monday.
Detailed plans for the scheme first went on display in September 2008. The inquiry also recently heard that compensation claims which go to arbitration may not be settled before Metro North is operational, currently thought to be 2015 at the earliest.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The suspension is to allow the public and interested parties to review changes to three aspects of the project’s design. The changes cover the Mater hospital, Ballymun and Seatown stops.
The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) said the changes to the hospital stop will include a second entrance, accessed from Eccles Street, within the proposed national paediatric hospital.
The agency said this enabled it to move emergency ventilation fans, part of the station structure and emergency escape routes a further 20m away from the Mater Private hospital.
Changes to the Ballymun and Seatown stops were more minor in nature, but utilised lands not identified in the original environmental impact assessment.
The changes can be viewed on the RPA website and at its officers and at An Bord Pleanála.
The deadline for submissions on the changes is next Monday.
Detailed plans for the scheme first went on display in September 2008. The inquiry also recently heard that compensation claims which go to arbitration may not be settled before Metro North is operational, currently thought to be 2015 at the earliest.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Delay for gas route application
SHELL EP Ireland was yesterday given a three-month extension to submit a revised application to An Bord Pleanála for the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route in Co Mayo.
On November 3rd last the planning board determined almost half the proposed route was “unacceptable” on safety grounds, and directed Shell to examine an alternative partial route up Sruwaddacon Bay, away from housing.
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources challenged parts of An Bord Pleanála’s handling of the issue in a letter on January 20th. In it, aspects of the November decision are criticised, particularly the “risk assessment methodology espoused in the Board’s letter” to Shell. The department’s chief technical officer Bob Hanna said this is based “solely on consequence”.
“To illustrate by way of example, a ‘consequence only’ approach means that one would have to design and build an aircraft which would protect its passengers from harm when it crashes,” the letter stated.
Rossport resident Monica Muller questioned Shell’s intention of bringing the pipe up the bay. “In the board’s decision of November 2nd last, they directed Shell to examine the possibility of redirecting part of the high-pressure pipeline route up Sruwaddacon Bay, thus bringing it away from houses in Glengad, Aughoose and Rossport. But Shell has not referred to this in any of the correspondence since to the board,” Ms Muller said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
On November 3rd last the planning board determined almost half the proposed route was “unacceptable” on safety grounds, and directed Shell to examine an alternative partial route up Sruwaddacon Bay, away from housing.
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources challenged parts of An Bord Pleanála’s handling of the issue in a letter on January 20th. In it, aspects of the November decision are criticised, particularly the “risk assessment methodology espoused in the Board’s letter” to Shell. The department’s chief technical officer Bob Hanna said this is based “solely on consequence”.
“To illustrate by way of example, a ‘consequence only’ approach means that one would have to design and build an aircraft which would protect its passengers from harm when it crashes,” the letter stated.
Rossport resident Monica Muller questioned Shell’s intention of bringing the pipe up the bay. “In the board’s decision of November 2nd last, they directed Shell to examine the possibility of redirecting part of the high-pressure pipeline route up Sruwaddacon Bay, thus bringing it away from houses in Glengad, Aughoose and Rossport. But Shell has not referred to this in any of the correspondence since to the board,” Ms Muller said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 1 February 2010
Minister highlights poor planning
The severe floods that devastated parts of the country in November showed up the “questionable nature” of development decisions made by some local authorities, Environment Minister John Gormley has said.
Speaking at Engineers Ireland’s Flood Prevention, Control and Management Conference last week, Mr Gormley said he would continue to review the development plans of local authorities to ensure they are adhering to national policies on flood prevention.
He said the effects of climate change would increase the risks of more frequent flooding. However, these risks could be managed by proper planning.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Speaking at Engineers Ireland’s Flood Prevention, Control and Management Conference last week, Mr Gormley said he would continue to review the development plans of local authorities to ensure they are adhering to national policies on flood prevention.
