NA0005 - Inspector's Report (Main)

Dart Underground 29S.NA0005

An Bord Pleanala 1

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Dart Underground from Inchicore to East Wall via the

city centre

File Reference: 29S.NA0005 Applicant: CIE

Type of Application: Railway Order

Planning Authority: Dublin City Council Date of Site Inspections: 18th September 2010

19th September 2010 21st September 2010 22nd September 2010 4th November 2010 3rd April 2011

Inspector: Tom Rabbette


An Bord Pleanala 2

Observations Received

PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Dublin City Council

PRESCRIBED BODIES:

An Taisce

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Waterways Ireland

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Inland Fisheries Ireland

Health Service Executive

Dublin Docklands Development Authority

Office of Public Works

Health and Safety Authority

RPA

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES:

Maureen O’Sullivan TD and Councillor Marie Metcalfe

Lucinda Creighton TD

Councillor Claire O’Regan

Bertie Ahern TD

Councillor Mary Fitzpatrick

Councillor Nial Ring

Councillor Kevin Humphreys

Senator Paschal Donohoe and Councillor Ray McAdam Patrick Martin, Chairman Ógra Fianna Fail Dublin Central Mary Upton TD

Mary Lou McDonald and Councillor Seamus McGrattan

Joe Costelloe TD

Aengus O’Snodaigh TD

Catherine Byrne TD and Councillor Claire Byrne

Chris Andrews TD

Councillor Kieran Perry Oisin O’Halmhain Kathleen Kelleher Sean Ardagh TD Cyprian Brady TD


An Bord Pleanala 3

Ruadhan Mac Aodhain BL

GENERAL OBSERVER SUBMISSIONS:

Roger O’Connor, c/o Peter Sweetman & Associates

Centre for Independent Living

Irish Wheelchair Association

Rail Users Ireland People With Disabilities in Ireland Luke Gardiner Ltd. Gerard Ellis, 8 Wyattville Road, Ballybrack, County Dublin. Dublin Chamber of Commerce Cormac Rabbitt, Dargan Project, 8 Hy Brasail Court, Circular Road, Galway National Disability Authority Warren Whitney, 31 The Avenue, Boden Park, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16 Dublin City Centre Business Association Ltd

AREA 101- Inchicore to Memorial Park:

Patricia Corry, 4 St. Patrick’s Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Joseph Anthony Currivan, 5 St. Patrick’s Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Jo Homewood & Ned McLoughlin, 1 St. George’s Villas, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Gerard McGeough and Louisa MacDonald, 1 St. Patrick’s Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Conor Flood and others, c/o 6 Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Alan Casey, 215 Kilmainham Square, Inchicore Road, Dublin 8.

John B. O’Connor and Kay White, 2 St. George’s Villas, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

David Reynolds, Sky Property Management Limited, 32 Stepaside Park, Stepaside, County Dublin for the residents of Wheaton Court, Inchicore Terrace North, Dublin 8. Siobhan Martin, 118 Inchicore Road, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

David Sherwin, 112 Inchicore Road, Dublin 8 & Cecilia Clifford 116 Inchicore Road, Dublin 8.

Ann O’Gorman, 4 Woodfield Place, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Edel Quinn and Joe Kerrins, 2 North Terrace, CIE Works Dublin 8.

Billy McCannon, St. Patrick’s Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Daniel Keleher, 16 Abercorn Square, CIE Estate, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Aifric Ni Chianáin, 12 Ontario Terrace, Rathmines, Dublin 6.

Tessa Robinson and Robert Purcell, 8 St. Patrick’s Terrace, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Louise Carroll, 412 Le Fanu Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10.

Gerard Green, Aoife Lawlor and others, c/o 12 Woodfield Avenue, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Jonathon Archer, OZO 24-7 Collect and Rescue Kylemore Business Park, Dublin 10.

Niamh Flood, David Lawless and May Flood Lawless, 3 St. George’s Villas, Inchicore Parade,

Dublin 8.

The Inchicore Sports and Social Club, Library Square, Inchicore, Dublin 8.

Sherling Group, Jamestown Rd. Inchicore, Dublin 8.


An Bord Pleanala 4

Inchicore On Track, John Beck, Chairperson, 5 North Terrace, Inchicore Dublin 8.

Aine Costigan, Wheaton Court, Inchicore, Dublin 8 (O.H.)

Seven Oaks Management Company for Seven Oaks, Sarsfield Road, Dublin 8 (O.H.)

Paul O’Shea & others, Inchicore Terrace North, Dublin 8 (O.H.)

AREA 102 - Memorial Park to Heuston:

Susan Byrne, Parkgate Place Management Company Limited for Parkgate Place Apartment Complex, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8. Mr. Pat McDonagh, Managing Director, Supermac Limited, Supermac Head Office, Ballybrit Business Park, Ballybrit, Galway.

AREA 103- Heuston to Christchurch:

Flancrest Enterprise Limited, c/o Sudway and Company Limited, Chartered Surveyors,

Riversdale View, Ballyboden Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14.

Berndorf Limited, 16 Palmerston Park, Rathmines, Dublin 6.

Diocesan Property Manager, Archdiocese of Dublin, c/o Holy Cross Diocesan Centre,

Clonliffe Road, Dublin 3.

TASCQ, Temple Bar Traders, 27 Eustace Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2.

Temple Bar Cultural Trust 12 East Essex Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2.

Noel Leonard, 40 Wattling Street, Victoria Quay, Dublin 8. Diageo Ireland, St. James’s Gate, Dublin 8. The Atrium Management Company Limited, Island Street c/o Sudway and Company Limited, Riverside House, Riverside View, Ballyboden Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14. Michael Casey, 26 Fishamble Street, Dublin 8. Pat Carroll, ECW Limited, 14 Ushers Island, Dublin 8. Mary and David O’Flanagan, Car Upholstery Covers, 12 and 13 Ushers Island, Dublin 8. Raymond Peers, Chief Executive Q Park Ireland Limited, Head Office, Marlborough Street, Dublin 1

AREA 104- Christchurch to Merrion Square:

Boston College Ireland Limited, 42-43 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Ciaran McGrath, 22 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Damien O’Regan, 1 Westfield, Sion Hill, Blackrock, County Dublin.

John Barron.

Fitzwilliam Land Securities, 57 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2.

Joselyn Braddell and Others, 36 Highfield Road, Rathgar, Dublin 6.

Irish Georgian Society, 74 Merion Square, Dublin 2.

Salix Trust Limited.

James Adam and Sons Limited.

Ciaran McGrath, c/o OLM Consultancy, 33 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 4.


An Bord Pleanala 5

Perlar Limited, c/o O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates, 9 Prussia Street, Dublin 7.

Corcia Acquisitions Limited, c/o O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates, 7 Prussia Street,

Dublin 7.

Suzanna Jackson, c/o Il Posto Restaurant, 10 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Thomas Barry and Company Solicitors, 11 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Bartral Limited, c/o O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates, 9 Prussia Street, D 7.

Alric Limited, c/o O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates, 9 Prussia Street, Dublin 7.

Sean and Madeleine Mulligan, 54 The Green, Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co Dublin.

Pat and John Sexton, Michael Power, Acuman Facilities Management, Swords Business

Campus, Balheary Road, Swords, County Dublin.

Gerry Dempsey and others, Europlan Insurances Limited, 11 St. Stephen’s Green North,

Dublin 2.

Deks Limited, c/o Owen P. Clear Solicitors, 42 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2.

William Murray and Rory Fitzpatrick, 11 St. Stephen's Green North, Dublin 2.

Derek Flood, Bentleys Oyster Bar and Grill, 22 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2.

Anglo Irish Assurance Company Limited, c/o Arthur Cox Solicitors, Earlsfort Centre, Earlsfort

Terrace, Dublin 2.

Bank of Scotland (Ireland), 124-127 St. Stephen's Green West, Dublin 2.

Ampleforth Limited c/o John Spain Associates, Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2.

Peploes Restaurant, Basement of 16 St. Stephen’s Green North, Dublin 1 c/o Aidan McLernon, Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 3 Molesworth Place, Dublin 2. Kildare Street and University Club of 17 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2 care of Eoghan P. Clear Solicitors, 42 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2. Ray Mooney, General Manager, Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club, 9 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2. Irish Life Assurance PLC, Ventasker Ltd., Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland & Tenants of St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre (O.H. re: SSG Shopping Centre, RCSI college building, Shopping Centre/RCSI car parks). Irish Life Assurance PLC (O.H. re: Stephen Court, SSG North). Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland (O.H. re: Mercer Library & Medical Centre, Mercer Court, Millin House and Beaux Lane House).

AREA 105 - Merrion Square to the River Liffey

Rory Dunne, 6 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Stefano Crescenzi, 8 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Federico Crescenzi, 26 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Eileen Dunne, 8 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Sean Crescenzi, 7 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Aislinn Crescenzi, 7 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Barbara Dawson, 44 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Timothy Lynch, 51 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.


An Bord Pleanala 6

Mark Kelly, 15 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Patrick Sherwin, 33 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

David Hughes, 35 Upper Erne Street, Dublin 2.

Residents of Upper Erne Street, c/o David Hughes, 35 Upper Erne Street, Dublin 2.

Carmel McCormack, 35 Upper Erne Street, Dublin 2.

Marie Mackey, 32 Upper Erne Street, Pearse Street, Dublin 2.

Michael Keegan, 35 Upper Leeson Street, Dublin 4.

Edith MacGarry and Damien MacGarry, 196 Rathfarnham Road, Dublin 14.

Una O’Kane, 29 Boyne Street, Dublin 2.

Patricia Ford, Boyne Street Residents 26 Boyne Street, Off Westland Row, Dublin 2.

Brenda Reilly, Boyne Street Residents Group, 8B Boyne Street off Westland Road, Dublin 2.

Joan Coburn, 31 Boyne Street, Dublin 2.

Geraldine Byrne, Sandwith Street Residents, 5 Sandwith Street Upper.

Melanie Woods, St. Andrews Court 1-16 Residents Group, 15 St. Andrews Court, Fenian

Street, Dublin 2.

Paul Mangan, Trinity College Dublin, Director of Buildings Office, West Chapel, Trinity

College, Dublin 2.

Petra McDonnell, 28 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

Noel Ryan, Romara, White Cross, Bray Road, Foxrock, Dublin.

Tom Bailey and Caroline Bailey, Culcommon, Batterstown, County Meath.

Irish Prison Officers Association, c/o DBFL Consultant Engineers, Herbert House, Harmony

Row, Dublin 2.

Catherine Guy, ByrneWallace, 2 Grand Canal Square, Dublin 2 James Synott Cedar Cottage, Old Russian Village, Kilquade, County Wicklow. O’Callaghan Hotels and Associated Companies care of John Spain Associates, 10 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2. Chartered Land Usher House, Main Street, Dundrum, Dublin 14, c/o Stephen Little & Associates, 6 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2. Grand Canal Theatre Company Limited. Tim Lynch, (E. Dunne, Barbara Dawson and Rory Dunne), Pearse Square Residents Association, c/o 51 Pearse Square, Dublin 2.

AREA 106 - River Liffey to East Wall

Elizabeth Corrigan, 7 Abercorn Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Lawrence Redmond, 80 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Phyllis Doyle & others, c/o 25 Crescent Gardens, East Wall, Dublin 3.

James Duffin, 3 Abercorn Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Carmel Kelly & others, c/o 8 Killane Court, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Paul O’Brien, 171 Crosby’s Yard, Ossory Road, Dublin 3.

Aidan Foley and Master Labs Limited, 81 West Road East Wall, Dublin 3.

Angela Wigglesworth and others, 9 Abercorn Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.


An Bord Pleanala 7

Ian Hand, 40 Blythe Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Martina Kelly and Paul Corrigan, 38 Blythe Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Karl O’ Grady and Deirdre O’Reilly, 41 Blythe Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Lisa McQueen and Sandra McQueen 12 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Lisa Reade and Brian Reade, 23 Portside Court, West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

L. Hynes, 53 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Lynn Durie and Cormac O’Brien, 49 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Denise Wright 64 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Shalom Binchy and Niall Nolan, 15 Hawthorn Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Terrance Mehlhorne, 26 Hawthorn Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Maria Ronan, 22 Sea View Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Tommy Seery, 9 Sea View Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Margaret Ballot and others, c/o 40 Sea View Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Pavla Simdova and others, c/o 10 Fair Field Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Carmel Cosgrave and others, c/o 31 Fair Field Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Emma McDonnell, 73 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Protect East Wall Group, c/o BPS Planning Consultants, 23 Saville Park Road, Dalkey, Co.

Dublin.

Philip McGovern & others, c/o 29 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Leslie Maher, Zen Hair and Beauty, 32 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Helen McCabe and others, c/o 11 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Susie Lynam and others, c/o 133 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Bernie Fleming and others, c/o 5 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Ann Flanagan and others, c/o 48 Church Road East Wall, Dublin 3.

Eugene Gilsenan, 43 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Steve O’Connor and others, c/o of 167 and 168 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

James Lee, 69 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Christopher Kavanagh, 20 Strangford Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Adrienne Redmond and others, c/o 6 Strangford Gardens, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Patricia Mulhall, 126 Caledon Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 3.

Shane Roe, 18 Moy Elta Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Laura O’Connor, 130 Caledon Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 3.

Stephen O’Brien and others, c/o 9 Hawthorn Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Karen Broderick, Irvine Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Karen Greene and others, c/o 23 Shelmalier Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Michael Muldodney, 7 St. Barnabas Gardens, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Declan Rogers, 34A Kincora Avenue, Clontarf, Dublin 3.

Business Owners, Ossory Road Industrial Estate, Dublin 3. Michael Kennedy and others

Declan Roche and others, c/o 75 St. Mary’s Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.


An Bord Pleanala 8

Eva Dillon, Daisy Days Community Childcare, Sean O’Casey Community Centre, St. Mary’s

Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Gerry Fay, Chairman, North Wall Community Association, 77 Seville Place, Dublin 1.

The Crosby’s Yard Residents Committee, c/o Hannah O’Neill, 169 Crosby’s Yard, Ossory

Road, Dublin 3.

Declan Tuite and Anna Weiss, 114 Crosby’s Yard, Ossory Road, Dublin 3.

Residents of Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75 and 77 West Road, East Wall,

Dublin 3.

Sean, Mary and David O’Connor, 33 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Marie and Angela Broderick, 35 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Seamus Cummins and Delphine Guine, 40 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Marcella Shanley, No. 39 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Jody Toner and Anna Morgan, 37 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Patrick and Ann Lacombre, No. 36 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Andrew and Elizabeth Hulton, No. 34 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Margaret Roper, 82 West Road, Pat Ferry, 83 West Road, Michael and Ann Kane of 14

Hawthorn Terrace and Oliver Martin of 20 Hawthorn Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Doreen and Freda Caprani, No. 10 Strangford Gardens, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Thomas and Ita Hulton, No. 99 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Mary Corcoran and Richard Hewer, 8 Abbercorn Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.

Marie, Matt & Jack O’Reilly, 2 Upper Mayor Street, North Wall, Dublin 1.

Spencer Dock Owners Committee c/o Concierge Office, Spencer Dock Apartments, Park

Lane, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1.

Spencer Dock Development Company Limited, Connaught House, One Burlington Road,

Dublin 4.

Tony, Hilda & Derek McDonnell, 1 Mayor Street Upper Docklands, Dublin 1.

North Port Dwellers’ Residents’ Association, c/o Tony McDonnell, 1 Mayor Street Upper

Docklands, Dublin 1.

Price Waterhouse Coopers, 1 Spencer Dock, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1.

Caren Gallagher, 16 Irvine Terrace, North Wall, Dublin 3. Emma and Sarah Donnelly, 124 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Edward Rainsford and others, c/o 41 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Mr. Aiden Murray, Ross Spelman and Lillian Spelman, c/o 76 St. Lawrence Road, Clontarf, Dublin 3. Phyllis Corcoran, Roger and Adrienne Gallihue and Jimi and Kay Alford, c/o Phyllis Corcoran, 38 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Carmel Gormley and others, c/o Carmel Gormley, 4 Hawthorne Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3. Aidan Hurley, 4 Oxford Terrace, East Wall, Dublin 3. John Meade, 72 Russell Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3. Jean Delaney, 29 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Angela Foley and others, c/o Angela Foley 22 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Anne Fegan and others, c/o 122 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3.


An Bord Pleanala 9

Joe Mooney, 34 Merchant Square, East Wall, Dublin 3. Michael Kennedy, Gore and Grimes, Cavendish House, Smithfield, Dublin 7. Margaret Mulhall, 58 Ravensdale Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Christine and Martin Taylor, Ossory and District Residents Group. Karim White and others, c/o 48 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Nascadh Community Development, 75 Teeling Way, East Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Dolores Steele, Chairperson, Parkside North Strand Residents Group, 13 Hope Avenue, Dublin 3. Amanda Ralph, Apartment 138, Crosbies Yard, Ossory Road, Dublin 3. Crosby Properties, Unit 24, Point Village, East Wall Road, Dublin 1. Diarmuid Reidy and others, c/o 5 St. Barnabas Gardens, East Wall, Dublin 3. East Wall Water Sports Group Ltd., c/o Paul Dolan PO BOX 11314, East Wall, Dublin 3. East Wall Medical Centre, c/o Dr. Joseph Murphy, 145 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Elaine and Paul Kenny, 35 Blythe Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3. Ian Slacke and Emma Bradley, c/o 12 St. Mary’s Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. John Conway, 56 West Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Sinead Courtney, 53 St. Mary’s Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Anne Fegan, 122 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Brendan McManus, Ossory Properties, Unit 16, Ossory Court, 24 Ossory Road, North Strand, Dublin 3. Anne Gahan, 3 Hawthorne Avenue, East Wall, Dublin 3. James Smith, 128 Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Ruairi O’Meara, Coady’s Yard, West Road, Dublin 3. Vincent Keane, 201 Crosbies Yard, Ossory Road, Dublin 3. Patrick Tuite, 165 Church Road, East Wall, Dublin 3. Patricia Rainsford, Dublin 3 (O.H.)


An Bord Pleanala 10

Contents

1 The Proposed Development page 11

2 Policy Context page 12

3 The Planning Authority page 16

4 Prescribed Bodies page 20

5 Assessment and Recommendations page 34

6 Environmental Impact Assessment page 170

7 Compulsory Acquisition of Land page 181

8 Conclusion and Recommendation page 186

Appendix 1 ‘Summary of Written Submissions to An Bord Pleanala’ Appendix 2 ‘Dart Underground – Oral Hearing Report’ Appendix 3 ‘Assessment of the Environmental Impacts in Relation to Ground Vibrations

and Groundborne Noise, Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related Issues’

Appendix 4 ‘A Study of the Airborne Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground

Railway Development’ Appendix 5 ‘DART Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’ Appendix 6 Photographs and Planning Histories


An Bord Pleanala 11

1 The Proposed Development

CIE are applying to An Bord Pleanala for a Railway Order (RO) for an underground electrified

heavy railway from Inchicore to East Wall pursuant to Section 37 of the Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act 2001, as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic

Infrastructure) Act 2006. The proposed development has, in the past, been referred to as

the ‘Interconnector’ in various policy documents but is referred to in this RO application as

the ‘DART Underground’ (DU).

The proposed DU alignment is approximately 8.6 km in length, approximately 7.6 km of

which comprises a nominal 6 m diameter twin-bore running tunnels, connected by cross

passages at approximately 250 m intervals along the alignment. The route runs west to east

from the CIÉ Railway Works, Inchicore, Dublin 8 to North Wall Yard, East Wall, Dublin 3

where it connects with the existing Northern Line. The tie-in is achieved by means of a

newly configured at-grade junction at the location of the existing East Wall junction. At

Inchicore, the DU will not connect with the existing Kildare Line. However, future provision

for a tie-in west at CIÉ Railway Works as part of phase 2 of the Kildare Route Project (KRP2)

is incorporated into the DU design.