He said the effects of climate change would increase the risks of more frequent flooding. However, these risks could be managed by proper planning.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
€3bn price tag for 13 planned Luas lines in 2004, documents show
PLANS BY the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for an extensive network of Luas light rail lines in Dublin – as put forward in late 2004 – would cost about €3 billion to implement, according to official documents.
The documents were only released by the Department of Transport this year after an Irish Times Freedom of Information Act request in November 2005, along with an appeal to Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly.
Although many figures in the documents were blacked out, it is clear that the Department of Finance was sceptical about the RPA’s assumption that 24-hour tunnelling could be used to cut the cost of its Metro North project – estimated at €4.58 billion.
The department queried Iarnród Éireann’s cost estimate for its “Dart Underground” project – a link between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock – saying it was based on a cheaper single-bore tunnel, “unlikely to proceed” for safety reasons.
In addition to the proposed 18km metro line between Swords and St Stephen’s Green, the RPA’s Light Rail Investment Strategy 2004-2014 envisaged 13 new Luas lines, of which only one (Connolly Station to The Point) has been completed so far.
The list included an extension of the Sandyford Luas line to Cherrywood, now under construction, and joining the two existing lines serving Tallaght and Sandyford in the city centre.
Other lines were: O’Connell Street-Sillogue (Ballymun), Sillogue-Swords, Cookstown-Citywest, Lucan-city centre, Cherrywood-Bray, Whitehall-Howth Junction, Red Cow-Clondalkin, Clondalkin-Lucan, Lucan-Blanchardstown and Blanchardstown-Ballymun.
The combined route length given in the strategy is 83.6km. Based on the disclosed capital cost of €260 million for the 7.5km Sandyford-Cherrywood line and €130 million for Cookstown-Citywest (4km), the overall cost would work out at €2.926 billion.
Cost estimates were based on an average of €35 million per kilometre, sufficient to include “significant structures” such as bridges as well as the diversion of utilities such as electricity, gas and water lines from the track-bed.
The Docklands extension was more expensive, at €65.05 million, mainly due to the need to protect sensitive underground cables. At 1.57km, including a bridge over Spencer Dock, this works out at €41.4 million per kilometre.
The RPA’s business case for the Docklands extension assumed the city link between the two existing Luas lines and the Sandyford line extension “are in place and that trams operate on the network from The Point to Bride’s Glen”.
Although the 2004 Light Rail Investment Strategy said development of a permanent link between the Sandyford and Tallaght lines “should now be considered as a matter of urgency”, no application for a railway order has been made.
In making its case for the city centre link via Dawson Street, College Green and Westmoreland Street, the RPA’s “strong view” was that this would involve no duplication with the proposed metro, saying they would have “distinctly differing” roles.
Another document dealing with funding options for the Sandyford- Cherrywood line noted that more than 50 per cent of the capital cost would be covered by the private sector, in the form of development levies, as well as the provision of land free of charge. Given the virtual collapse of development activity along this corridor, it is uncertain how much of the capital cost has been – or can be – recouped from developers.
In late 2004, after the introduction of the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines, the RPA proposed that it would carry out feasibility studies for light rail lines in Cork, Galway and Limerick. None of these studies has proceeded.
INFORMATION OFFICER: HER VIEW
THE OFFICE of Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly is minded to uphold the Department of Transport’s view that the release of estimated costings for major public transport projects such as Metro North in Dublin would not be in the public interest.
After the Department of Transport refused to release information that would show the likely cost of any of the projects, an appeal was made to the Information Commissioner in March 2006. As a result, some further documentation was subsequently released.
Anne Moran, the investigator dealing with the case, agreed that “there is a public interest in ensuring the accountability of Government for decisions made that involve large sums of public monies, especially where cutbacks have been made in all areas”.
She also said there was “a public interest in ensuring value for money in the improvement of State infrastructure [and] in minimising the risk that more taxpayer money might be spent on the projects than would otherwise have been necessary”.
FRANK MCDONALD
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The documents were only released by the Department of Transport this year after an Irish Times Freedom of Information Act request in November 2005, along with an appeal to Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly.