The proposed DU comprises five underground stations located within the city, these are

located at Heuston, Christchurch, St. Stephen's Green, Pearse and Docklands. An additional

station is provided at Inchicore with platforms in a retained open cut. A turnback and

stabling facility is also provided at Inchicore within a retained cut to facilitate the operational

requirements of DART Underground.

A number of ancillary intervention (comprising fire-fighting and emergency escape) and/or

ventilation (comprising passive draught relief and forced ventilation) shafts are also

provided as part of DART Underground. The shafts are at the following locations:

Inchicore Playing Field: An intervention shaft with future provision for ventilation.

Memorial Park: A combined ventilation/intervention shaft.

Heuston Station: A combined ventilation/intervention shaft at both ends of the

underground station platforms.

Island Street: An intervention shaft.

Christchurch Station: A combined ventilation/intervention shaft at both ends of the



An Bord Pleanala 12

St. Stephen's Green Station: Ventilation/intervention requirements at both ends of

the platforms as follows:

o Eastern combined ventilation/intervention shaft.

o Western ventilation shaft

o Shared intervention shaft with Dublin Metro North

Pearse Station: A combined ventilation/intervention shaft at both ends of the


Docklands Station: A combined ventilation/intervention shaft at both ends of the


Eastern Portal: An intervention shaft.

The tunnel will be constructed using Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). Two single bored

tunnels will be constructed with a track in each tunnel bore. The depth of the tunnel will

vary across the alignment to a maximum of 35 m below ground level. The tunnel entrances,

known as 'portals', are located within the CIÉ Railway Works at Inchicore and at North Wall

Yard at East Wall. Other structures on the route include the West Road (known locally as

Ossory Road) diversion, the retaining walls on the approach to the tunnel portals and the

provision of two 110kV substations (one at North Wall Yard and one at CIÉ Railway Works).

In addition, an Operational Control Centre (OCC), Management Suite and Maintenance

Facility are provided. Cross-passages will be provided between the two tunnels for emergency

evacuation/escape purposes every 250 metres and intervention/evacuation shafts to the tunnels

will be provided at 1000 m intervals.

For ease of reference and in the interest of clarity a more detailed description will be

provided of the proposed works in each area under the Area Assessment to follow in this

report.

2 Policy Context

The Board appointed a number of technical advisers to assist and advise the Inspector on

dcertain matters arising in the RO application. One such adviser was Mr Steve Wallace who

advised on traffic and transportation matters. The Board is referred to Mr Wallace’s report,

titled ‘Dart Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’, contained in Appendix 5

attached to this report. I reproduce hereunder an extract from Chapter 2 ‘Transport Policy

Background’ of Mr Wallace’s report:


An Bord Pleanala 13

“Introduction

This chapter draws together key references to DART Underground (previously referred to as the “interconnector”) that have been made in various national and regional transport policy documents over the last decade. A comprehensive listing of all policy references is contained in EIS Chapter 4. It should also be noted that since EIS publication the National Transport Authority have published their Draft Transport Strategy called 2030 Vision, this demonstrates continued commitment to DART Underground as a key measure representing “a cornerstone of the future transport system for the Greater Dublin Area”.

Transport 21, Department of Transport

This capital investment framework was published in 2005 and detailed a number of project and programme objectives relating to the overall investment proposed in the National Development Plan 2000-2006. At its launch a €34billion investment package was announced, of which €16 billion would be invested in public transport projects. One of the main objectives in relation to the Greater Dublin Area is stated as being:

“To construct the Suburban Rail Interconnector providing a tunneled link between Heuston Station and the Docklands, via St Stephen’s Green and linking with the Northern line.” (transport21.ie website)

DART Underground is compliant with the general aims of Transport 21 which are to increase accessibility, ensure sustainability, expand transport capacity, increase public transport use and enhance quality of life.

National Development Plan 2007-2013, Department of Finance

This plan proposes investment of some €184billion over a 6 year period. A key objective of the Economic Infrastructure Priority element is to radically upgrade the public transport system, especially in the Dublin area. Accordingly, a number of projects are listed to be advanced in line with the Transport 21 timetable including:

“Commencement of the Heuston Docklands Interconnector…” (NDP, page 134)

National Spatial Strategy 2002 -2020

This strategy is a 20 year planning framework designed, inter alia, to improve the effectiveness of public investment infrastructure around the country. The strategy lists a number of requirements which the future health of Dublin is dependent on. One such requirement is:

“creating an efficient and high quality system of public transport connections within Dublin area to improve access to employment, education, services and amenities”. (NSS, page 43)

DART Underground would contribute significantly to this goal.

Smarter Travel - A Sustainable Transport Future (2009 - 2020)

This government policy framework sets out a vision, key goals and a number of actions that form the basis of achieving targets for sustainable travel. Whilst the framework is not project specific, the DART Underground could be seen as making a significant contribution to the national target of reducing work-related car commuting from 65% to 45% by 2020.


An Bord Pleanala 14

Statement of Strategy 2008 – 2010

This Department of Transport strategy contains a key performance indicator that is relevant to DART Underground:

“Timely implementation within budget of the rail and bus improvement programme provided for in Transport 21” (SoS, page 35)

In broader terms the underground would support commitments stated in the document: (SoS, page 15)

- “a considerable shift to public transport, cycling and walking;

- A significant reduction in congestion;

- A reduction in transport emissions;

- The enhancement of Ireland’s competitiveness; and

- a transformation in public awareness of necessary changes.”

Regional Planning Guidelines for GDA (2010 - 2022)

These guidelines set out a 12 year strategic policy for the region, providing a regional context to the National Spatial Strategy. The guidelines note that congestion and poor transport networks are considered internationally as one of Dublin and the wider region’s main competitive weaknesses. The guidelines therefore regard the delivery of Transport 21 projects as essential for the sustainable economic growth of the region.

DTO – Platform for Change (2001)

This integrated transport strategy produced by the former Dublin Transportation Office (now NTA) outlined an extensive number of transport projects, a number of which have been implemented. DART Underground is specifically mentioned as:

“transforming the suburban rail system from one of severe constraints in terms of capacity and accessibility to a system that has a well balanced high capacity, that is operationally very efficient and that penetrates all the major areas of demand in the city centre.” (PfC, page 55)

Furthermore significant other elements of the strategy cannot be achieved without DART Underground.”

(ref: pages 3-4, ‘Dart Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’)

In addition to the above national and regional transportation and planning policies and

strategies, the following local spatial plans are to be noted:


An Bord Pleanala 15

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 (Dublin City Council)

The DU is referred to at several locations in this statutory plan for the city including, inter

alia, at:

“3.2.5 Public Transport This development plan seeks to ensure the further integration of land-use and transportation and fully accords with the provisions of Transport 21 and the Smarter Travel. In particular, it supports the DART Underground and Metro to achieve a consolidated metropolitan area…”

“3.3.2.3 Strengthening the City as the National Retail Destination (see Chapter 10) …Making it easier to access the city centre retail core is an important element of this key strategy. It is proposed to develop linkages between the north and south retail cores, via the new bridges over the Liffey and via Westmoreland Street. The proposed Luas lines and DART underground will increase the connectivity of the city centre to the suburbs and should be exploited to attract more retail trade…”

“5.1 MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORT Delivery of an efficient, integrated and coherent transport network is a critical component of the development plan core strategy to achieve a compact, sustainable and connected city. The strategy makes optimum use of existing and proposed transport infrastructure such as Metro North, Luas and the DART Underground. Dublin City Council has pledged to work with the National Transport Authority and relevant transport agencies in the delivery of Transport 21 projects and infrastructural improvements through which the transport system in the Greater Dublin Area will be developed…”

“5.1.4.3 Public Transport …Transport 21 projects such as Metro North, DART Underground and further Luas and Quality Bus Corridor construction and extension, will result in a fully integrated public transport system for Dublin…” “Policy SI4 To promote and facilitate the provision of Metro North, DART Underground, the electrification of the Maynooth Line, the expansion of Luas and the Quality Bus Network in order to achieve the strategic transport objectives of the National Transportation Authority‟s „A Platform for Change‟ and support the implementation of the Transport 21 Programme for Dublin city and the region” “Objective SIO9 To facilitate and support measures implemented or proposed by transport agencies to enhance capacity on existing lines and services, to provide interchange facilities and to provide new infrastructure including Metro North, DART Underground, Intercity and Commuter services and Luas network extension”

“8.4.9 Regional Infrastructure …Proposed improvements to public transport infrastructure such as Metro North, Dart Underground and extending the Luas network will foster more sustainable development by supporting the consolidation process, supporting the transboundary innovation corridors especially the metro north innovation corridor, creating a more integrated transport network, and encouraging a modal shift from private to public transportation throughout the Dublin city region. It is important that Dublin retains an international port in the region, within sustainable transport distance of the national gateway…”


An Bord Pleanala 16

In addition the route of the DU through the city is identified in ‘Figure 2 Core Strategy’ of the

plan. The route and proposed stations through the city core are also identified in ‘Figure 7

City Centre Integrated Transport’.

Liberties Local Area Plan 2009 (Dublin City Council)

The DU, referred to as the Interconnector , is referred to in the Liberties LAP under s.21 ‘The

Vision’, under ‘Area 6 Bridgefoot Street/Oliver Bond’, under ‘Area 9 Heuston Square’, under

s.3.4, s.4.1, s.4.10, pages 85, 86, 87 and 138.

Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 (Dublin Docklands Development Authority)

The Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 Policy T15 states:

“Seek the completion of the interconnector by 2016, in accordance with the timescale

outlined in ‘Transport 21’. Support the development of the Docklands Station as a major

public transport interchange.”

North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 (Dublin Docklands Development Authority)

The DU is specifically referred to on a number of occasions in the Planning Scheme. The

benefits of the DU, referred to as the Underground Rail Interconnector, are identified in s.

7.3.3 ‘Heavy rail services’ and Diagram 27 of the Planning Scheme.

3 The Planning Authority

Dublin City Council

3.1 DCC written submission of August 2010 The contents of the August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

The DU supports the development strategy of the City Development Plan 2005-2011

The development of DU is supported by a number of transport policies

Consultations have taken place with Irish Rail throughout the design process and the Planning Authority (PA) is fully supportive of the provisions of this key piece of transport infrastructure

All of the heritage policies in the development plan require that extreme care is taken when dealing with development in conservation areas and relating to protected structures or National Monuments

The DU is considered to be a key element in the continuing economic development of the city

The DU does not pass through any SAC, SPA or NHA.

The (then) draft Development Plan strongly supports the provision of all of the Transport 21 projects

The DU, although not directly addressed in the Liberties LAP, does underpin a number of elements of the overall vision of that LAP


An Bord Pleanala 17

The Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2008 supports the provision of the DU (referred to as the Interconnector)

The North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 as amended makes provision for the Docklands Station

The DU is a critical economic asset to the city, the immediate environment, the wider metropolitan area and the national economy

It is strongly recommended that the proposed development proceed because it will deliver a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits

The DU complies with the Vision Statement of the Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA 2010-2022

The Public Transport Programme of the ‘Infrastructure Investment Priorities 2010-2016: A Financial Framework’ (DoF July 2010) prioritises the DU and Metro North

The DU will link the north and south city centres and will be a great boost to efforts to deliver the planned investment in the Carlton and Arnotts developments.

The DU will have a strong regeneration benefit most directly on Heuston Quarter, the Guinness lands, the Liberties, the Digital Hub and Docklands

The opening of the Convention Centre at Spencer Dock will be a great boost to business tourism, the DU will be a critical link

There are no significant planning histories relating to the proposed development with the exception of the Docklands station

The PA highlights the following applications: Fenian St. ref: 3327/08, OPW site Jamestown Rd. Inchicore ref: 1601/07 and Clayton Love Distribution, Inchicore, ref: 2274/09

The DU complies with the hierarchy of plans set out for Dublin including the NSS, the NDP, Platform for Change, Transport 21 and the Regional Planning Guidelines

Part V is not applicable

Parts of public amenity lands will be unusable during construction at St. Stephen’s Green, Christchurch/Civic Offices, Station Square Docklands and Inchicore Playing pitch, provided the areas are properly reinstated following construction, this situation is acceptable

The PA supports the DU and considers that the assessment provided by the applicant is satisfactory in terms of the statutory and planning context and in terms of the information provided in the EIS

The PA highlights the need for attention to be paid to four areas in relation to the proposed development and consequently of the requirement for specific conditions relating to these areas

The four areas are: public realm infrastructure, impacts on protected structures and buildings of architectural merit, final urban design of the proposed station and archaeological assessment and provisions

DCC request that the board apply 114 conditions relating to the following issues: o Planning/architecture: 20 no. conditions o Archaeology: 10 no. conditions o Road Works & QBN: 10 no. conditions o Noise, Vibrations, Settlement, Air Quality: 17 no. conditions o Water Services: 12 no. conditions


An Bord Pleanala 18

o Drainage Services: 9 no. conditions o Flora & Fauna: 10 no. conditions o Parks & Landscape Services: 12 no. conditions o Traffic: 11 no. conditions o CPO Issue: 1 no. condition o Supervision: 1 no. condition o Development Contributions: 1 no. condition

3.2 Dublin City Council Oral Hearing submission Presenting for the Local Authority were:

Mr Gerard Meehan BL

Mr Dick Gleeson, City Planner

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

3.2.1 Mr Meehan’s submission can be summarised as follows:

The Local Authority (LA) is neither the applicant nor the decision maker in this instance

DCC is supportive of the DU scheme

The proposal complies with the hierarchy of plans set out for Dublin: the NSS, NDP 2007-2013, Platform for Change, Transport 21, RPG for GDA 2004-2016, DCC DP 2005-2011, DCC DP 2011-2017

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

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

DCC is present at the Hearing to primarily facilitate the Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


An Bord Pleanala 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Mr Gleeson’s submission can be summarised as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


An Bord Pleanala 20

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

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

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

4 Prescribed Bodies

4.1 An Taisce

4.1.1 An Taisce written submission of August 2010 The contents of the August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

The DU is a key measure to integrate connectivity of the rail system in Dublin

There are significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures to be addressed in further consideration of the scheme

In particular the mitigation of impacts on residential communities at Inchicore and East Wall

Individual stations particularly those at Christchurch and Stephen’s Green pose significant urban design challenges

Further significant revisions are required to minimise the impact on Stephen’s Green

The effect of the proposal at St. Stephen’s Green is seriously problematic in impact

There are significant issues with regard to the interface and sequencing of this proposal with the Metro North project and LUAS BXD proposals

An Oral Hearing is requested 4.1.2 An Taisce Oral Hearing submission An Taisce were represented by Mr James Kelly, architect with Kelly & Cogan Architects, the contents of their submission can be summarised as follows:

An Taisce is supportive of the project

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

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

Concern relating to design of the intervention shafts at SSG

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

Could the size, height and location be amended?

Architectural design aspects not given significant consideration

4.2 Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources

No observations/comments to make on the RO application


An Bord Pleanala 21

4.3 Waterways Ireland

The contents of the August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

WI is the body responsible for the Royal and Grand Canals in Dublin

Any impact on the canal structures should be considered as part of the design process

Waterways Ireland wishes to be consulted as the design progresses in order to assess any of the potential impacts

4.4 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

No observations/comments to make on the RO application

4.5 Inland Fisheries Ireland

The contents of the July 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

The presence of salmonid and other fish populations in the watercourses described in the EIS highlights the sensitivity of local urban watercourses

As with any development all measures necessary should be taken to ensure comprehensive protection of local aquatic ecological integrity in the first place by complete impact avoidance and only as a secondary approach through mitigation by reduction and remedy

Only clean uncontaminated water should leave the development site and drain to the river network

Any river manipulation works (bridging, culverting or otherwise) must first be submitted to IFI Blackrock for assessment and approval

Comprehensive surface water management measures (GDSDS study recommendations) must be implemented at the construction and operational stage to prevent any pollution of local surface waters

The issue of DU storm-water drainage to surface waters in the area is seen as a particularly high risk element which should be afforded due consideration at planning in order that sensitive aquatic resources are comprehensively protected

A comprehensive and integrated approach for achieving estuary and river protection during construction and operation should be implemented through environmental construction management planning as described in the EIS

All mitigation measures as outlined in s.15.5 should be implemented in full

Any discharges to surface water waters should be licensed as appropriate by the relevant Local Authority

EIS s.12.3.6.6 should mention the presence of Atlantic salmon in the River Dodder

Section 15.3.4.3 should acknowledge that the River Tolka has a significant fisheries value both biologically and from an amenity perspective

4.6 Health Service Executive

4.6.1 HSE written submissions of August 2010:


An Bord Pleanala 22

4.6.1.1 Dr C. Hayes, Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Dept. of Public Health, Population Health Directorate, HSE The contents of the August 2010 submission to the Board from the above can be summarised as follows:

The submission relates specifically to potential human health impacts

An extensive EIA has been carried out

An extensive literature review on the predicted health impacts of emissions of dust, noise, vibration, increase in the rodent population with effects on water quality, traffic, potential increase in violence and anti-social behaviour and suicide has been carried out in the EIS

The number of people exposed, the duration of exposure and the vulnerability of sensitive populations to the exposure have been identified as the most important determinants of likely impact

The submission is only on those aspects which need to be made more explicit or which may need further examination and/or mitigation

Safety concerns around unintentional injury (accidents) with respect to tunnelling and blasting and is noted in the report

The excavated space at Docklands Station which will remain open for the duration of construction is potentially hazardous with respect to unintentional injury

There is also potential for increased road traffic accidents due to diversions, traffic delays, heavy machinery and trucks

In relation to noise, the likely duration of the early construction phase during which a ‘slight to moderate or slight to major exceedance of the criteria’ is predicted needs to be specified

The negative impact on air quality arising from dust has been alluded to which may give rise to a variety of respiratory illnesses depending on individual sensitivity which need to be monitored. However the threshold limits for air quality are not likely to be exceeded.

The quality of air with regard to its odour from impact of moulds such as aspergillus and waste also needs monitoring

There may also be a further negative impact on air quality due to traffic disruption and delays

The risk from contaminated ground, leaking sewers, accidental spillage of polluting substances and flooding risk have been alluded to in the report and the public water supply will be routinely monitored

The effect of land disturbance on the increase in the rodent population have been alluded to and the increased potential risk of Leptospirosis

During the operational phase the health impacts are overwhelmingly positive as noted promoting increased physical activity, decreased transit time for customers and improved air quality

There is a risk of crushing injury both on trains and in accessing and alighting from underground stations during peak hours

The potential for anti-social behaviour has been taken cognisance of in the design of the DU


An Bord Pleanala 23

The location of a station adjacent to a sports ground where young people congregate may also be a cause of concern

Recommendations include: o demand management strategies needed to mitigate crushing/overcrowding

during peak traffic times o access for people with impaired mobility to stations as well as alighting from

trains needs to be monitored o specific travel needs of elderly people need to be monitored o need for good lighting and increased security o air quality data needs to be linked to available health datasets i.e. Health

Atlas Ireland on a geographical basis o there should be a commitment to track the health impacts of the project and

its implementation where possible 4.6.1.2 Ms Michelle Convey, Environmental Health Officer, HSE


Submission is from the Environmental Health Service (EHS) relating to the applicant’s EIS

The EIS does not discuss other transport options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


An Bord Pleanala 24

4.6.2 HSE Oral Hearing submission:

Presenting for the HSE at the Hearing were:

Ms Michelle Convey, Environmental Health Officer

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

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

The EIS does not discuss other transport options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 Dublin Docklands Development Authority

4.7.1 DDDA Planning Team The contents of August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

The submission is restricted solely to observation on works proposed within the DDDA master plan Area


An Bord Pleanala 25

However, the DDDA has made comment in relation to methodologies employed in terms of architecture and design, soil removal and remediation and environmental protection plans for residents in the surrounding area

The DU team have consulted with the DDDA

DDDA welcomes and supports the DU

It is a pivotal strategic public transport initiative for the Dublin Docklands Master Plan Area, the City and its hinterland

Policy T15 of the Master Plan 2008 refers to the Interconnector

DU has the potential to remake the mental map of the city

The principal interchange for all trains north of the Liffey would be the Docklands Station rather than the existing Connolly

The Dublin Docklands Master Plan 2008 is the statutory framework for articulating the Authority’s policy in fulfilment of its remit

The impact of below ground works in the Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme Area will require strict regulation in order to ensure the protection of residential amenities and in order to prevent disruption to the operation of the significant legal/financial office cluster within this mixed-use development area

The provision of a new pedestrian bridge at Forbes Street as outlined in Master Plan Policy T3 would further enhance accessibility from Grand Canal Square to Docklands Station

The concentration of residential housing in the vicinity of the Sandwich Street excavation and the proximity of that housing in particular on Erne Street Upper, Erne Terrace and Boyne Street to the principal excavation would dictate the preparation of an environmental management plan in consultation with the residents in order to regulate the construction phase of the development

The potential community gain at the Sandwith Street / Boyne Street site although not defined is welcomed

The North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 sets out detailed policies and objectives for the development of the Docklands North Lotts area

It is the policy of the DDDA to seek the development of the DU in the Planning Scheme

The DDDA has engaged extensively with the DU project team in relation to its proposals for lands within this area

The DU team presented alternative routes to the DDDA and its rationale for the preferred route during consultation meetings is to the satisfaction of the Authority

The proposal to use the LMS building fully accords with the Planning Scheme and is welcomed

The DDDA suggests a detailed landscape plan be submitted to ABP for Station Square to form part of the application documentation

The Boards attention is drawn to a Section 25 Cert. DD313 issued by the DDDA in Feb. 2005

The location of the Northern Shaft is considered acceptable to the Authority

The northern shaft should be designed to allow for future integration into a building of up to 44 m in order to ensure the maximum potential development capacity of the site is not inappropriately compromised


An Bord Pleanala 26

The Board is requested to satisfy itself that the potential construction impacts from the ‘bottom-up’ approach on surrounding land users is adequately weighted in the context of the other overall benefits described in the EIS

It is requested that the method of storage of excavated material, removal of excavated material and decontamination of excavated material is made transparent through the planning process for the information of ABP, the DDDA and the public

Any works within the conservation area designation or within its environs would require appropriate regulation

The alignment of DU is within the boundaries of the East Wall Area Action Plan 2004

The remodelling of West Road would effectively increase the journey distance from Moy Elta Road to North Strand by 65 metres and would create a more circuitous route from North Strand to East Wall than currently exists

Figure 5.1 of the Master Plan shows a proposed priority pedestrian route that could provide, inter alia, a direct link from East Wall to Station Square

The East Wall Area Action Plan 2004 acknowledges the need for greater connectivity between East Wall and North Lotts

It details environmental improvements at Church Road and West Road in order to improve access and egress into East Wall

It is considered that the enhancement of connectivity between East Wall and the North Lotts, in particular, pedestrian and cycle links to Station Square, would be a logical initiative in facilitating passenger demand in the absence of a dedicated station at East Wall

The DU project affords the opportunity to implement the provisions of the East Wall Action Area Plan and the Docklands Area Master Plan in respect of pedestrian links at the completion of the construction phase of the project

The remodelling of West Road has the potential to depreciate access and egress between East Wall and North Strand by extending the journey distance from North Strand

The proposal to provide an off-road cycle lane and footpath on the realigned West Road is welcomed

Recommendation E1W8 of the East Wall Area Action Plan 2004 may be achieved by the design of the new bridge

The proposed ESB substation is unacceptable in urban design terms by reason of its scale and massing, blank elevation and lack of animation

Environmental Management Plans should be prepared in consultation with the local community and agreed with DDDA and DCC

There is potential for undiscovered marine archaeology within the environs of Spencer Dock at the location of the ‘bottom-up’ excavation of the station box

There is a unique opportunity given the duration and ambitious nature of the DU project to employ at both constructional and operational phases, local Docklands residents

4.7.2 Jim O’Hagan, Senior Property Surveyor, DDDA The contents of the submission from the above can be summarised as follows:


An Bord Pleanala 27

Submission made on behalf of DDDA and two subsidiaries: Grand Canal Harbour Management Company Ltd. and Dublin Docklands Affordable Housing Ltd.

The response relates to their capacity as landowners/occupiers

Submission relates to property interests as per the Book of Reference

Submission refers to changes recommended to Book of Reference

DDDA own the industrial chimney situated within the Chimney View Park and require that measures to ensure its protection from damage is established

Regard must be had to the location and depth of underground basements

Parcel of lands were subject to the Grand Canal Harbour Soil Remediation works 2003

4.8 Office of Public Works

The contents of the observer August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

The Commissioners of Public Works will act for the state properties involved in the project. A definitive property schedule impacted by this project is being finalised with CIE.

The Commissioners will facilitate the use of state property attached to this project subject to agreement by CIE to the following: - 1. Manner of legal approach to land in question. 2. Scope of property survey work involved including adjoining property as

appropriate. 3. Agreement to timing of drilling works under properties. 4. Impact on functionality of buildings during construction operations. 5. Adherence to issues in respect of security requirements. 6. Other associated project issues as they arise.

The Commissioners are progressing the above issues with CIE.

4.9 Health and Safety Authority

4.9.1 HSA written submission of August 2010


The authority acting as a central competent authority under EC (Control of Major Accident Hazards involving Dangerous Substances) Regulations 2006 gives technical advice to the planning authority when requested under Regulation 27-1 in relation to (a) the siting of new establishments, (b) modifications to an existing establishment to which Article 10 of the Directive applies or, (c) proposed development in the vicinity of an existing establishment.

The Health and Safety Authority is currently seeking more information from Iarnrod Eireann in relation to the proposed development.

The Health and Safety Authority submit a copy of a letter to the Board sent to Iarnrod Eireann outlining the information that is required.


An Bord Pleanala 28

The Authority will provide its advice to An Bord Pleanála within five weeks of the receipt of the request for information.

The further information sought from Iarnrod Eireann relates to two issues. 1. The proximity of the terminus at Inchicore to the area and site where the

dangerous substances are stored, and 2. Relates to increasing the height of the bund wall as a means of reducing the

overtop fraction. 4.9.2 HSA written submission of December 2010

The contents of the December 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as

follows:

The approach of the HSA to land-use planning is set out in the document ‘Policy &

Approach of the Health and Safety Authority to COMAH Risk-based land-use

Planning’

The application is covered by Regulation 27(1) of SI 74 of 2006

On the basis of the information supplied and the measures proposed in the

additional information submitted by the applicant the HSA does not advise against

the granting of permission in the context of Major Accident Hazards

4.10 RPA

4.10.1 RPA written submission of August 2010

The contents of this August 2010 submission from the above can be summarised as follows:

RPA supports the Dart Underground Project and believes it will compliment the existing rail based public transport network including the new lines under development and in particular the Metro North Line as well as the proposed extension of the Green Luas Line from St. Stephen’s Green.

It is likely that the construction of the Dart Underground and Metro North Projects will overlap.

RPA notes that Iarnrod Eireann has assessed the cumulative impacts in both projects.

RPA notes that Iarnrod Eireann has agreed that the Dart Underground Contractor will prior to commencement of its works at St. Stephen’s Green agree appropriate mitigation measures with Metro North Contractor in order to avoid significant impacts, taking the cumulative effect of both projects into account.

In relation to hydrogeology, the EIS appears to suggest that the Metro North Contractor is required to undertake additional mitigation measures.

Iarnrod Eireann has now clarified that this is not the intent and has confirmed that no additional mitigation measures by the Metro North Contractor are required.

The proposed relocation of a bus stop to the top of Dawson Street conflicts with the Metro North requirement to use this as a temporary unloading bay for premises on St. Stephen’s Green.

Iarnrod Eireann has confirmed that this bus stop is no longer required.


An Bord Pleanala 29

The proposed Dart Underground alignment crosses under the existing Red and Green Luas Lines at Spencer Dock, St. Stephen’s Green and Heuston Station.

It will be necessary to put in place a regime for the continuous monitoring of ground settlement in these areas in order to ensure the uninterrupted safe operation of the Luas System and to avoid any possible degradation of the structural integrity of the Luas Track Slab.

The ventilation shaft proposed for Dart Underground on St. Stephen’s Green North is located directly beneath the section of the siding proposed in the Luas Broombridge Scheme.

RPA has agreed with Iarnrod Eireann that should the construction of Luas Broombridge precede Dart Underground works in this area, RPA will delay the completion of the siding to the extent practicable until such time as Iarnrod Eireann completes its works.

Iarnrod Eireann has agreed that the ventilation shaft will be designed and built so as not to comprise the installation and operation of the siding at a later date.

Iarnrod Eireann acknowledge the opportunity for an interchange between Dart Underground and the proposed Luas Line F1 (Lucan) at Inchicore and RPA is supportive of this.

4.10.2 RPA submission to the Oral Hearing

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

RPA supports the DU project

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

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

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

Due to on-going economic climate the relative timing of the two projects remains uncertain

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

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

Drafting of a formal agreement is largely complete

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


An Bord Pleanala 30

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

4.11 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

4.11.1 DoEHLG written submission of August 2010


The Dart Underground Project is part of the Transport 21 Capital Investment Framework set out under the National Development Plan Framework through which the transport system in Ireland would be developed over the period 2006 – 2015.

As part of this capital investment programme, Dart Underground would be a key element in integrated public transport system for Dublin.

This commitment was most recently underpinned in the Government’s Infrastructure Investment Priorities 2010 – 2016 published in July 2010.

The aims of the project are fully supported by the Department.

It is considered that impact on architectural heritage has generally been taken into account in the Environmental Impact Statement.

It is considered that there are some issues which require clarification in the EIS and the railway works drawings in terms of the project being a reference design.

It is recommended that the various specific instances set out in the EIS relating to significant impact on architectural heritage are taken into account in determining if those impacts are outweighed by the wider benefits arising from the Dart Underground proposals as a piece of transport infrastructure within Dublin City.

A Railway Order is in effect a grant of planning permission by An Bord Pleanála for the specified railway works; thereafter such works effectively constitute exempted development.

Where a Railway Order is granted notionally, the PPP contractor could erect new structures of whatever appearance suited his purpose without further reference to Dublin City Council as Planning Authority as long as the works generally complied with the scheme approved in the Railway Order.

Similarly works affecting structures of architectural heritage merit could be undertaken without either reference to the Planning Authority or prescribed bodies including the Minister, again as long as the works generally complied with the scheme approved in the Railway Order.

It will remain anachronism of the process if for instance the Planning Authority for the city does not have an input to the detailed appearance of prominent structures which might be erected in the city.

A similar situation applies to the Minister’s role in relation to structures proposed to be erected in St. Stephen’s Green and the role too of the Office of Public Works as Executive Manager of the Park.

It is part of the reference design process that the final detail is left to another hand to be designed and carried out on foot of a Railway Order.


An Bord Pleanala 31

In order to remove any doubt in the matter, it is recommended a condition is placed in any Railway Order that CIE as Railway Undertaker and the PPP contractor both consult and agree the final details and appearance of all above ground structures with Dublin City Council as Planning Authority and the Minister/OPW as appropriate.

Government Policy on Architecture 2009 – 2015 is of particular relevance to the overall Dart Underground Railway Project.

A number of the key statements as contained on Page 16 of this Government Policy should be reflected in the architectural design standards that apply to the Dart Underground Railway Project.

Notwithstanding the comments in relation to the architectural finishes proposed as contained within the EIS, the railway works drawings typically indicate powder-coated metal louvers, powder-coated cladding, sheet glass and stone cladding, all of minimal appearance to be the typical detailing and finishes to new work, it is not clear how any of these materials can be described as being “traditional” and as such are being expressed in a modern way.

It appears that the intention is to provide minimalist structures with the least amount of visual impact.

However it is not clear if even in the context of a reference design offering flat-roofed structures of simple rectangular design, achieves a standard of architectural quality or excellence as called for in the Government Policy on Architecture.

This applies, for instance, to the escape/ventilation shaft building proposed to be placed inside St. Stephen’s Green across from the top of Kildare Street.

This structure will be some two storeys in height and is to be located immediately inside the perimeter railings.

The flat-roof structure bears no relation to the shape and form of other prominent structures in the Green, nor can it be said that “the materials used replicate those of their surroundings”.

It is important that the standard of architectural design and the visual quality of those elements of DU which will be in the public domain and which indeed will shape and form the public domain within their own ambit are to a high standard.

This includes both above ground and underground public spaces.

It is recognised that the content of the railway works drawings is a reference design, it is recommended that a condition is placed in any railway order that CIE as undertaker and the PPP contractor both consult and agree the final details for the external and internal appearance of all structures with Dublin City Council’s Planning Authority and the Minister/OPW where relevant.

The intention to return part of the LMS building on North Wall to use as part of the Dockland Station presents an opportunity to give a new lease of life to the entire LMS structure along the street.

The present proposal amounts to a corridor running through the building as part of the Quayside Station entrance.

In effect, the existing building will be severed in two at ground floor level.

This ignores the integrity of the protected structure as a single entity and does not equate with good conservation practice.


An Bord Pleanala 32

It would seem appropriate that the whole façade of the former railway building becomes synonymous with being part of Dockland Station and is taken in as part of it.

The opportunity exists to use the new station entrance as a regenerator in bringing the entire building back into viable use.

This might add additional vibrancy to this section of North Wall just to the east of the National Conference Centre and some 400 metres to the west of the O2 Point Depot.

In relation to archaeological observations, Iarnrod Eireann contacted the National Monument Service of the Department in January 2009, since then there has been on-going consultation between Iarnrod Eireann and the Department.

It is the Department’s recommendation that the following measures be carried out and be included as conditions in any grant of planning permission that may arise: general mitigation, construction phase and operational phase. Site specific mitigation measures are also recommended at the following locations: the Western Port including Inchicore Station, Memorial Park Ventilation Shaft, Heuston Station, Island Street Ventilation Shaft, Cook Street Ventilation Intervention Shaft, Christchurch Station, the Wood Quay National Monument, St. Stephen’s Green Stop, Pearse Street and Bass Place Shaft, Dockland Station and Ventilation/Intervention Shaft at the Eastern Port.

In relation to nature conservation, having studied the EIS submitted in support of the application for a Railway Order, the NPWS considers that overall the sections of the EIS dealing with flora and fauna provides a generally accurate appraisal of the proposed Dart Underground impact on both animals and plants, and that the various measure suggested to mitigate the projects effects on fauna and flora should, if implemented, reduce such impacts to the extent predicted.

However, Section 12.5.1.2 of the EIS dealing with habitat clearance contains some mis-information which requires correction in order to avoid any subsequent misunderstandings by personnel or contractors on the Dart Underground Project.

With reference to a number of sub-sections of the Wildlife Acts, it should be noted that all occupied protected bird nests are protected everywhere all the time and may only be destroyed under license from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

For instance, if a nest of a Wood Pigeon or Mallard Duck was still active in September of any year in St. Stephen’s Green, a license to interfere with such a nest would have to be applied for to the NPWS.

This situation should be drawn to the attention of Iarnrod Eireann, their operatives and contractors.

4.11.2 DoEHLG submission to the Oral Hearing

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

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

Particularly with the eastern shaft


An Bord Pleanala 33

Mitigation measures will be required

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.11.2.2 Ms Catherine Desmond, Archaeologist, National Monuments Service:

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

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

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

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

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

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

An archaeological archive shall be compiled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


An Bord Pleanala 34

4.12 Dublin Bus

Dublin Bus submission to the Oral Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

5 Assessment and Recommendations

I have read through the file documentation, including the EIS, reviewed all plans and

particulars submitted, reviewed all DVDs and CDs submitted. I also conducted an Oral

Hearing into the RO application and further considered all documentation, plans,

particulars, DVDs and CDs submitted during the course of that Hearing and reviewed the

transcripts of the Hearing. I have read through the relevant provisions of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017 and the relevant provisions of other national, regional and

local policy documents and strategies in relation to transportation and planning. I have also

carried out site inspections.

I have prepared a report summarising the observer written submissions received by the

Board in August 2010, that report titled ‘Summary of Written Submissions to An Bord

Pleanala’ is contained in Appendix 1 attached to this report for the Board’s attention and all

of those observer submissions are on file. I have also prepared a report on the Oral Hearing

into the RO application and that report is contained in Appendix 2 attached to this report for

the Board’s attention. All submissions made to the Oral Hearing are on file as is the entire

transcript of the 62 day long Hearing. I have read and considered the three reports

prepared by the Technical Advisers appointed by the Board to assist and advise me on

certain matters arising, those reports are as follows as follows: ‘Assessment of the

Environmental Impacts in Relation to Ground Vibrations and Groundborne Noise,

Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related Issues’ by Dr Rainer Massarsch,

contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report; ‘A Study of the Airborne Noise aspects of

the Proposed Dart Underground Railway Development’ by Mr Fred Walsh, Acoustic

Associates (Ireland) Ltd., contained in Appendix 4 attached to this report; and, ‘DART

Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr Steve Wallace, contained in

Appendix 5 attached to this report.


An Bord Pleanala 35

In relation to the construction and operation of the DU, having considered all of the above, I

am of the opinion that the main issues to be addressed, concerning the likely consequences

for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and for the environment,

are as contained in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 hereunder.

5.1 Assessment of a Range of Generic Issues Relevant to the Railway Order application

5.1.1 Need for the Scheme

For many years it has been acknowledged that there is a ‘missing link’ in the existing rail

infrastructure serving the city. This DU scheme currently before the Board finally proposes

to address this missing element that will connect up the existing four lines that provide

access into and out of the city.

Not only is the DU scheme supported by several current strategies and plans adopted at

National, Regional and Local Level as outlined in Section 2 ‘Policy Context’ of this report, but

has been advocated and promoted by studies going back several decades. The 1971 Dublin

Transportation Study recommended investigating the feasibility of constructing an

underground rail line in central Dublin to connect the four existing rail lines into the city.

The 1975 Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study referred to the provision of an east west tunnel

between East Wall and Heuston. The 2000 Dublin Suburban Strategic Rail Review contained

a key proposal for the development of an east west interconnector tunnel between East

Wall and Heuston.

In providing this missing link the scheme will also address the growing capacity constraints

at Connolly Station that has to accommodate intercity, outer suburban and Dart services on

very limited train paths into the city. The DU will facilitate a major increase in service

frequency in line with demand along each of the four lines radiating from the city centre. It

will also address the remoteness of Heuston Station which lies at the western periphery of

the city centre core disconnected from the Maynooth, Northern and Southern lines and

stations on those lines. It will greatly enhance the integration of the Dart service with other

modes of public transportation providing linkages to, and between, the two existing Luas

lines, proposed Luas services, the proposed Metro North, intercity rail services and Dublin

Bus services.

The DU will facilitate for the proper planning of more consolidated and sustainable urban

areas in the Greater Dublin Area. This is in line with the policies and objectives of all the

planning authorities in the GDA and the Regional Authority. It will facilitate a modal shift

away from the private car to more sustainable modes of public transportation. It will

reduce congestion on the public roads into and out of the city.