Although many figures in the documents were blacked out, it is clear that the Department of Finance was sceptical about the RPA’s assumption that 24-hour tunnelling could be used to cut the cost of its Metro North project – estimated at €4.58 billion.
The department queried Iarnród Éireann’s cost estimate for its “Dart Underground” project – a link between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock – saying it was based on a cheaper single-bore tunnel, “unlikely to proceed” for safety reasons.
In addition to the proposed 18km metro line between Swords and St Stephen’s Green, the RPA’s Light Rail Investment Strategy 2004-2014 envisaged 13 new Luas lines, of which only one (Connolly Station to The Point) has been completed so far.
The list included an extension of the Sandyford Luas line to Cherrywood, now under construction, and joining the two existing lines serving Tallaght and Sandyford in the city centre.
Other lines were: O’Connell Street-Sillogue (Ballymun), Sillogue-Swords, Cookstown-Citywest, Lucan-city centre, Cherrywood-Bray, Whitehall-Howth Junction, Red Cow-Clondalkin, Clondalkin-Lucan, Lucan-Blanchardstown and Blanchardstown-Ballymun.
The combined route length given in the strategy is 83.6km. Based on the disclosed capital cost of €260 million for the 7.5km Sandyford-Cherrywood line and €130 million for Cookstown-Citywest (4km), the overall cost would work out at €2.926 billion.
Cost estimates were based on an average of €35 million per kilometre, sufficient to include “significant structures” such as bridges as well as the diversion of utilities such as electricity, gas and water lines from the track-bed.
The Docklands extension was more expensive, at €65.05 million, mainly due to the need to protect sensitive underground cables. At 1.57km, including a bridge over Spencer Dock, this works out at €41.4 million per kilometre.
The RPA’s business case for the Docklands extension assumed the city link between the two existing Luas lines and the Sandyford line extension “are in place and that trams operate on the network from The Point to Bride’s Glen”.
Although the 2004 Light Rail Investment Strategy said development of a permanent link between the Sandyford and Tallaght lines “should now be considered as a matter of urgency”, no application for a railway order has been made.
In making its case for the city centre link via Dawson Street, College Green and Westmoreland Street, the RPA’s “strong view” was that this would involve no duplication with the proposed metro, saying they would have “distinctly differing” roles.
Another document dealing with funding options for the Sandyford- Cherrywood line noted that more than 50 per cent of the capital cost would be covered by the private sector, in the form of development levies, as well as the provision of land free of charge. Given the virtual collapse of development activity along this corridor, it is uncertain how much of the capital cost has been – or can be – recouped from developers.
In late 2004, after the introduction of the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines, the RPA proposed that it would carry out feasibility studies for light rail lines in Cork, Galway and Limerick. None of these studies has proceeded.
INFORMATION OFFICER: HER VIEW
THE OFFICE of Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly is minded to uphold the Department of Transport’s view that the release of estimated costings for major public transport projects such as Metro North in Dublin would not be in the public interest.
After the Department of Transport refused to release information that would show the likely cost of any of the projects, an appeal was made to the Information Commissioner in March 2006. As a result, some further documentation was subsequently released.
Anne Moran, the investigator dealing with the case, agreed that “there is a public interest in ensuring the accountability of Government for decisions made that involve large sums of public monies, especially where cutbacks have been made in all areas”.
She also said there was “a public interest in ensuring value for money in the improvement of State infrastructure [and] in minimising the risk that more taxpayer money might be spent on the projects than would otherwise have been necessary”.
FRANK MCDONALD
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Shell asks for more time to resolve Corrib gas issues
SHELL EP Ireland has asked An Bord Pleanála for more time to resolve issues relating to the Corrib gas pipeline.
The lead Corrib gas developer was given a deadline of next Friday for revised information, following An Bord Pleanála’s direction that up to half of the proposed onshore route was unsafe.
The company was also required to submit a revised environmental impact statement by Friday.
Last November, An Bord Pleanála suggested Shell might consider another route, down the Sruwaddacon estuary, as an alternative to the modified route identified by the developers.