An Bord Pleanala 36

In my opinion, a key yield from the DU will be the greatly improved utilisation of an existing

infrastructure i.e. the significant benefits will stretch far beyond the area within which the

proposed tunnels and proposed stations lie. As stated above it is promoted or supported by

several statutory plans and strategies as outlined in Section 2 of this report. While the

Board received some 245 observer submissions in relation to the RO application raising

concerns or queries, the clear majority of those observer submissions indicated support for

the DU in principle and many acknowledged the need for, and benefits accruing from, the

proposal. There is a clear need for this scheme in my opinion.

5.1.2 Ground Vibrations, Groundborne Noise, Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and

Construction-related issues

Given the nature of the development proposed the Board will appreciate that many

observers have raised concerns about such matters as settlement/ground movement,

impacts from deep excavations on adjacent properties, groundborne noise, vibration for

both the construction and operational phases, construction techniques being employed etc.

Many observers requested that the Board engage the services of an expert in these

geotechnical areas to review the applicant’s proposals. The Board did engage the services

of a number of experts to advise the Inspector on a number of matters.

One such expert appointed was Dr Rainer Massarsch who advised the Inspector on Ground

Vibrations, Groundborne Noise, geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related

issues. Dr Massarsch reviewed the EIS and RO documents prior to the Oral Hearing. While

the EIS is comprehensive in many areas, it was felt that in relation to certain matters

clarification was required to explain assessment and forecasting methodologies used to

reach certain conclusions in the submitted EIS. Consequently, it was decided to attach a

footnote (ref: Note 1) to the ‘Oral Hearing – Order of Proceedings’ (that was circulated to all

parties prior to the Hearing) which read as follows:

“To expedite the proceedings, and in the interests of clarity, the applicant will

be expected to address, inter alia, the following in Module 1 as explanation of

the assessment and forecasting methodologies used to reach conclusions

referred to in the Environmental Impact Statement:

Details of the environmental risk assessment concepts utilised to identify the environmental impact of vibrations, groundbourne noise, settlement, groundwater lowering etc. i.e. the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment in relation to Risk Assessment.

The prediction methods and calculations used to assess effects on buildings, equipment and inhabitants in relation to vibration from above ground works.


An Bord Pleanala 37

Calculation of groundbourne noise caused by tunnel construction and train operation in relation to below ground noise and vibration.

Geotechnical interpretation of the results of field and laboratory tests, and a geohydrological interpretation of the results of geotechnical and geohydrological investigations, in relation to soil and geology.”

Considerable discussion took place in the Oral Hearing on such matters as Environmental Risk

Management, enforcement, building damage classification, the Property Protection Scheme,

construction aspects, soils & geology, hydrogeology, geotechnical impact, vibration, monitoring and

groundborne noise. The applicant did seek to clarify issues arising and address concerns raised.

Dr Massarsch, who attended the Hearing and questioned the applicant and observers on the

above matters, has submitted a comprehensive report on these matters and has made a number of

recommendations. That report and the appendices attached to that report by Dr Massarsch are

included in the appendices attached to this report, the Board is referred to Appendix 3 ‘Assessment

of the Environmental Impacts in Relation to Ground Vibrations and Groundborne Noise,

Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related Issues’ by Dr K. Rainer Massarsch attached

to this report. I do not intend to repeat the detailed findings and recommendations of that report

here other than to reproduce Section 1.7 ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ of the report:

“1.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The body of information provided in the EIS, clarifications and evidence presented

during the Oral Hearing have been extensive and meet high standards of

environmental risk assessment.

Concerns expressed by Observers have been taken into consideration in preparation

of this report. The proposed impact criteria are rigorous and based on relevant

standards and international best practice applied at similar projects elsewhere.

The geological and geotechnical conditions are in general favourable for construction

of two running tunnels, stations and shafts along the proposed alignment.

Well-established construction methods are proposed to be employed. TBMs equipped

with earth pressure balance shields is suitable to work under varying

hydrogeological, geological and geotechnical conditions.

The Property Protection Scheme shall be set up and operated by the Applicant

throughout the lifetime of the project. It is an added benefit to owners of property

along the alignment.

All buildings affected by the proposed scheme, independent of participation in the

Property Protection Scheme, shall be surveyed and monitored.

A rigorous environmental risk management framework shall be implemented

throughout the project. This includes extensive instrumentation and monitoring of


An Bord Pleanala 38

buildings in risk area. Especially sensitive receptors such as historic buildings shall be

protected by special mitigation efforts and extensive monitoring.

In conclusion I can recommend to the Board that a Railway Order is given,

considering the comments and recommendations in this report.”

I have given detailed consideration to the contents of Dr Massasrch’s report and accept the

advice and recommendations contained therein, I have incorporated the recommendations

of Dr Massarsch’s report in the draft conditions for the Board’s consideration attached to

the end of this report.

5.1.3 Property Protection Scheme

As referred to in s. 5.1.2 the applicant is proposing a Property Protection Scheme (PPS). It is

stated in s. 16.7 of the EIS that in the event of a RO being granted the owners of all

properties that are within the overall settlement zone around the tunnels, shafts and station

excavations as defined by the 1mm contour or 30m from tunnel centreline and 50m from

shafts, whichever is the greater, will be notified by the applicant. Each property owner will

be given the opportunity to have a condition survey undertaken of their property. These

condition surveys will be undertaken directly in advance of construction and the survey will

be presented to each owner at the same time as it is presented to CIÉ and the Contractor.

The condition survey will form the benchmark, such that after the works are substantially

completed, any reported minor cosmetic damage to the properties can be assessed against

the survey. If determined that this damage has been caused by the construction of the DART

Underground, suitable remedial works will be undertaken to repair the damage.

Many observers raised concerns in relation to the applicant’s proposed Property Protection

Scheme prior to, and during, the Oral Hearing. The applicant was questioned extensively by

the Inspectorate and observers during the course of the Hearing on the PPS. The applicant

made two submissions to the Hearing on the scheme, on the 08/12/10 and 19/01/11.

I refer the Board to s. 6 ‘Property Protection Scheme’ of the report by Dr Massarsch in

Appendix 3 attached to this report with which I concur and would recommend that the

Board give consideration to the recommended conditions relating to the PPS as contained

within that report (and as attached to the end of this report for the Board’s attention ref:

draft Conditions Nos. 10 and 11).

5.1.4 ‘Agreed Position’ Document

Dublin City Council submitted a written report (received by the Board on the 17/08/10) in

which support for the DU project was outlined. That report included an assessment of the

proposal under various headings, while DCC are supportive of the proposal they highlighted


An Bord Pleanala 39

elements within the EIS which they deemed needed to be clarified or addressed further.

They requested the Board attach some 114 conditions to any RO granted, these requested

conditions covered planning, architecture, archaeology, road works, noise, vibrations,

settlement, air quality, water services, drainage services, flora, fauna, parks/landscape,

traffic, CPO issues, supervision and development contributions.

That report was submitted to the Board prior to the opening of the Oral Hearing into the

RO. Subsequent to the submission of that report it appears that DCC and CIE entered into

detailed consultations and negotiations relating to the issues raised in the report and, in

particular, in relation to the requested 114 conditions. It should be noted that DCC did

acknowledge that extensive negotiations had taken place between CIE and DCC prior to the

lodging of the RO application.

On the 13/01/11 the applicant presented to the Oral Hearing a document titled ‘By

reference to the letter submitted by Dublin City Council dated 17th August 2010 to An Bord

Pleanala, the following is the Agreed Position of Dublin City Council and Iarnrod Eireann,

following further discussions arising from the issues raised’. That document outlines the

agreements reached between DCC and CIE on all 114 conditions. This ‘Agreed Position’

document is to be included in the Eleventh Schedule of the RO should it be granted by the

Board.

It is a comprehensive document and as it is to form part of the RO if granted, it obviates the

need for a number of detailed conditions to be attached by the Board to any RO granted, in

my opinion. However, should any conflict arise between the Board’s conditions on the RO

and the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document, I would consider that the Board’s

conditions take precedence.

5.1.5 Dust and Pollutants Generated

Many of the observer submissions in writing to the Board and made at the Hearing raised a

number of concerns relating to potential impact of dust and pollutants generated by the

proposed development particularly during the construction phase. Concerns related to such

matters as impact on human health, visual impact of dust deposition on houses, property

and vehicles, impact on use of external clothes drying facilities, need to keep windows shut,

impact on plants in gardens located adjacent proposed sites, impacts on commercial outlets

such as hotels and restaurants, pollutants generated by traffic and other machinery etc.

Chapter 10 of the EIS deals with ‘Air Quality’. The limiting values applied in relation to air

quality standards are outlined in Table 10.1 of Chapter 10, these are based on the Air

Quality Standards Regulations 2002 but also incorporate the changes brought about by

Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe. There are no

national or EU limits for dust deposition but the applicant refers to the German ‘Technical


An Bord Pleanala 40

Instructions on Air Quality’ (TA Luft 2002) for a guideline for the rate of dust deposition

limits (350 mg/sq.m./day). Guidance is also obtained on this matter from the NRA

‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of

National Road Schemes ‘ (2006). Information on the existing baseline environment was

obtained from the 2009 EPA report ‘Air Quality in Ireland 2008 – Key Indicators of Ambient

Air Quality’. Chapter 10 of the EIS goes onto to assess the predicted impacts on air quality

for various locations along the proposed DU route. While the greatest potential for impacts

occurs during the construction phase, operational phase impacts were also assessed in

Chapter 10.

A suite of mitigation measures are being proposed as part of a proposed Dust Minimisation

Plan which will form part of the proposed Environmental Management Plan. The mitigation

proposals include, inter alia, hoarding around sites, water spraying, covering of stockpiles

when required, covering of trucks when required, additional screening when required for

specific localised works such as drilling or pavement cutting, filtering of dust-laden air from

batching plants, wheel washes etc. Dust deposition monitoring is being proposed in the

vicinity of identified sensitive receptors. It is also proposed to carry out dust deposition

monitoring for 3 months prior to construction in order to establish the baseline

environment and for the duration of the construction period. During the Hearing Ms Sinead

Whyte for the applicant gave evidence in relation to air quality and climate assessments and

also sought to respond to the concerns raised by the observers in relation to these issues.

As with any construction site of the scale proposed there is likely to be a negative impact on

the adjacent environment from dust generated, however, these impacts will be reduced

following the implementation of various mitigation measures proposed.

Having regard to the assessment carried out, the limiting values to be applied, the suite of

mitigation measures proposed, the preparation of a Dust Minimisation Plan, the pre-

construction monitoring proposed and the monitoring proposed during construction, I am

of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to refuse to grant the Railway Order in relation

to dust generated or air quality, and any such refusal would set an undesirable precedent

for similar scaled projects in the city. Subject to compliance with mitigation proposals I am

satisfied there should be no significant adverse impact on the environment. Further

reassurances relating to dust and air quality are provided via Conditions Nos. 48, 51 and 57

of the CIE/DCC ‘Agreed Position’ document.

5.1.6 Above Ground Noise

Chapter 8 of the applicant’s EIS assesses the impacts of above ground noise for both the

constructional and operational stages. Baseline surveys of existing ambient noise levels

along the route where works are proposed were carried out. The EIS sets out the significant


An Bord Pleanala 41

criteria used to assess the potential airborne noise impacts for the constructional and

operational stages.

A review was made of all commonly referenced noise guidance documents, these included

those published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the EPA, the NRA and Belfast City

Council. For the construction phase the applicant decided upon the application of the

significance criteria contained in BS5228-1(Noise) and these criteria are reproduced in Table

8.5 of Book 2, Vol. 2 of the EIS, it should also be noted that the Dublin Agglomeration Action

Plan relating to Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise (July 2008 to

November 2013) refers to the use of BS5228 for the assessment and management of

construction noise.

The applicant then applied a noise model to all of the proposed construction compounds

along the route, this noise model applied the ‘worse case’ scenario in terms of noise being

potentially generated at those compounds, the noise impacts being unmitigated save for a

standard 2.4 m high hoarding. The results of the noise modelling indicate that for the

majority of the locations, the criteria being applied (i.e. Table 8.5) are likely to be exceeded

during evening and night-time periods. To address this mitigation measures are outlined in

s.8.6 of Book 2, Vol. 2 of the EIS. These include a requirement being imposed on the PPPCo

to produce and agree a Noise and Vibration Management Plan (NVMP) incorporating Noise

and Vibration Control Plans (NVMP) for each work compound. The EIS lists types of

mitigation measures to be utilised, these include plant being fitted with exhaust silencers,

use of acoustic enclosures, portable noise screens, acoustic covers for compressors, use of

ambient sensitive reverse alarms on machinery and housing of gantry cranes at East Wall.

Table 8.20 also lists envisaged screening heights at various compounds, these include the

use of 7 m high hoarding at St. Stephen’s Green. Other mitigation measures include the

adoption of the ‘top down’ construction approach on several of the city centre sites, once

the top slab is cast it provides noise abatement of works being carried out below. Further

modelling was carried out with proposed mitigation measures being applied, the results are

contained in Table 8.21, a moderate to major residual impact is still predicted at a small

number of properties including apartments adjacent the Island Street shaft, the Cook Street

shaft and at Docklands Station.

Understandably this issue of noise impacts during construction and operation of the DU has

been raised by many of the observers. Some of the construction sites are in close proximity

to residential, office, restaurant and hotel/guesthouse uses. In addition, previous

operations with noise impacts (unrelated to the DU project) carried for Irish Rail at East Wall

have compounded concerns relating to DU proposals.

As indicated in s. 5.1.2 of this report, the Board appointed three technical advisers to advise

and assist the Inspector on a number of issues, one such adviser appointed by the Board

was Mr Fred Walsh of Acoustic Associates (Ireland) Ltd. who advised on matters relating to


An Bord Pleanala 42

above ground noise impacts for both the operational and constructional phases. The

Acoustics Associates Ltd. report is contained within Appendix 4 of this report, the Board is

referred to that report and to the recommendations by Mr Walsh contained therein. I do

not intend to repeat the contents of that report in detail here but it may be helpful to note

its conclusion:

“Despite the scale and complexity of the Dart Underground project, one can conclude, in the light of all the evidence, that the Dart Underground project can be completed in compliance with the stipulated noise limits, and with adequate consideration of any noise-related community problems which may arise, and that a speedy and effective response to, and mitigation of, any noise excess identified will be effected by CIE/Iarnrod Eireann.

It is essential that the promised high quality management and supervisory measures, outlined in the EIS, and restated and clarified during the Oral Hearing, be honoured in practice. It is vital that the Supervision on the ground is alert and responsive and that the corresponding actions are seen to be effective. It is vital that these policies and actions are seen to be in force from the beginning of works on DAY ONE, particularly with respect to protection of the night time environment and the avoidance of any noise-induced sleep disturbance, due to Dart Underground works, between the hours of 2200 and 0700.

Finally, we look forward to the operation of this ambitious and much needed system.” (ref: page 66 of ‘A Study of the Airborne Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground Railway Development’ by Acoustic Associates (Ireland) Ltd.)

The report by Acoustic Associates Ltd. contains a number of recommendations for both the

construction and operational stage of the DU (see s. 29 and s. 30 of ‘A Study of the Airborne

Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground Railway Development’ by Acoustic

Associates (Ireland) Ltd. in Appendix 4 attached to this report). I have considered those

recommendations. Having regard to, inter alia, the mitigation measures proposed by the

applicant, the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document and also noting the conditions

applied by the Board on 06F.NA.0003 (Metro North), I would consider that the Board

specifically apply, as a minimum, recommended conditions T, U, V, W, X in s.29 for the

construction phase and recommended conditions D and G in s.30 for the operational stage.

These refer to the critical limiting values being imposed and effectively address many of the

other recommendations in the Acoustic Associates Ltd. report, in my opinion. I note the

Board did not specifically apply a condition in relation to railway noise in the Metro North

RO.

Notwithstanding the applicant’s proposal to apply the criteria as contained within BS5228 in

relation to construction related noise, the Acoustic Associates Ltd. report is advising that the

construction noise criteria is construction noise alone and that the limits to apply do not

include existing ambient noise levels (which the BS5228 does include). The limits being


An Bord Pleanala 43

recommended reflect those as applied by the Board under Condition 15 of 06F.NA0003

(Metro North), however, with the notable exceptions of the application of the lower 40LAeq

for night time activities (the Board applied a 45LAeq for Metro North) and a 40LAeq for

daytime, evening and night time for Sundays and Bank Holidays (the Board permitted up to

60LAeq for Sundays and Bank Holidays on Metro North).

Having regard to, inter alia, the contents of the report contained in Appendix 4, I am

recommending this 40LAeq limit in the relevant draft condition at the end of this report

and lower limiting values for Sundays and Bank Holidays for residences, schools, churches,

theatres, cinemas and hotels/guesthouses.

For the operational stage I note, and accept, the recommendation in relation to the 35LAeq

limit for fixed plant and equipment for the operational stage, the Board applied a limit of

45LAeq in Condition 16 on the Metro North RO

The Board may wish to consider this matter further having regard to, inter alia, Condition 15

of the Metro North RO and also having regard to decision in Smyth – V-RPA and Veolia Ire.

Ltd. as referred to by the applicant’s legal team at the Hearing.

5.1.7 Working Hours

Many observers have raised concerns in relation to the working hours as proposed by the

applicant. In my opinion the issue here is the noise generated at certain times rather than

the hours per se. In that regard I refer the Board to s.28 ‘Hours of Work’ in ‘A Study of the

Airborne Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground Railway Development’ by

Acoustic Associates (Ireland) Ltd. in Appendix 4 attached to this report. As indicated in the

preceding section I have considered the recommendations contained within that report and

am recommending to the Board, as per that report, noise limits for specified times.

The recommendations in that report also extend the night time limits by 1 hour (i.e. the

applicant was proposing 23:00-7:00 for night time period whereas the Acoustic Associates is

adopting a 22:00-7:00 period).

Subject to, inter alia, compliance with those limiting values, adjacent established land uses

should not be adversely impacted upon. Under s.14.2 of Dublin City Council’s August

submission to the Board it was also indicated that there is flexibility allowed in relation to

working hours as long as no disturbance is being caused to residents and property owners.

5.1.8 Traffic and Transportation

The Board appointed Mr Steve Wallace to assist and advise the Inspector in the

consideration of traffic matters relating to the RO application. The advice includes an

assessment on the adequacy of the application details and the EIS in relation to predicted


An Bord Pleanala 44

traffic impacts, both for the constructional and operational phases of the scheme. The

advice also includes an assessment of the adequacy of the applicant’s methodology in

assessing traffic impacts and on mitigation measures proposed.

Mr Wallace’s report, titled ‘DART Underground - Report on Traffic and Transportation’ is

contained within Appendix 5 attached to this report for the Board’s attention. I consider it

of benefit to reproduce Chapter 6 ‘Summary and Conclusion’ of that report here:

“Transport Policy Background

DART Underground is compliant with policies set out in various documents produced by central and local government organizations. The current draft Transport Strategy recently produced by the National Transport Authority called “2030 Vision” demonstrates continued commitment to DART Underground as a key measure representing “a cornerstone of the future transport system for the Greater Dublin Area”.

Applicant’s Transport Assessment Methodology

I have considered the modelling and appraisal of transport effects associated with DART Underground construction and operation and conclude that they are appropriate for the reporting of impacts and mitigation at Railway Order stage. The methodologies applied are both comprehensive and robust, albeit that forecasts of future traffic conditions should always allow for a degree of uncertainty, particularly in relation to land use changes, traffic growth and implementation of other transport projects.

Transport Assessment – Operational Stage

The forecasting work undertaken suggests the system is being designed at an appropriate capacity having the ability to carry 12,000 passengers per hour per direction. In considering the receiving environments adjacent to the six proposed stations, the applicant has identified a range of mitigation measures to allow for safe and efficient access for users. They have also made a commitment to monitor for any problems and to liaise with Dublin City Council in resolving issues that arise. I have identified several areas where problems may occur and that may need to be dealt with in the operational stage of the scheme:

southern footpath on Mayor Street to east of proposed Docklands Station;

at the new Pearse Station footpaths on Pearse Street, Sandwith Street and Fenian Street;

the western footpath in Dawson Street immediately north of St Stephen’s Green, particularly if DART Underground, Metro North and LUAS BXD are all implemented; and

the footpath at the rear of Abercorn Terrace, a key pedestrian route leading to the Inchicore Station

From a transport planning perspective I consider the layouts shown in the railway order drawings are, in general, appropriate. I do however consider that the traffic calming proposed for Abercorn Road should be removed and replaced with an alternative traffic management plan that restricts maintenance facility access being taken through the residential area to the north.


An Bord Pleanala 45

Transport Assessment – Construction Stage

In terms of the city’s road network, construction stage traffic impacts for this major tunnelling project are relatively minor, which is mainly a consequence of individual station works sites being located off-road. Most sites are also in close proximity to major traffic routes such as the Port Tunnel, the Quays, the N4 and the N7. The EIS appraises options for spoil removal by rail and road, thereby leaving flexibility for a future contractor to develop specific proposals. In the road –only scenario the quantum of construction traffic generated would not cause any operational / capacity issues. The most significant factor would be the long duration of construction traffic activity, spanning over several years. Peak activity would however be concentrated, for example over 22-24 months at the eastern portal site, the busiest site in relation to construction traffic generation. My consideration is that increased heavy goods vehicle activity would be most evident along lightly trafficked residential streets, such as those around the works site at Pearse.

With regard to details for traffic management during construction the applicant has committed that the future contractor would be required to produce a Scheme Traffic Management Plan that is approved by Dublin City Council, as roads authority. As a starting point the mitigation set out in the EIS represents a minimum standard that would be acceptable. The planned Traffic Management Committee would also provide a mechanism that ensures that the actual works are not of a greater impact than that assessed at the Railway Order stage.

Conclusion

DART Underground would provide a significant enhancement to Dublin’s public transport network and would immediately attract significant additional usage and a reduction in travel by car. The proposed layout is such that no major road network modifications are necessary, with local improvements around new stations mainly being to accommodate increased pedestrian and cycle activity. The overall benefit of DART Underground to the Greater Dublin transport network can be judged to be very positive.

I have reviewed the documentation submitted with the Railway Order application in relation to traffic matters, considered the evidence and observations presented at oral hearing and confirm that the appraisals undertaken by the applicant are both comprehensive and robust. In my view the design layouts and construction proposals demonstrate the applicant’s approach to traffic and transportation issues has been appropriate in terms of mitigating any potential effects on the receiving environment.”

I have considered Mr Wallace’s report in detail and concur with, and accept, the advice

contained therein. I note the cooperation between DCC and the applicant to date and

further note Section 9, Conditions 101-111 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document relating to

traffic matters which I consider to be robust and appropriate. Subject to compliance with

the mitigation measures proposed and compliance with Conditions 101-111 of the ‘Agreed

Position’ document, I am of the opinion that there will not be an adverse impact resulting

from the proposed development on traffic and transportation for both the constructional

and operational phases. There will be considerable long term positive impacts for

transportation in Dublin arising from the DU scheme at operational stage.


An Bord Pleanala 46

5.1.9 Human Health Impacts

In Chapter 23 of the EIS the assessment of impacts on human health included the following

steps:

- Identification of the study area and the characterisation of the baseline

environment with the identification of sensitive populations and receptors.

- Review of the public consultations undertaken and the issues identified. The

areas of particular concern relating to health impacts during the construction

phase were identified as follows: noise, vibration, electromagnetic interference

& radiation, air quality, traffic and rodent numbers, for the operational phase the

potential concerns were identified as: noise, vibration, electromagnetic

interference & radiation, air quality, suicide and violence/anti-social behaviour

(ref: s.23.2.3 of Book 4, Vol. 2 of the EIS).

- Literature search to identify issues identified with similar projects elsewhere.

- Analysis of predicted residual changes in the environment, after mitigation,

attributable to the construction and operational phases of DU

- Proposal of additional mitigation measures where applicable.

During the Oral Hearing Dr M. Hogan, on behalf of the applicant, made a submission on

human health impacts from the proposed scheme (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Human Health’

presented to the Hearing on the 13/01/11). That submission acknowledged that

inconveniences/annoyances are to be expected during the construction phase however, it

concluded none of the impacts were predicted to have a significant health effect.

Some observers have requested that a system of health monitoring for persons living

adjacent the proposed works be carried out, they have also requested a post construction

health evaluation be carried out.

However, the principle approach being adopted by the applicant is one of prevention of

impacts rather than a cure post-impacts. Limiting values are to be applied, a monitoring

system will be put in place, trigger levels will be set. If the trigger levels are activated the

contractor will have to review operations and initiate further mitigation proposals to ensure

that emissions/impacts remain within the limits set by the RO.

I would concur with the applicant when it is stated that this approach is a far more proactive

and preventative approach than health screening. It should be noted that the EU Council

Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the

environment (85/337/EEC) states, inter alia, “that the best environmental policy consist in

preventing the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying


An Bord Pleanala 47

to counteract their effects”. I understand a similar approach was adopted in the Metro

North RO application. A report on file to the Board from the Department of Public Health,

HSE, (received by the Board on the 18/08/10) has not indicated an objection in principle to

the applicant’s approach in assessing human health impacts and mitigation approach

proposed.

Subject to compliance with the mitigation measures contained within the EIS and as

outlined at the Oral Hearing and also subject to compliance with the conditions

recommended at the end of this report, there should not be an adverse impact on human

health from the proposed development at either construction or operational stage.

5.1.10 Article 6 and the ‘maximum working area’

Article 6 of Part II ‘Works and Related Provisions’ of the applicant’s draft Railway Order

reads as follows:

“1. In constructing, maintaining and improving any of the Railway Works authorised by this Order, the Railway Undertaking may make modifications to allow for innovations in construction methods or technology but such that the extent of lands referenced to accommodate this Scheme, and any such modifications, has been limited to

(i) 10 metres horizontally from the central lines of running tunnels;

(ii) 5 metres vertically upwards, and no limit vertically downwards, from the outside edge of running tunnels;

(iii) 15 metres horizontally and 15 metres vertically upwards from the central lines of cross passage tunnels;

(iv) 10 metres horizontally and 10 metres vertically upwards from the outside edge of platform tunnels;

(v) 20 metres horizontally from the outside edge of underground station boxes and shafts.”

This draft article caused a degree of confusion and concern. Some expressed concerns that

this article would allow the contractor considerable leeway in terms of the construction of

the DU. However, during the Hearing the applicant clarified the meaning and intent of this

article.

The article does not allow, for example, with reference to Article 6 part (i), that the tunnels

can be moved 10 metres horizontally from the central lines as indicated in the Railway

Works drawings submitted with the application. The applicant informed the Hearing (ref:

O.H. Transcript Day 3 Mr Lavery for the applicant p. 159, O.H. Transcript Day 45 Mr Flaherty


An Bord Pleanala 48

for the applicant p. 214, O.H. Transcript Day 47 Mr Ruane for the applicant p. 44) that the

alignment of the tunnels are fixed as indicated in the submitted drawings (save for 100 mm

tolerance required for the TBMs). The 10 metres from the centre of the tunnel is to allow

for construction techniques adopted in the Detailed Design stage such as rock anchors,

grouting etc. to construct the tunnels. Likewise, with reference to Article 6 part (ii), this

does not mean that the tunnels can be raised 5 metres upwards from that indicated in the

drawings submitted, the level of the tunnels are as indicated in the drawings, the 5 metres

required above the outside edge of the running tunnels is to accommodate construction

techniques to be adopted at the Detailed Design stage. This ‘maximum working area’

required is reflected in the land acquisition being proposed by the applicant.

5.1.11 Planning Blight

A number of observers have raised concerns about the potential of ‘planning blight’ being

imposed on parts of the city should the RO be granted. This concern relates to the issue of

whether the DU if granted would proceed or not given recent Government statements

relating to rail infrastructure/projects proposed for the city and the current financial

situation. Part 2 of Article 4 of the draft Railway Order states the following:

“Construction of the works authorised by this Order shall be substantially completed at the end of the period of ten (10) years from the date this Order comes into force or within such further period as the Board may allow on the application of the Railway Undertaking”

There are concerns that the RO could be granted for a period of 10 years but that no works

would take place at the end of that period and a number of sites would be effectively

sterilised from any development for those 10 years. There are concerns that this would

have an adverse impact on parts of the city where regeneration would be impeded for a

considerable period. Comparisons were drawn by some observers between this potential

situation and what took place in the city in the 1970s/1980s when proposed road projects

through the city effectively sterilised significant parts of the city which resulted in urban

degradation. Some observers indicated that this could conflict with the aims of the City

Development Plan where the core strategy includes, inter alia, the consolidation and

enhancement of the inner city (ref: s.3.3 ‘Translating the Core Strategy into Development

Plan Priorities’ of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017).

Planning blight can be defined as follows:

“the reduction of economic activity or property values in a particular area resulting from expected or

possible future development or restriction of development” (Oxford Dictionaries)

(I am of the opinion that this issue is separate from, but not completely unconnected to, the

issue relating to the ’10 Year Notice to Treat’ under Article 16 ‘Period within which the

Railway Undertaking may compulsorily acquire land and interests in land’ of the draft


An Bord Pleanala 49

Railway Order. This s. 5.1.11 seeks to assess planning blight in terms of the proper planning

and sustainable development of the area and environmental impacts arising, the Board is

referred to s. 7 ‘Compulsory Acquisition of Land’ in relation impacts on individual’s

constitutionally protected property rights.)

In the first instance I would note that the Planning Authority have indicated support for the

proposed development and that, as indicated elsewhere in this report, the delivery of the

DU is supported in a number of statutory plans for the city including the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017. I would also note that the Board have a valid RO application

before them and irrespective of whether the DU will proceed or not should the Board grant

the RO they still have to make a decision on the application. It would be a regrettable

situation should the RO result in planning blight across the city centre for a period of 10

years, however, I am not convinced that this would be the situation although there is the

potential for localised negative impacts in my opinion.

In relation to the tunnels, it is my understanding that as long as any overhead development

has regard to the future structural integrity and safety of the tunnels then development

above can proceed (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 3 page 134). It is also my understanding from

submissions made by the applicant during the Hearing that the applicant expects to be

notified by the relevant consent authority of any planning applications on lands above the

proposed tunnels (Conditions 20a of the DCC/CIE ‘Agreed Position’ document is noted here:

“In order to protect the integrity of the DART Underground infrastructure, a procedure shall

be developed between DCC and CIE/PPPCo whereby all future planning applications for

development along the DART Underground alignment shall be notified to CIE/PPPCo for

assessment.”). I would also note that there are not many city centre brownfield sites

located directly above the route of the proposed tunnels, the largest being the Diageo site in

Dublin 8 (not all of which could be considered strictly brownfield). Therefore, while the DU

is a linear project through the city like the road projects of the 1970s/80s mentioned above,

that is where the comparison on this issue ends, the route of the tunnels through the city

will not impede redevelopment/regeneration of sites above, large-scale linear planning

blight should not therefore be an issue. Co-ordination will be required between the DU

design team and the design team for any development proposed over (as referred to by Mr

Flaherty for the applicant on Day 52 page 110 of the O.H. Transcript).

In relation to the individual surface sites of the stations, shafts and other installations, I am

not convinced that it will result in large areas being impacted by planning blight but I do

consider that, in some instances, specific individual sites will be impacted.

Assessing the potential of planning blight from west to east through the city I would note

the following: the Inchicore Works is an active railway/industrial site zoned Z6 as per Map D

of the new Development Plan, should the DU be granted but not proceed it is most likely it


An Bord Pleanala 50

will continue in its current use, it is not a brownfield site, there are no other development

proposals for this site currently.

In relation to the Sherlings Steel works to the south-west of the Inchicore Works, should the

RO be granted but not executed, the established use here could continue, this is an active

industrial use (also zoned Z6), it is not a brownfield site.

In relation to the next surface site, the Inchicore shaft is proposed adjacent a playing pitch

on lands zoned Z9 ‘To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space

and green networks’, again given this zoning and current us, and noting that it is not a

brownfield site, I am of the opinion that planning blight should the DU be granted but not

proceed, will not be an issue at this location.

The next major surface site is the shaft in the south-east corner of the War Memorial

Gardens, this site is also zoned Z9 as above (i.e. open green space), given the existing zoning

and use, and noting it is not a brownfield site (it is planted with trees), planning blight will

not be a concern at this location, in my opinion.

The next sites are located within the Heuston Station building and grounds, this is an active

major rail hub, it is not a brownfield site, it is zoned Z5 ‘To consolidate and facilitate the

development of the central area, and to identify, reinforce, strengthen and protect its civic

design character and dignity’. Should the DU be granted but not proceed it is most likely the

existing rail use will continue, planning blight will not be an issue at this location in my

opinion.

The next surface site is the shaft proposed at a corner of Island Street and Bridgefoot Street,

it is a brownfield site, it has an extant permission for a mixed-use development, it is zoned

Z5 as above. There is planning gain in the redevelopment of this site, it currently detracts

from the visual amenity of the area, in my opinion. If the DU is granted but not built I am of

the opinion that this is one of the sites where there is potential of planning blight, this

would be regrettable if it occurs. However, I would note that there are other vacant

brownfield sites in the area (not potentially affected by the DU). While planning blight is

possible at this location, its impact would be localised and confined to that site in that area.

The next surface site is the shaft proposed within the grounds of the Adam and Eve Church

(Church of the Immaculate Conception) on Cook Street, the quayside façade of this church is

a protected structure. This site is not a brownfield site, it is within the garden/grounds of

the church, there is a statue located at the site of the proposed shaft, the site is zoned Z5.

Given its current condition, use and specific location, I do not consider that planning blight

would be a concern at this location should the DU be granted but not proceed.

The next surface works are proposed at the Civic Offices, this is known as the Christchurch

Station site. It is within the grounds of City Council offices, there is an amphitheatre located


An Bord Pleanala 51

here, the site is zoned Z5 (central area, outlined above) and Z9 (open green space, outlined

above). It is not a brownfield site, it does not require regeneration, planning blight would

not be an issue at this location should the DU be granted but not proceeded with, in my

opinion.

The next surface works are proposed at St. Stephen’s Green, this is also zoned Z9 (open

green space, outlined above), it is not a brownfield site, it does not require regeneration,

planning blight would not be an issue here should the DU be granted but not proceeded

with.

The next surface site is the shaft proposed at the corner of Fenian Street and Bass Place. It

forms the western end of an urban block. There is no extant permission here but there are

development proposals for a hotel and conference facility at this location (see s. 5.2.5.4.6 of

this report). Part of this urban block requires urban regeneration, specifically the western

end where the shaft is proposed, in my opinion. The site is zoned Z1 ‘To protect, provide

and improve residential amenities’. There is planning gain in the redevelopment of this site,

planning blight could have a negative impact at this location should it occur. However, as

with the Island Street shaft, I am of the opinion that any blight that would occur would be

localised and confined. Given the significant planning gains accruing to the city should the

DU proceed, on balance, I consider the potential substantial gains from the DU far out-

weigh the potential of localised, confined planning blight at this location should it occur, I

would therefore not recommend refusal on the grounds of planning blight.

The next surface site is the site of the proposed Pearse DU Station within the urban block

defined by Boyne Street to the south/Sandwith Street to the west/existing DART rail lines to

the north/ Erne Street Upper terrace to the east. Part of this site is vacant brownfield while

part is in car park usage and light industrial use, it is zoned Z4 ‘To provide for and improve

mixed services facilities’. There is planning gain in its redevelopment, it is somewhat

underutilised currently, however, compared to other sites such as the Island Street site and

the Bass Place site, it does not present a particularly poor visual amenity in its current state

when viewed from the public domain. I am therefore of the opinion that planning blight

would not be a major concern at this location should the DU be granted but not proceeded

with.

The next major surface site is the site of the proposed Docklands Station. The lands are

zoned Z14 ‘Strategic Development and Regeneration Areas’ in the City Development Plan

and are also zoned Z14 in the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan. The Spencer Dock Area to

the east of the Royal Canal has seen major regeneration in recent years, the next available

lands moving west to east in this area are the lands where the Docklands Station is

proposed. There is the potential of planning blight at this location particularly on the lands

on the north side of Mayor Street where the station ‘northern’ box is proposed. Given the

positive urban regeneration that has taken place in this area in recent years the negative


An Bord Pleanala 52

impact from planning blight at this location would be regrettable, nevertheless, on balance,

the gain to the city from the construction of the DU out-weighs the potential adverse impact

of planning blight at this location, in my opinion. Again, should it occur the planning blight

would be localised and confined to this site, I note there are sites to the east of the

proposed Docklands Station that are brownfield and suitable for development, these would

not be directly impacted upon by planning blight from a DU RO should it be granted.

The next major surface site is the North Wall Yard (Eastern Portal site). While it is

somewhat underutilised and zoned Z1 ‘To protect, provide and improve residential

amenities’, it is currently an active rail yard, there is no extant permission pertaining to

these lands. I do not consider that planning blight would be a significant concern here (or at

the North Wall Freight Yard to the east) should the RO be granted but not acted upon.

The last major surface site along the route is Coady’s Yard where the OCC building is

proposed. This is a brownfield underutilised urban site, it is zoned Z6 ‘To provide for the

creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation’.

The Board refused permission for the redevelopment of this site for one reason relating to

the DU proposal (ref: PL 29N.233488). There is planning gain in the redevelopment of this

site in my opinion. Planning blight should it occur at this location would be regrettable,

however, such blight would be localised and confined to this site.

Having regard to the foregoing I am of the opinion that, in the worst case scenario, should

planning blight occur due to the granting but non-execution of a RO for the DU, it would be

localised and confined to four specific sites i.e. Island Street site, Bass Place site, Docklands

Station site and Coady’s Yard. As the planning blight would be localised and confined to

those sites, on balance taking the significant planning and community gains accruing from

the DU should it be granted and constructed, I would not recommend that Board refuse to

grant the RO on the grounds of potential negative localised impacts brought about by

planning blight. I am of the opinion that should the blight effect occur on those specific

sites, it can be classed as moderate, negative and of medium term.

5.1.12 Alternatives Considered

Section 37(1)(d) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by s.49 of

the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 requires the EIS contains,

inter alia, “an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of

the main reasons for its choice, taking into account the environmental effects.” With

reference to Chapter 2 of Book 1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS and the submissions made by the

applicant at the Hearing, specifically ‘Brief of Evidence – Design Development and

Alternatives Considered’ submitted to the Hearing on the 23/11/10, I am satisfied the

applicant has not only met the requirement of s.37(1)(d) as amended, but has exceeded

those requirements.


An Bord Pleanala 53

Not only were the main city-wide alternative alignment routes considered but so also were

alternatives locations and design solutions for shafts, stations, substations, ancillary

buildings, finishes to buildings/structures and rail tie-ins, alternatives for tunnel drive

strategy and construction methodologies were also outlined in the EIS and submitted to the

Hearing.

In assessing this issue relating to alternatives considered I consider it reasonable and

appropriate to consider studies that fed into the RO application (and that are included in the

EIS appendices) such as the ‘Dublin Suburban Rail Strategic Review’, the Phase 1 Parsons

Brickerhoff Ireland Ltd. report and the Phase 2 Mott MacDonald Petit Ltd. report. (Area-

specific alternatives will also be assessed later on in this report where considered

appropriate.)