The board said the modified route was “unacceptable” on safety grounds due to the proximity of housing in Rossport and between Glengad and Aughoose.
The modified route had been drawn up by consultants RPS for Shell on the advice of Government mediator Peter Cassells in 2006, and was submitted for planning approval under the Strategic Infrastructure Act.
The original nine kilometre route had been exempt from planning and the controversy over this led to the jailing of the Rossport Five.
Shell has confirmed to The Irish Times that it is seeking more time.
The company said its planning consultants RPS wrote to the appeals board on January 15th indicating it had “made good progress in responding positively to the board’s request for further information”.
“Due to the complexity and extent of the studies required, however, Shell EP Ireland advised the board that further time would be needed to complete this work,” it said in a statement.
It said it also asked for some “clarification” from the appeals board on technical points raised in the board’s letter of November 2nd last in which it issued its direction.
Shell asked formally for additional time to submit a “complete response” on January 27th and the company says it has also received a reply from the board to its technical queries and is “studying the contents of this letter”.
An Bord Pleanála has indicated that it will reopen the oral hearing into the pipeline when it has studied the information from the company and it may also accept new submissions.
Separately, Shell says it is “progressing” a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which seeks to revise its emissions licence for the project.
The company secured the integrated pollution prevention control licence in 2007 and subsequently gave an undertaking to Erris fishermen that it would also use an “alternative” method of discharging produced treated water from the Corrib gas refinery at Ballinaboy.
The undertaking was given as part of a deal brokered with the Erris Fishermen’s Association in return for co-operation on laying the project’s offshore pipe.
The fishermen were concerned that marine emissions from an outfall pipe would have a negative impact on Broadhaven Bay.
In August 2008, the EPA said the changes would require a revised IPPC licence application.
The company completed laying its offshore pipe last summer, but says it will honour the agreement with the fishermen.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The lead Corrib gas developer was given a deadline of next Friday for revised information, following An Bord Pleanála’s direction that up to half of the proposed onshore route was unsafe.
The company was also required to submit a revised environmental impact statement by Friday.
Last November, An Bord Pleanála suggested Shell might consider another route, down the Sruwaddacon estuary, as an alternative to the modified route identified by the developers.
The board said the modified route was “unacceptable” on safety grounds due to the proximity of housing in Rossport and between Glengad and Aughoose.
The modified route had been drawn up by consultants RPS for Shell on the advice of Government mediator Peter Cassells in 2006, and was submitted for planning approval under the Strategic Infrastructure Act.
The original nine kilometre route had been exempt from planning and the controversy over this led to the jailing of the Rossport Five.
Shell has confirmed to The Irish Times that it is seeking more time.
The company said its planning consultants RPS wrote to the appeals board on January 15th indicating it had “made good progress in responding positively to the board’s request for further information”.
“Due to the complexity and extent of the studies required, however, Shell EP Ireland advised the board that further time would be needed to complete this work,” it said in a statement.
It said it also asked for some “clarification” from the appeals board on technical points raised in the board’s letter of November 2nd last in which it issued its direction.
Shell asked formally for additional time to submit a “complete response” on January 27th and the company says it has also received a reply from the board to its technical queries and is “studying the contents of this letter”.
An Bord Pleanála has indicated that it will reopen the oral hearing into the pipeline when it has studied the information from the company and it may also accept new submissions.
Separately, Shell says it is “progressing” a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which seeks to revise its emissions licence for the project.
The company secured the integrated pollution prevention control licence in 2007 and subsequently gave an undertaking to Erris fishermen that it would also use an “alternative” method of discharging produced treated water from the Corrib gas refinery at Ballinaboy.
The undertaking was given as part of a deal brokered with the Erris Fishermen’s Association in return for co-operation on laying the project’s offshore pipe.
The fishermen were concerned that marine emissions from an outfall pipe would have a negative impact on Broadhaven Bay.
In August 2008, the EPA said the changes would require a revised IPPC licence application.
The company completed laying its offshore pipe last summer, but says it will honour the agreement with the fishermen.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)