A detailed submission was made to the Hearing on the 26th and 27th January 2011 in relation

to an alternative to the DU, see submission by ‘Dargan Project’ – ‘Irish Rail’s DART

Interconnector Plan – Alternative’. Notwithstanding that submission, the Board has to

assess the RO application before it i.e. for the DU and the applicant has to comply with

s.37(1)(d) as amended, as indicated above, I am of the opinion that the applicant has

complied with that legal provision. I would note that the applicant’s proposed route follows

closely that as contained Figure 7 ‘City Centre Integrated Transport’ of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017 and is supported by a number of policies in the statutory

development plan for the area.

(Mr C. Rabbit of the ‘Dargan Project’ asked that the Board request the attendance of Dublin

Fire Brigade at the Hearing to answer a number of questions relating to the DU, the

Inspector indicated that he would notify the Board of the request and should the Board

consider it necessary they can instruct the Inspector to reopen the Hearing. Dublin Fire

Brigade were identified as a key stakeholder by the applicant at an early stage and the EIS

makes reference to a number of meetings with DFB and outlines a number of DFB

requirements for the DU. A number of design decisions were made on foot of requirements

of the DFB. The EIS states that DFB have a preference for twin bores rather than a single

bore. As the Board is aware should the RO be granted there are other legal codes and

requirements with which the applicant must comply including requirements relating to Fire

Safety. The Board may also wish to consider the ‘Brief of Evidence – Ventilation, Fire and

Smoke Control’ presented to the Hearing on the 30/11/10).

5.1.13 Platform/Train Stepping Distance

A number of observers including the Centre for Independent Living, the Irish Wheelchair

Association, People With Disabilities in Ireland, the National Disability Authority and Gerard

Ellis have raised concerns in relation to the stepping distance at the platform/DART

interface (see under ‘General Observer Submissions’ in Appendix 1 attached to this report


An Bord Pleanala 54

and in the Oral Hearing Report in Appendix 2 under ‘Module 5: General Observer

Submissions’).

Ms Clare White for the applicant outlined to the Hearing the design aspirations in relation to

ensuring accessibility for the DU, she also outlined compliance with statutory regulations

and recommendations (ref: page 17 ‘Accessible Environments’ of ‘Brief of Evidence –

Station Planning / Architectural Design / Urban Integration’ submitted to the Hearing on the

10/01/11). On Day 17 of the Hearing, Hugh O’Neill for the applicant presented the ‘Brief of

Evidence – Platform-Train Interface: Calculation of Gaps’. He indicated that the stepping

distance for the DU of 75 mm horizontally / 50 mm vertically is compliant to the terms of

the TSI for Persons with Reduced Mobility for unassisted access. On the same day the

Hearing heard a submission from Mike Evans for the applicant titled ‘Brief of Evidence –

Platform-Train Interface: Accessibility’.

This matter has been considered in Section 4.3 ‘General Operational Issue – Platform /

Train Interface’ in the ‘DART Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’ (in

Appendix 5 attached to this report) as prepared by Mr Steve Wallace who advised the

Inspector on traffic and transportation matters. That report states inter alia, that “Based on

the evidence presented, and given the Underground would be an extension to the existing

DART heavy rail system, I do not consider there is a practical platform design layout that

would achieve totally unassisted access. Further the applicant has stated that their plan is

that future new DART trains would be fitted with integrated ramps with the aim of achieving

fully unassisted access at all stations in the future.”

Notwithstanding the requests from some observers, as the rolling stock does not form part

of the RO application, I do not consider it open to the Board to condition ramps or other

solutions be fitted to existing or new trains. However, Mr Mike Evans for the applicant told

the Hearing that it is planned that future DART vehicles will have an integrated ramp, he

stated that a review has determined that the retrofitting of existing DART vehicles with

integrated ramps is not viable (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 17 page 25).

5.1.14 Design Solutions and Visual Amenity

There are several buildings required across the DU scheme. The approach in terms of

architectural design of the new-build structures varies and depends on such issues as

functional requirements and context. Some structures are purely utilitarian and are not

open to public access and so are designed accordingly, while others such as the station

entrances have to be clearly legible and accessible.

In some instances the approach has been one of seeking to blend the structures in with

their surroundings so that they are not immediately evident or obtrusive, examples of this

are the proposed shafts at the War Memorial Gardens and at St. Stephens Green. At some


An Bord Pleanala 55

locations the design approach has been to allow for the future integration of proposed DU

structures with possible developments by others, examples of this design approach can be

seen at Island Street shaft and the northern shaft at Docklands. At these locations the

proposed structures have made design and structural allowances for future development

adjacent and above. The proposed station entrances at Docklands and Christchurch are

designed and sited so as to contribute to the establishment of public/civic spaces.

Ms Clare White and Mr Leszek Dobrovolsky for the applicant gave evidence at the Hearing

outlining their conceptual approach utilising a number of design pillars that thread through

their design solutions: being the pillars of identity, urban integration, light, circulation,

accessibility and heritage (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Station Planning / Architectural Design /

Urban Integration’ submitted to the Hearing on the 10/01/11). I have also considered the

‘Brief of Evidence – Landscape & Visual Impact’ as presented to the Hearing by Mr Thomas

Burns for the applicant on the 11/01/11.

Overall I consider the architectural intent and contextual response across the DU scheme to

be an appropriate one, I do not consider that the proposed structures will adversely impact

on the visual amenities of their respective locations, although I would acknowledge that at

some locations the design approach is, to some extent, reliant on landscaping proposals that

will take time before they become fully effective e.g. St. Stephen’s Green. (Site specific

issues in relation to proposed structures and visual amenity will be addressed, where it is

considered necessary, in the area assessments to follow in this report.)

5.1.15 Rodent Infestation

Concerns have been expressed by some observers that disturbance due to construction

activities will result in an increase in rodent numbers in adjacent areas. Some observers

have also raised concerns about the potential increase in risk from Leptospirosis (Weils

Disease).

The report from the Environmental Health Officer (ref: HSE report to the Board received on

the 18/08/10) recommends that the applicant’s proposed Environmental Management Plan

should also include a pest control plan which should include scheduled regular inspections

and proactive baiting. The Health Officer notes that the construction phase will involve

major earthworks and this could possibly result in risk of infestation of mice and/or rats for

food premises in the vicinity of the works.

Section 23.4.9 of the EIS addresses issues relating to Leptospirosis, this issue were further

visited by Dr Hogan for the applicant at the Hearing (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Human Health

– Dr Martin Hogan’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11). That submission notes that

there are rodents everywhere, it acknowledges that construction work will expose some


An Bord Pleanala 56

rodents for a short period of time but it further states that nothing in the construction

phase will encourage population growth.

The applicant was given copies of the observers’ submissions prior to the commencement of

the Hearing. The applicant has responded to concerns relating to rodent infestation. In

s.18.2 ‘Vermin’ of ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling & Programming’

presented to the Hearing on the 30/11/10 the applicant indicates that a pest control

management plan will be in place for the construction period and will be implemented using

a specialist control contractor.

I consider the applicant’s proposed mitigation as submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10

to be appropriate and satisfactory. In light of that mitigation commitment by the applicant I

am of the opinion that there is no specific need to require a pest control plan to be provided

as part of the proposed Environment Management Plan (but would have no concerns

should the Board seek one by way of condition).

5.1.16 Community Gain

I note the provisions relating to a Railway Order under Section 44(2)(g) of the Planning and

Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. Under this subsection a Railway Order may

contain provisions requiring –

(i) the construction or the financing, in whole or in part, of the construction of a

facility, or

(ii) the provision or the financing, in whole or in part, of the provision of a service,

in the area in which the railway works are to be constructed, being a facility or

service that, in the opinion of the Board, would constitute a gain to the community.

There are considerable gains in the delivery of the DU. It will address current capacity

constraints and will deliver additional train services into and through the city. In filling in

the ‘missing link’ in the rail network DU, in conjunction with other aspects of the DART

Programme, will improve city centre access for all rail services including DART, outer

commuter and InterCity. The DU will connect communities to an expanded multi-modal

public transport network, it will facilitate social and economic development which will

directly benefit local communities in the medium to long term.

It is my opinion that the DU provides substantial community gain in itself by significantly

enhancing public transport services into and through the city centre, it will beneficial to the

city’s established communities and will enhance the quality of life for its citizens. I

therefore, recommend to the Board that it does not require a provision in any Railway Order

to include for the construction or financing of additional services or facilities. I would also


An Bord Pleanala 57

note here that the Board did not apply any such condition in relation to the Metro North

Railway Order (ref: Railway Order ref. no.NA0003).

5.1.17 Compliance and Enforcement

A concern raised by many observers in their written submissions to the Board and reiterated

at the Hearing related to the issue of the contractor’s compliance with the terms and

conditions, including the commitments relating to environmental mitigation measures, of

any RO granted. Quite simply, many observers are concerned that the commitments given

by the applicant relating to delivery of the DU will not be carried through by the PPPCo.

This is a RO application under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 (as amended)

and not a planning application, powers given to a planning authority relating to compliance

and enforcement under the Planning Acts are not available under the Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act 2001 (as amended), the Board is the consent authority, not the City

Council.

However, the applicant has sought to reassure those observers that commitments given

relating to mitigation measures, which will form part of any RO granted, will be fully

complied with. There are a number of layers to this issue of compliance that I feel the Board

should consider.

The first critical commitment of the applicant is that CIE will retain all obligations imposed

by any RO granted and the commitments of the EIS and those outlined at the Hearing,

during the construction and operational phases of the DU. Secondly, CIE will engage a team

of engineers, environmental scientists and a Project Archaeologist to review data submitted

by the PPPCo. (the PPPCo would of course have its own technical expertise working on the

project). Thirdly, both the PPPCo. and CIE will appoint an Independent Environmental &

Archaeological Monitor (IE&AM) to monitor and report on the compliance of the PPPCo

with the terms and conditions of the RO including environmental mitigation measures. The

applicant’s team of engineers, environmental scientists and Project Archaeologist will also

review the IE&AM reports. I draw the Board’s attention to s.5.1.3 ‘Environmental

Management Plan & Monitoring’ and s.5.1.4 ‘Non-compliance Issues and Breaches’ of ‘Brief

of Evidence – Monitoring’ submitted to the Hearing on the 14/01/11 following considerable

discussion on the matter at the Hearing.

A further layer of reassurance offered by the applicant is a commitment to provide a 24

hour manned telephone line to respond to complaints or enquiries from the public, all calls

will be logged and registered and all three entities will be notified of the complaints or

enquiries i.e. CIE, the PPPCo. and the IE&AM will all be informed.


An Bord Pleanala 58

Article 18 of the draft Railway Order should also be considered here. Under that Article 18

it outlines proposals in relation to arbitration should a dispute arise between the Railway

Undertaking and any other party in relation to the execution of railway works authorised by

the RO if granted.

A further important layer of reassurance, in my opinion, comes in the form of the ‘Agreed

Position’ document outlined previously in this report, this document outlines agreements

and undertakings between DCC and CIE which should further ensure that DU is constructed

and operated with appropriate controls, management and monitoring. The applicant

proposes that the ‘Agreed Position’ will be attached to the Eleventh Schedule of the RO if

granted, it therefore becomes an integral part of the RO with which CIE and the PPPCo.

must comply. It is also my understanding, based on submissions from Mr Meehan BL for

DCC at the Hearing, that this ‘Agreed Position’ also constitutes a legal agreement between

DCC and CIE and should commitments in that document not be complied with then DCC

may be in a position to take legal action pursuant to that ‘Agreed Position’ document. I also

note condition no. 113 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document in which it is proposed to, inter

alia, appoint an Interface Manager.

Further reassurance comes not from the applicant but from DCC. During the Oral Hearing

Mr Meehan BL for DCC stated that DCC’s interests are protected by a number of different

mechanisms such as the Road Traffic Acts, the Roads Act and the Water Services Act, he

indicated that DCC still has all of the powers that it has by virtue of the law of the land to

police anybody who is loose in the city.

Finally, what some referred to as ‘the nuclear option’ is available should the conditions of

the RO not be complied with: “The Board may, if there is a failure or refusal to comply with a

condition, restriction or requirement specified in a railway order, revoke the order” as per

s.43(6) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 (as amended under s.49 of the

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006).

The applicant repeated at the Oral Hearing that it is committed to delivering the DU in full

compliance with commitments given, they drew the Hearing’s attention to the other

Railway Orders granted to CIE in the past, all of which, they state, were delivered in

compliance with the conditions attached to those Orders and with little negative feedback

from those parties adjacent to those works.

Having regard to the foregoing, I am of the opinion that it would be unreasonable (and

possibly ultra vires) for the Board to withhold consent on the grounds that some of the

conditions and mitigation measures might not be complied with. If there is a difficulty

relating to compliance and enforcement issues on Railway Orders, then the difficulty may lie

in the legislation and not with the RO application currently before the Board (in that regard I

would refer the Board to Section X ‘No proper enforcement mechanisms’, page 23 of a


An Bord Pleanala 59

submission by Garrett Simons SC for Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd. submitted to

the Hearing on the 22/02/11 and O.H. Transcript Day 33 pages 201-203 for a submission by

John Morrissey BL for Protect East Wall). Having regard to the procedures and framework

to be put in place as outlined above should the RO be granted, which I consider to be

acceptable, I have no further recommendations for the Board on this matter.

5.1.18 Consultations

Observers have criticised aspects of the consultation process. Criticisms include not enough

consultation, lack of meaningful consultation, some areas treated differently than others

during the consultation process, information not been made available during consultation,

lack of notification regarding consultations etc.

There have been a number of documents and studies feeding into and leading up to this RO

application, I am of the opinion that these also need to be considered when this issue of

consultation is being assessed. The ‘Dublin Suburban Rail Strategic Review’ 1999/2000 is

one such document (a copy of which is included in EIS Vol. 4 Appendix 2.1). That review

made the recommendation for an underground rail link between Heuston and the

Docklands to alleviate capacity constraints at Connolly Station. As part of that review

meetings were held with a wide range of stakeholders.

Following on from that came what is referred to a Phase 1 of the DU, this is the Parsons

Brinkerhoff report and it looked at a number of alignment and station options, it made a

recommendation on a preferred route. As part of that study a number of stakeholders were

consulted.

The next stage was the Phase 2 Mott MacDonald Petit Ireland 2008 which is referred to as

the Preliminary Design phase in the RO application, again, a large number of public bodies

were consulted with in the preparation of that report (both Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies are

contained within the EIS).

The RO now before the Board is the Phase 3 Reference Design. Section 1.6 of the EIS

outlines the extent of consultations with various stakeholders, including the public, that

were carried out in preparation of the RO application, this issue was also addressed by the

applicant at the Oral Hearing on a number of occasions (including under ‘Public

Consultation’ submitted to the Hearing on the 23/11/10).

The applicant has also committed to continued public consultations via community liaison

officers in the Phase 4 Detailed Design stage should a RO be granted by the Board (ref: page

16 ‘Brief of Evidence – Co-ordination of Railway Order Application’ submitted to the Hearing

on the 22/11/10 and s.6.1 ‘Construction stage community liaison and public consultation’ of

‘Public Consultation’ submitted to the Hearing on the 23/11/10).


An Bord Pleanala 60

It is not possible at this stage for the undersigned to determine what occurred at the public

consultation meetings in the areas, clearly not everyone is satisfied with those meetings.

Nevertheless, I would note here that there is evidence in the application that Phase 3 was,

as stated by the applicant, an iterative process and that some of those changes to the design

came about on foot of issues raised by stakeholders during consultations e.g. the HGV

entrance to the North Wall Yard site was changed from Abercorn Road to a ramp off Sheriff

Street, Pearse DU Station location was changed following concerns of likely impacts on

residential amenities at Boyne Street raised during the public consultations, the western

shaft at Christchurch was moved north further away from the City Wall (a National

Monument) following consultations with archaeological stakeholders, the shaft at Inchicore

was relocated to the War Memorial Gardens and a station at the Inchicore CIE Works was

proposed following public consultations.

Having regard to the submissions made at the Hearing and Section 1.6 ‘Statutory & Public

Consultation’ p. 5 – 23 of Book 1, Vol. 2 of the EIS I am of the opinion that the applicant has

met the criteria of Section 1.5 ‘Consultation’ of the ‘Guidelines on the Information to be

contained in Environmental Impact Statements’ (EPA 2002).

The applicant’s commitment to construction stage community liaison and public

consultation is noted.

5.1.19 Archaeological Heritage Protection

The route of the DU runs through the archaeological constraint for Dublin City and the

medieval City of Dublin. While potential impacts on the archaeological heritage is limited

from the tunnels given the depth proposed, there is the potential of impact at several

locations where deep excavations for stations and shafts are proposed, particularly in city

centre locations including the archaeologically rich area around Christchurch.

There are three National Monuments located en route i.e. two sections of the medieval city

wall: one at Christchurch and one at Cook Street, and St. Stephen’s Green. Archaeological

heritage protection is addressed in Chapter 19 of the EIS and was further addressed in the

submission ‘Brief of Evidence – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ submitted to the Hearing

on the 16/12/10.

I consider the archaeological impact assessment as contained within the EIS and as clarified

at the Hearing to be extensive. I note that pre-application consultations took place with the

PA and the DoEHLG in relation to archaeological heritage protection. I note that Ministerial

Consent pursuant to the National Monuments Act (as amended) will be required in relation

to works affecting the National Monuments, I also note that archaeological licenses will be

required for mitigation proposals at other locations.


An Bord Pleanala 61

The DoEHLG submitted a report to the Board (received on the 18/08/10) which included a

submission on archaeological heritage protection, that report refers to on-going

consultations between the Department and the applicant and states that a number of

mitigation measures suggested by the Department to the applicant’s consultants were

incorporated into the EIS. In addition Ms Catherine Desmond of the National Monuments

Service attended the Hearing and made a submission on the 21/01/11, it was indicated at

the Hearing that the National Monuments Section is “generally satisfied that the mitigation

measures proposed by IE for DU are the best that can be reasonably be achieved” (ref: page

12 of submission titled ‘Catherine Desmond, Archaeologist, National Monuments Service,

DoEHLG’).

The DDDA in s.7.0 of its submission to the Board of the 18/08/10 also referred to the

potential of underwater/underground archaeology, the applicant responded to this in

Appendix A of ‘Brief of Evidence – Co-ordination of Railway Order Application’ submitted to

the Hearing on the 22/11/10.

The PA submitted a report to the Board on the 17/08/10 requesting a number of conditions

be attached to any RO granted, conditions 21-30 inclusive dealt with archaeology. In the

‘Agreed Position’ document submitted by the applicant to the Hearing on the 13/01/11 it

was indicated that agreement had been reached between the applicant and PA on how to

proceed in relation to the issues raised in those draft conditions. This ‘Agreed Position’

document is to be included in the Eleventh Schedule of the RO if granted.

Having regard to the foregoing and subject to compliance with the mitigation measures

proposed and compliance with the commitments given in the ‘Agreed Position’ document, I

am satisfied that there will not be an adverse impact on the archaeological heritage of the

area where works are proposed.

5.1.20 Architectural Heritage Protection

It is considered more appropriate to assess Architectural Heritage Protection and Industrial

Heritage Protection, where necessary, in the Area Assessment to follow in this report where

direct impacts are to occur. Works are being proposed to buildings on the RPS: the LMS

building in the Docklands; St. Stephen’s Green contains a number of protected elements,

and Heuston Station is on the RPS. In addition, while not on the RPS, a number of buildings

of industrial heritage value are being directly impacted.

However, it is not just proposed direct impacts that need to be considered. There is a large

number of protected structures (and structures of heritage value that may not be on the

RPS) that are located over the proposed tunnels or adjacent proposed deep excavations.

Potential adverse impacts could arise from groundborne vibrations or ground movement


An Bord Pleanala 62

during the construction phase and from groundborne vibrations at operational stage. A

number of the protected structures on the route have very fine internal plasterwork.

In that regard, I would note the applicant’s commitments in relation to architectural

heritage protection. During the discussion on architectural heritage protection on Day 18 of

the Hearing, Mr Conroy for the applicant told the Hearing that the applicant’s own technical

team during the construction phase will include Conservation Architects, he also indicated

that the PPPCo will be required to engage the services of Conservation Architects and that

the Independent Archaeological and Environmental Monitor will include Conservation

Architects (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 18 page 104).

The Property Protection Scheme (PPS) will also have regard to specific requirements when

dealing with protected structures. Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Inspector that

should a suitably qualified Conservation Architect be required for the survey stage of the

PPS then this would be provided for, he also confirmed that should a heritage property be

subject of arbitration within the PPS then such expertise will be made available to the

arbitrator if required. Outside of the PPS, in relation to Environmental Risk Management,

Mr Muldoon confirmed that a Conservation Architect will be on hand when monitoring

equipment is being fixed to protected structures (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 50 pages 185-

187).

These mitigation commitments should provide suitable protection to those buildings and

structures that are on the RPS in proximity to the proposed DU works. The commitments

given by the applicant as outlined above are reflected in the requirements of draft Condition

9 at the end of this report for the Board’s consideration.

5.1.21 Plans to be compiled by the PPPCo

The PPPCo will be required to compile and maintain a number of plans during and post

construction of the DU. These include an Environmental Management Plan, Construction

Management Plan, Community Liaison Plan, Construction Traffic Management Plan, an EMC

Assurance Plan, Stray Current Management Plan, Architectural Heritage Plan and a

Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan.

The Environmental Management Plan will constitute the overarching plan for management

of environmental matters, this will include a Tree Management Plan, a Noise & Vibration

Management Plan, Dust Minimisation Plan, a Watering Monitoring Plan, a Groundwater

Action Plan and an Emergency Response Plan.

A number of observers have raised concerns about these plans, they hold that the plans

should form part of the EIA process at the RO application stage.


An Bord Pleanala 63

Having reviewed the EIS and clarifications submitted by the applicant at the Hearing, I am

satisfied that these plans do not constitute an attempt to postpone or delay EIA until after a

RO is granted. I am satisfied that these plans from part of the mitigation process. Baseline

surveys have been carried out where necessary, impacts assessed and limiting values

proposed and presented as part of the RO application. The proposed mitigation measures

are contained in the submitted EIS and clarified at the Hearing, these will be incorporated as

a minimum in the plans to be compiled by the PPPCo. The plans, in my opinion, will allow

for greater detail and fine tuning when more detailed information emerges at the Detailed

Design Stage e.g. types of machinery or equipment to be used as part of the construction

have not been determined at the Reference Design stage, compliance with the limiting

values with respect to noise generated could be via noise source location or by the type of

machinery to be used (i.e. machinery could be located on site away from sensitive receptors

or machinery used that does not exceed the limiting values), the optimum solution can be

determined in the Noise and Vibration Management Plan, but the limiting value is as

determined at RO application stage (if granted).

5.1.22 Flood Risk

The EIS, under s. 15.3.9, acknowledges that as an underground system, the DU is particularly

vulnerable to flooding. Should a river or tidal flood be capable of entering the underground

portions of the system, the potential for damage is profound. If the system is not evacuated

prior to flooding, the potential for loss of life would also be profound.

A Flood Risk Assessment was carried out for the proposed development and is contained in

Appendix A15.2, Vol. 4 of the EIS. In order to determine whether flooding may cause

problems for the DU every point along the route at which water could potentially access the

tunnels was appraised by the applicant, this included each of the surface installations.

Potential sources of flooding that were considered were: flooding from canals; fluvial/tidal

flooding from the Liffey, Tolka and Camac; pluvial flooding from localised stormwater

runoff; and, surface water drainage flooding from drainage network overloading.

Given the anticipated difficulty of adapting the DU to future climate conditions, the

applicant is proposing to adopt what it regards as the precautionary approach to the design

of flood risk management measures and designs will be built with an allowance for climate

change built in. The applicant’s selected standard of protection against fluvial and tidal

flooding is the future climate 1,000 year return period event with freeboard to be provided

in addition to this. The applicant states that this standard is being adopted on the basis that

adequate flood warning exists to all locations against these hazards and therefore it is held

that actual risk to life is minimal (ref: s. 4.2 Flood Risk Assessment). The required standard

of protection against pluvial and sewer flooding have also been set at the future climate

1,000 year return period event. The applicant is proposing that FFL will be a minimum of

4.31 m OD to provide a standard of protection equivalent to the tidal future climate 1,000


An Bord Pleanala 64

year return period event. Where FFL of 4.31 m OD are not achievable demountable

defences will be used to provide the required protection. The Flood Risk Assessment

acknowledges that within stations with demountable defences it will be necessary for staff

to engage in training and practice drills on a regular basis.

Section 4 ‘Key flood risks by source’ of the Flood Risk Assessment identified that the areas

most susceptible to flooding are East Wall, the Eastern Portal, Docklands and Pearse areas.

Section 4.3 of the Flood Risk Assessment identifies levels of risk by location across the

proposed scheme, mitigation measures are outlined in Section 5 and Table 5.1. The Eastern

Portal will be protected by walls to a level of 5 m OD, ground levels in the area of Coady’s

Yard which will accommodate the OCC building and a traction substation will be raised from

c. 1.9 m OD to 4.31 m OD. The ground levels in the area of the proposed ESB substation,

Maintenance Facility and shaft entrance in the Eastern Portal site will be raised to 4.31 m

OD. It is noted that the depth of flooding predicted in the future climate 1000 year tidal

event would be 2 m, in such an event the Eastern Portal site would be cut off by road, it is

noted that pedestrian access and egress would remain possible along the rail lines. The

proposed structures at the Docklands Station will have a ground floor level of 4.31 m OD,

however, it is proposed to provide one entrance via the existing protected LMS building that

has a floor level of 3.40 m OD, a demountable flood defence is therefore required here. In

relation to the proposed Pearse DU station given: tidal flood risk; pluvial flood risk; the

impracticality of raising ground levels above existing levels; and, the need to connect the

proposed station to the existing station, demountable defence systems will be required at

the proposed Pearse DU station. Likewise at the proposed Bass Place shaft demountable

flood defences will be required to protect against tidal flood risk in this area. At all other

areas across the scheme Table 5.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment indicates that FFL of 4.31 m

OD or greater is achievable. However, Section 5.8 highlights another potential source of

flood risk in relation to Heuston Station. It states that the flood risk from the River Camac

can not be readily identified from available information, the Camac actually flows

underneath the concourse in Heuston and outfalls to the Liffey on the northern side of the

station. It is being proposed to guard against overland flow from the Camac by installing

demountable defences at an estimated height of 1 m to the proposed DU station entrance

and shaft. The Flood Risk Assessment also recommends a flood warning system based on a

simple water level alarm for the entrance to the Camac.

In Section 6 ‘Residual Risks’ of the Flood Risk Assessment it is stated that the Maintenance

Facility at the Eastern Portal site, the Docklands Station and Pearse Station will not be able

to operate if a major tidal flooding occurs, these elements of the DU will have to be

evacuated and will not be able to operate if warned of a flood event in excess of the present

day 200 year standard. It is held that the amount of advance warning available from the


An Bord Pleanala 65

existing Triton flood warning system means that it will be possible to close down and secure

these facilities and evacuate by the local road network well in advance of any flooding.

The Flood Risk Assessment also addresses loss of floodplain storage in Section 6.4. It states

that the DU structures are all to be constructed within the urban environment, generally on

brownfield sites. With the exception of the OCC building in East Wall, all are either to be

built outside the floodplain entirely or within the tidal defended floodplain. It concludes

that as such the impact of any of the proposals on flood levels to local properties will be

negligible.

I concur with the basic key principle as outlined in Chapter 3 of ‘The Planning System and

Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (DoEHLG/OPW Nov. 2009)

that mitigation by avoidance in the first instance should be adopted when development is

being proposed in areas at risk of flooding. Having regard to the foregoing it is clear that the

proposed DU has a range of surface facilities which are subject to flood risk: elements in

East Wall are at risk from tidal flooding; tidal flooding is also a risk via the LMS building in

the Docklands area; and, tidal and pluvial risks will occur at Pearse DU station and Bass Place

site. There is also a risk of flood impact from the Camac at Heuston. However, mitigation

by avoidance in the first instance is not an option in my opinion.

As indicated in Section 2 of this report there are a number of statutory plans and strategies

that identify the need and indicate support for the construction of an interconnecting rail

tunnel between Heuston and Docklands: Transport 21; the NDP 2007-2013; Platform for

Change; and, the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The City Development Plan and

the other statutory plans in the Docklands area i.e. the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan

2008 and the North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002, specifically identify DU stations for the

Docklands and Pearse areas. A tie-in with the northern line is essential and it is difficult to

see how this could be achieved outside of the East Wall area. Previous studies going back

several decades such as the Dublin Transportation Study 1971, the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit

Study 1975 and the Dublin Suburban Strategic Rail Review 2000 all identify the need for an

interconnector between Heuston and East Wall. For the DU scheme to deliver its primary

purpose and adhere to several statutory plans and strategies, it simply cannot avoid

Heuston, Pearse or East Wall, so mitigation by avoidance is not feasible, in my opinion.

I have considered the applicant’s mitigation proposals in relation to flood risk and I have

considered the submissions by the observers on the matter. There is nothing on file to

indicate that the applicant’s mitigation proposals are inadequate nor is there anything on

file to indicate that the proposed DU would increase significantly flood risk on adjacent

lands.


An Bord Pleanala 66

5.1.23 Spoil by rail – v – spoil by road

As indicated on s. 2.7.10 of Book 1 Vol. 2 of the EIS an assessment was made of the various

options for removal of excavated material generated during the construction of the DU,

some 1.48 million cu.m. of material will be generated. Three options were considered:

removal by rail; removal by road; and, removal by conveyor and marine transport to Dublin

Port or other coastal destination sites. The EIS acknowledges that a significant issue with

rail and marine transport options is the lack of certainty in relation to appropriately licensed

destination sites e.g. for spoil removal by rail sites would be required in proximity to an

existing railhead or where a railhead could be provided.

Nevertheless it is considered that at both portal sites removal of spoil by rail, in addition to

spoil by road, are feasible options. While spoil removal by rail are feasible options for both

Inchicore and East Wall (via the North Wall Freight Yard), removal of spoil from all other

sites will be by road.

Transportation of spoil by rail and road have both been considered in the EIS and further

clarified during the Hearing. The methodology of the spoil handling operations for both rail

and road as it relates to the various construction sites is outlined in s. 5.15.2 of Book 2 Vol 2

of the EIS. The traffic impact of road transport is assessed in Chapter 6 of the EIS, potential

noise impacts from rail and road are addressed in Chapter 8 and potential destinations for

excavated material is addressed in Chapter 21 (see also s. 5.1.24 ‘Waste Management’ to

follow).

During the Hearing some discussion took place as to the proposed spoil heap location in the

North Wall Freight Yard to serve the portal site in the North Wall Yard. Both yards are

connected via a private road and a number of rail lines (CIE lands), this corridor passes to

the rear of a number of dwellings at Irvine Terrace to the south. For the spoil by rail option

here, spoil will be carried by conveyor from the portal to the spoil heap in the Freight Yard,

the conveyor will be located along the private road to the rear of Irvine Terrace. The

applicant has indicated that the conveyor, which will have to operate at night time to

service the TBMs, will be enclosed in an acoustic enclosure. Some observers indicated

concern with this option, there are concerns that noise generated by the conveyor will

impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of the dwellings. It was suggested that

the spoil heap for the rail option be relocated in the North Wall Yard site (i.e. the portal site)

and not at the Freight Yard. During the Hearing the applicant indicated the difficulty with

this option, it includes inadequate space available and restricted options for access to rail

lines i.e. the existing railheads in the Freight Yard will provide the optimum access to all rail

lines radiating from the area. The limiting values being recommended in the conditions

hereunder (as recommended in the Acoustics Associates Ltd. report contained in Appendix 4

of this report) are applicable to the conveyor activities and all construction related activities


An Bord Pleanala 67

at that location, subject to compliance with those recommended conditions I consider the

location of the spoil heap for the spoil by rail option in the Freight Yard to be acceptable.

For traffic impact assessment the applicant has assessed the ‘worst case scenario’ as being

spoil removal by road, I consider this reasonable. However, I do consider that the option of

spoil removal by rail from both the Inchicore site and the North Wall Yard site should remain

open as proposed by the applicant, the impacts have been assessed and the mitigation

measures proposed, and conditions recommended at the end of this report, should protect

the existing residential amenities in those areas.

5.1.24 Waste Management

In terms of potential impact the key project phase in terms of waste management for DU is

the excavation phase. A referred to in s. 5.1.23 above the applicant estimates that some

1.48 million cu.m. of material will be generated from: the tunnel boring; construction of the

cut and cover and open cut sections at the Western and Eastern Portal sites; the deep

excavations required for the stations and shafts; and, from construction of ancillary

structures.

The applicant has indicated that the preferred options for excavated material arising from

the DU construction phase are prevention, minimisation and re-use. Where excavated

material can not be prevented or recycled it will be delivered to an authorised waste facility.

Resource and waste management is addressed in Chapter 21 of the EIS and was further

clarified at the Hearing under ‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’ presented to the

Hearing on the 17/12/10 and subsequent cross-questioning throughout the Hearing.

I consider the applicant’s proposals to be acceptable in relation to waste management,

subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed there should not be an

adverse impact on the environment from waste generated during the construction and

operational phases.

5.1.25 Insurance

Some observers have raised concerns relating to possible implications the DU will have in

relation to them insuring their property. Having regard to the provisions of s.43(1)(a-h) of

the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by s.49 of the Planning and

Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 I am of the opinion that this is not a matter

for the Board to make a determination on, in any event I note the provisions of s.48(3)(a) of

the 2001 Act:

“Where an owner or occupier of land (other than a person whose land is acquired under

section 45) suffers loss, injury or damage or incurs expenditure in consequence of the

exercise by the railway undertaking of a power conferred on it by this section, the railway

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0055/sec0045.html#sec45


An Bord Pleanala 68

undertaking shall pay to him or her compensation in respect of the loss, injury, damage or

expenditure and the amount of the compensation shall, in default of agreement, be

determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts (other than

sections 38 to 67 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) and, for the purposes of

those Acts, the railway undertaking shall be deemed to be the promoter of the undertaking

and this Part and the railway order concerned shall be deemed to be the special Act; and, for

the purposes of such determination, those Acts shall apply with any other necessary

modifications and are incorporated (except insofar as they are inconsistent with and subject

to any amendments or modifications, express or implied, thereof effected by this Act) with

this Part.”

The applicant’s proposed Property Protection Scheme has been addressed under s.5.1.3

above, the PPS can be seen as an additional protection over and above s.48 outlined above.

5.2 Area Assessment and Recommendations

In the interests of clarity the remainder of the ‘Assessment and Recommendations’ shall be

divided into the areas as presented in the Railway Works Drawings that accompanied the

RO application, working across the city west to east, from Inchicore (Area 101) to East Wall

(Area 106).

5.2.1 Area 101 Inchicore to Memorial Park

5.2.1.1 Site Location and Description

The proposed station in Area 101 is to be located within the CIE Works site in Inchicore. The

CIE Works is located c. .5 km north-west of Inchicore village and c. .5 km south-east of

Ballyfermot. The CIE Works site is a large (c. 30 ha.) rail-related industrial site, this existing

use stretches back to the start of the railways in Ireland in the mid-1800s.

The site is bounded to the north by the existing mainline rail to Heuston Station, there are a

number of railheads off this line terminating at several locations within the Works site.

There is an impressive collection of railway-related industrial buildings throughout the site

of different eras and idioms reflecting the rich industrial heritage of the area (see ‘Views:

Area 101- 13 to 24’ in Appendix 6).

Immediately to the north of the mainline rail there is a row of two-storey dwellings that

back onto the rail line that forms the northern boundary of the Works site, these dwellings

front onto Landen Road in Ballyfermot. To the west and south-west of the CIE Works site

there are several commercial, industrial and warehouse structures, some of these are

accessed of the Kylemore Road (the R112) while other are accessed via the Kylemore Way

and Jamestown Road located to the south-west of the CIE Works.


An Bord Pleanala 69

Immediately to the east of the Works site is the Inchicore Railway Estate, this is a residential

area and as the name suggests the older dwellings in this estate would be contemporaneous

with the Works site, in the past most of those working for the rail companies in the Works

site would have resided in the Railway Estate, however, this does not appear to be the case

today. The main vehicular entrance into the Works is via Inchicore Parade through the

Railway Estate, there are two pedestrian accesses for workers into the Works, one is located

along the northern boundary over the rail lines and one is located to the south via

Tyrconnell Park.

There is a sports ground located in a green area towards the centre of the Railway Estate,

this acts somewhat as a focus for the residential developments that surround it, to the west

of this playing pitch St. Georges Villas and St. Patrick’s Terrace are located, these residences

face towards the playing pitch, the rear of these dwellings face the Works site, there is a

back lane separating the rear boundaries of these residential plots and the Works site, there

is a c. 3.5 m high wall that bounds the Works site along its eastern side (see ‘Views: Area

101-7 & 8’ in Appendix 6). To the south-west of the playing pitch is Abercorn Terrace, the

lane to the rear of St. Patrick’s Terrace also runs along the rear of Abercorn Terrace, the

dwellings along both terraces have pedestrian rear accesses off this lane (see ‘View: Area

101-9’ in Appendix 6). To the south-east of the playing pitch are Inchicore Terrace West and

Inchicore Square, to the north of the Square a relatively new apartment development

known as Wheaton Court is located.

There is a newer apartment development, known as Seven Oaks, located on the northern

side of the mainline rail to the north of the playing pitch, the rail line bridges over the

Sarsfield Road c. 150 m to the east of the Seven Oaks apartment development. Access to

the Seven Oaks development is off Sarsfield Road, to the west of the development there is a

lane that provides access to a private footbridge over the rail line into the CIE Works site

(one of the two pedestrian access points mentioned above), this is known locally as the

Khyber Pass.

There are two large fuel storage tanks located towards the south-west boundary within the

CIE Works site, this tank installation with associated bund walls have Seveso designation

(see ‘Views: Area 101-21, 22 and 23’ in Appendix 6).

5.2.1.2 Proposed Development At This Location

As stated in s. 1 of this report there are 6 stations proposed across the city on the DU line, 5

of the 6 will be underground stations, the station at Inchicore will not be underground, it

will be a sub-surface station in a retained open cut, the tracks will be c. 5.6 m below ground

level. The station is to be located towards the centre of the CIE Works site. As per this RO

application it will be a terminus station with a turn-back facility for the Dart trains, however,

provision has been allowed for a future tie-in to the Kildare lines that run along the northern


An Bord Pleanala 70

boundary of the site, the future tie-in will form part of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2

(KRP2).

At operational stage there will be only one public vehicular access route to the station. This

will be via the Kylemore Way which connects to the Kylemore Road to the west of the

Works. An access road will be developed off the Kylemore Way into the Works site, this will

entail the part demolition of an industrial premises, ‘Sherlings’, which is located between

the Kylemore Way and the site. This new access will provide for pedestrian, cycle and

vehicular, including bus, access to the station, however, this access will primarily facilitate a

‘kiss and ride’ operation at the station, there is no ‘park and ride facility’ proposed.

The access road into the site will also entail the reconfiguration of the bund wall around two

large fuel tanks located in the Works to the rear of the Sherlings’ premises, as indicated

above these tanks have Seveso designation. A separate access road off the Kylemore Way

onto the Jamestown Road is also proposed as part of the DU application, this access road

will facilitate access to the Sherlings’ operations and a number of existing industrial

businesses located to the west along the Jamestown Road.

Within the Works the tunnels’ portal will be located approximately 40 m west of the eastern

boundary with the Railway Estate, there will be a cut and cover section of some 140 m

length west of the portal, the alignment then enters a retained cut for a distance of c. 200 m

prior to reaching the station and turn-back facility. To facilitate the station, turn-back

facility, ‘retained cut’ and the ‘cut and cover’ section a large number of structures are to be

demolished or partially demolished.

Two ESB sub-stations are proposed as part of the DU project, one will be located at the

North Wall Yard in East Wall and one will be located towards the south-east corner of the

Works site in Inchicore. This sub-station will be 4 to 6 m in height, the sub-station will be

divided into two separate but adjacent structures and will be clad in terracotta tiles.

The existing vehicular entrance to the Works will be maintained during the DU operational

stage, this entrance will provide access to the ESB substation, however, the existing

entrance will remain a private entrance providing access to only those working on the site,

there will be no through-route from the proposed Kylemore Way entrance to the Inchicore

Parade entrance.

In addition to the Kylemore Way entrance there will be three public pedestrian entrances

into the Works to facilitate access to the DU station. The existing private workers bridge

over the rail line along northern boundary via the Khyber Pass will be open to commuters,

this will primarily service the eastern Ballyfermot area. The existing workers entrance via

Tyrconnell Park in the southern boundary to the Works will also be open to DU commuters.

There is a blocked-up entrance located in the south-east corner of the Works site, it is

proposed to reopen this entrance to provide access to the DU station for pedestrian and


An Bord Pleanala 71

cyclists, this reopened entrance will be accessed off the existing lane that runs to the rear of

Abercorn Terrace in the Railway Estate.

The two other construction sites in Area 101 will be outside of the CIE Works, one will be

located to the north of the playing pitch located in the Railway Estate, this site is to

accommodate the construction of the Inchicore Intervention Shaft. This shaft when

constructed will be clad in clay tiles, there will be an entrance/egress to the shaft along its

northern elevation, the shaft will be 5 m at its highest point but it will be 3 m high for the

most part. There will be a walled yard area located to the north-east of the shaft that will

accommodate vehicular access. The works proposed in this area also include for the

replacement/upgrade of the wall around the playing pitch.

The other location where works are proposed as part of this RO application in the Inchicore

area is located adjacent the rail bridge over Sarsfield Road which is located to the north-east

of the Railway Estate. The DU passes c. 19 m below the walls adjacent Sarsfield Bridge, the

walls here are retaining some 5 m of earth, it is proposed to stabilise these walls by

installing ground anchors.

The CIE Works site is zoned Z6 ‘To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and

facilitate opportunities for employment creation’ as per Map D of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017, the Sherling site and adjacent areas where the new access

roads are proposed are also zoned Z6. Residential areas to the north and south of the

Works, including Landen Road and the Seven Oaks apartment development to the north and

Tyrconnell Park to the south, are zoned Z1 ‘To protect, provide and improve residential

amenities’. The majority of the dwellings that make up the Railway Estate to the east of the

Works are zoned Z2 ‘To protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation

areas’ as per Map D of the Development Plan. The two fuel tanks and associated bund wall

are identified as a ‘Seveso II establishment’ as per Map D of the Development Plan. The

area where the intervention shaft is proposed to the north of the existing playing pitch is

zoned Z9 ‘To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space & green

networks’. Areas to the north and south of Sarsfield Road where the ground anchors are

proposed within the existing stone retaining walls are zoned Z1 ‘residential amenity’.

In relation to the construction phase, the first phase will focus on the tunnel portals which

will be located near to the existing main entrance to the Works at the end of Inchicore

Parade. The portals will be formed with secant pile walled open cut structures, these

portals will remain open until the arrival of the two TBMs at the end of the east to west

tunnelling process, the TBMs will be dismantled and removed off site, following their

removal the portals will be roofed over with a concrete slab. As piling of the portal

structures nears completion a site will be established at the location of the intervention

shaft north of the playing pitch.


An Bord Pleanala 72

The first activity for the shaft construction will be the installation of a piled retaining wall.

To reduce construction noise the shaft will be constructed using the ‘top-down’

methodology. Following casting of the top slab progressive excavation and lining of the

underground structure will take place. The civil works are then followed by mechanical and

electrical fit-out and commissioning. Following on from construction of the tunnel portal

and intervention shaft the remaining structures in the Works site forming the western

tunnel approaches and the DU Inchicore Station will be built. These will entail the

construction of embedded retaining walls, excavation from between these walls and

concreting of the open cut sections together with the station structures. The works in the

Inchicore area are expected to take some 55 months (ref: Slide 75 of ‘Traffic and

Transportation’ submitted to the Hearing on the 14/12/10). Construction traffic to/from the

intervention shaft site will be via the CIE Works site i.e. construction traffic will not access

the shaft site via Inchicore village direction.

Construction activities for the Sarsfield Road wall strengthening works are expected to take

some 3 months and will entail the installation of some 100 ground anchors in each of the

two walls flanking the road at that location.

In relation to the tunnels, both tunnels on leaving the CIE Works will travel between St.

Georges Villas to the north and St. Patrick’s Terrace to the south which form the western

end of the Railway Estate. The tunnels, heading in an easterly direction, will then travel

beneath the playing pitch and Wheaton Court apartment development. The westbound

tunnel will travel close to dwellings located at the western end of Inchicore Terrace North,

both tunnels then pass beneath Sarsfield Road and enter grounds beneath Murray’s

Cottages, Woodfield Cottages and Woodfield Place. The westbound tunnel will travel

beneath the rear garden areas of dwellings that front onto Inchicore Road. Both tunnels will

pass beneath the mainline rail and the Con Colbert Road (N4) as they enter Area 102. The

land use zoning of the pitch above the tunnels is Z9 (recreational amenity & open space),

the land use zoning applicable to Wheaton Court, Murray’s Cottages and Woodfield is Z1

(protect, provide and improve residential amenities) as per Map D of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017.

5.2.1.3 Issues Arising








An Bord Pleanala 73



















Having considered all of the above, I am of the opinion that the main issues concerning the

likely consequences for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and

for the environment to be addressed in relation to Area 101 are as contained in Section 5.1

of this report and Section 5.2.1.4 hereunder.

5.2.1.4 Area 101 - Inchicore to Memorial Park Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.1.4.1 Impacts from tunnelling and deep excavations

The final leg of the TBMs’ journey will bring them into the Inchicore area where they will

travel beneath and adjacent several residential developments. Many of the occupants of

these residential areas have submitted observations in writing to the Board and orally at the

Hearing raising concerns about the potential impacts from the TBMs’ activities. Concerns

are also expressed regarding deep excavation works required to facilitate the intervention

shaft at the playing pitch, this shaft is adjacent the Inchicore Sports and Social Club building.

Concerns relate to vibrations, settlement and groundborne noise and relate to impacts both

to homes/structures and impacts on the health of the occupants of the dwellings.

The TBMs will travel beneath dwellings in Woodfield Place, Woodfield Cottages, Murray’s

Cottages, Sarsfield Road and Wheaton Court apartment development, at the final approach

to the CIE Works where the TBM reception chambers will be located the TBMs will travel

close to the southern gable of No. 1 St. Georges Villas and the northern gable of No. 1 St.


An Bord Pleanala 74

Patricks Terrace, it is at this location that the TBMs will be at their shallowest depth adjacent

existing dwellings (some 8 m from ground level to the tunnel crown). A number of the

dwellings above/adjacent the TBMs date from the late 1800s/early 1900s and would not

have substantial foundations, the dwellings that make up St. George’s Villas and St. Patrick’s

Terrace are zoned Z2 ‘To protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation

areas’.

As indicated previously under ‘Assessment of a Range of Generic Issues Relevant to the

Railway Order application’ the Board engaged the services of Dr R. Massarsch to advise on

impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is contained in Appendix

3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to ‘Appendix 4 – Review of

Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr Massarsch’s main report.

Pages 32-40 of that Appendix 4 includes a detailed consideration of the Inchicore observers’

concerns relating to settlement, groundborne noise, vibrations and other geotechnical

related matters, these include a review of, inter alia, the OTB Engineering alternative

alignment proposal for the area, implications relating to the instalment of geothermal

heating systems, proximity of TBM reception chamber to existing dwellings and the

temporary relocation of occupants.

As indicated previously I have given detailed consideration to the contents of Dr

Massarsch’s report and accept the advice and recommendations contained therein, I have

incorporated the recommendations of Dr Massarsch’s report in the draft conditions for the

Board’s consideration attached to the end of this report. Subject to compliance with the

mitigations measures proposed and compliance with the recommended conditions attached

to the end of this report, there should not be an adverse impact on the receiving

environment in the Inchicore area arising from vibrations, ground movement or

groundborne noise.

5.2.1.4.2 St. George’s Villas & St. Patrick’s Terrace

These two residential areas flank the existing main entrance into the CIE Works site at the

western end of Inchicore Parade with St. George’s Villas on the northern side and St.

Patrick’s Terrace on the southern side. As indicated above the TBMs will be c. 8 m below

ground level adjacent dwellings in these areas. This is not the only element of the DU

project that has the potential of impacting on these dwellings. I would consider that given

their location St. George’s Villas and the northern units in the Terrace have the greatest

potential of suffering from adverse impacts when one considers all of the potential impact

sources. There will be a construction site towards the front of St. Georges Villas and works

are proposed within the CIE Works site to the rear. I note, however, that heavy civil

engineering works required in the early stages will not take place simultaneously, the rigs

required for the piling will be first utilised for the construction of the TBM reception

chamber in the Works and then moved to the shaft compound to commence works on the


An Bord Pleanala 75

shaft construction. Nevertheless, potential impacts exist from airborne noise from the

construction sites, groundborne noise from the TBMs below, dust from the sites, vibrations

from the TBMs below, vibrations from trucks and machinery travelling between the two

compounds, light pollution and visual impact as the dwellings will be facing towards the

shaft compound. I would also note that St. George’s Villas could potentially suffer from

some degree of severance as the construction traffic travelling between the two compounds

will travel across the western end of Inchicore Parade to the south of No. 1 St. Georges

Villas, however, I also not the applicant’s mitigation proposal of providing a flagman at this

location.

The applicant has identified the potential impacts and has made reasonable proposals to

mitigate same in my opinion. I note the applicant’s stated commitment to ensuring that

mitigation measures proposed are followed through. I note the applicant’s commitments to

monitoring, the establishment of trigger levels for various potential impacts, the imposition

of limiting values, community liaison and the provision of a 24 hour phone line. Subject to

compliance with mitigation measures proposed the potential adverse impacts on St.

Georges Villas and St. Patrick’s Terrace should not be realised. I have attached a number of

draft conditions for the Board’s consideration at the end of this report, these include a

recommendation in relation to environmental mitigation and environmental risk

management. The Inchicore on Track (IOT) observer submission to the Hearing included a

list of conditions to be attached to any RO granted, given the applicant’s mitigation

measures as contained within the EIS and as outlined at the Hearing, and also noting the

contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and the applicant (to be included

in the 11th Schedule of the RO) and subject to compliance with the conditions attached to

the RO, I consider that the pertinent issues raised in the IOT submission will be fully

addressed.

5.2.1.4.3 Station Location

The Inchicore Station is to be located towards the centre of the CIE Works site. A number of

observers have questioned the suitability of this location while others from the area have

welcomed a station at this location. Those with station location concerns refer to its

distance from both the centre of Inchicore village and Ballyfermot. They also hold that a

station at this location will radically change how the Works site and the Railway Estate will

function into the future. Some are of the opinion that the station is ill though out in terms

of urban planning and should not be permitted at this location.

Some have suggested alternative locations for the station, these include locations closer to

Inchicore village and Ballyfermot, however, the DU has to allow for a turn-back facility under

this RO application but must also allow for a future tie-in with the Kildare lines, these

requirements greatly limit where the station can be located, it is difficult to see how both a

turn-back facility and a future tie-in can be accommodated at the alternative sites suggested


An Bord Pleanala 76

at Inchicore village (e.g. Grattan Park) and Ballyfermot. The observer submission by

Inchicore on Track (IOT) included a suggested alternative location within the CIE Works site,

this was presented to the Hearing by OTB Engineering, however, it appears that some

observers that opposed the station have difficulty with it at any location within the CIE

Works site (including some of those representing IOT).

It was originally intended that the DU would run between Heuston and Docklands and not

between Inchicore and Docklands, however, it proved difficult to accommodate the turn-

back facility at Heuston without adversely impacting on existing rail services out of that

station so an alternative turn-back facility was decided upon at Inchicore. It appears that

the applicant was not originally intending to provide a station at Inchicore under the RO

application but following public consultations a station was proposed for Inchicore.

Much reference has been made to the Murray O’Laoire ‘Inchicore Works Urban Design

Framework Plan’ (ref: Appendix 4.2, Vol. 4 of the EIS). It appears the preparation of this

document came about following the applicant’s pre-application consultations with An Bord

Pleanala regarding the DU proposal. As the Board will be aware with reference to s.47C(3)

of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by s.50 of the Planning and

Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, such pre-application consultations shall

not prejudice the performance by the Board of any other of its functions under the

Transport Act and the holding of consultations cannot be relied upon in the formal planning

process. The Murray O’Laoire plan is a masterplanning study, it is indicative of how the CIE

Works may be developed in the future, it does not form part of the RO application, it has no

statutory footing. I consider it an appropriate exercise to carry out but I do not propose to

make a recommendation on it as it does not form part of the RO application and any such

future development for the Works site will be subject of a separate development consent

process. Third parties will have an opportunity to engage with any such consent process. I

note an objective in relation to this area in the recently adopted City Development Plan: “A

masterplan will also be prepared for Inchicore, including the Railway Works and surrounding

area, which will emerge as a key transport hub on delivery of the DART Underground

Project” (ref: page 22 of Chapter 3 ‘Development Plan Vision and Core Strategy’ of the

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017). I am not convinced that a station within the

Works would have an adverse impact on the historically associated Railway Estate and also

note objective FCO34 of the City Development Plan: “To undertake an assessment to inform

the potential ACA designation for CIE Estate Inchicore”.

Given, inter alia, the need for turn-back facility, alignment restrictions, need to facilitate

future tie-in with the Kildare lines and also noting the location of the proposed station

between both Inchicore and Ballyfermot, and the number and location of the access points

proposed, I consider the station location acceptable. I am of the opinion that there will be

considerable planning gain to the local community with the provision of a station at this


An Bord Pleanala 77

location. I do not consider that the station itself would have an adverse impact on the

vitality and viability of the commercial cores of Inchicore or Ballyfermot, the land uses that

may be proposed at some future stage adjacent the station may have such an impact but

that will be a matter to be assessed if such land uses are proposed at some future stage

under a separate process.

5.2.1.4.4 Station Access

At operational stage a vehicular access way will be constructed to the Inchicore Station off

the Kylemore Way, this access with facilitate a ‘kiss and ride’ facility at the station together

with bus stop provision, pedestrian access, cycle lanes and bicycle parking. It will require

the part demolition of an existing steelworks premises known as Sherlings that is located

between the Kylemore Way and the CIE Works. Pedestrian access and cycle lanes will also

be provided at three other locations: via a footbridge and lane known locally as the Khyber

Pass located to the west of the Seven Oaks apartment development; an existing route onto

Tyrconnell Park to the south of the CIE Work; and, the reopening of a route leading onto a

lane at the rear of Abercorn Terrace (ref: p.1-17 ‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed Description of

the Railway Order Works’ submitted to the Hearing on the 24/11/10).

A main vehicular access was considered from the east via Inchicore Terrace, however this

was dismissed for a number of reasons including catchment restriction, street width, not

suitable for bus access and not suitable for any significant increases in vehicular traffic

generally (ref: p. 1-60 ‘Brief of Evidence – Traffic and Transportation’ submitted to the

Hearing on the 14/12/10). In addition, alternative accesses adjacent Sherlings were

considered but were also dismissed in favour of the Sherlings option. The vehicular access

as proposed off the Kylemore Way is the optimum solution at this location as it is more

direct.

A number of observers have raised concerns about the use of the lane at the rear of

Abercorn Terrace to access the station, these concerns relate to security, anti-social

behaviour, privacy and existing lane use. I would consider these concerns reasonable, this is

currently a tertiary route that serves those dwellings that back onto it. To facilitate the

proposed pedestrian access to the station at this location this lane will need upgrading (as

acknowledged by the applicant), DCC will have a role in that regard. In relation to security

concerns the applicant, DCC and An Garda Siochana will all be stakeholders in ensuring that

existing residential amenities in the area will not be adversely affected by the increased

public use of this lane to access the station. Ms White for the applicant told the Hearing

that it would be possible to install public lighting along this lane in such a way as not to

adversely impact on residents while still providing for security for those using the lane (ref:

O.H. Transcripts, Day 53, p. 128). As this lane provides the most direct route to the station

from Inchicore village east and as there is a public right of way already existing across this

lane, and also noting that there was an entrance located at the end of the lane into the


An Bord Pleanala 78

Works where, in the past, some 2000 people worked, I would not advise against permitting

the reopening of this pedestrian and cycle route to access the station from the east.

I refer the Board to Mr S. Wallace’s observations on the use (at operational stage) of both

Abercorn Terrace lane and the Khyber Pass as contained in s.4.11 of the ‘Report on Traffic

and Transportation’ in Appendix 5 attached to this report:

“…Access to Ballyfermot would be via the existing railway footbridge known locally as the Kyber Pass that is presently used by CIE staff passing through a security gate. This gate would remain open to the public during DART operation hours but would be locked overnight. Concern was raised by observers that the extra usage of this pedestrian route could lead to an increased level of anti-social behaviour. Pedestrian usage is predicted to be 300 pedestrians in the morning peak hour in 2030. The applicant responded that the opposite may occur – improved perception of personal safety due to a higher and more frequent level of usage. My opinion is that, with continued use of CCTV monitoring, the situation is unlikely to be made significantly worse by the provision of the DART station.

A similar concern regarding anti-social behaviour was raised by observers with respect to pedestrians routing via the existing roadway at the rear of Abercorn Terrace. In this instance the predicted flow is 600 pedestrians per hour. The existing footpath of this public road, subject to some maintenance and tidy up, is adequate to accommodate such a level of usage. Given there are a number of gates into the rear gardens of Abercorn Terrace properties, residents felt there would be security concerns (eg risk of burglary). Again the applicant responded suggesting increased usage could lead to less risk of such an event occurring. It is difficult to predict if there is more or less risk at this stage. I therefore recommend that this route should be monitored, particularly in the initial operational stage, so that the need for any specific mitigation (eg CCTV monitoring) can be identified, in conjunction with Dublin City Council…”

Mr Lavery for the applicant told the Hearing that the applicant would develop local

community liaison committees with representatives from residents groups, businesses,

elected public representatives, DCC officials and CIE (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 53 p. 132).

These committees will liaise with DCC’s local policing forum in order to address security

concerns such as those raised by observers in relation to Abercorn Terrace lane and the

Khyber Pass. Mr Muldoon for the applicant informed the Hearing that the applicant is

committed to working with the Gardaí and DCC on security issues on public lands

approaching their property such as those at Abercorn Terrace lane and the Khyber Pass (ref:

O.H. Transcripts Day 54 p. 97). I note also the provisions of s.3.10.6 ‘Anti-Social behaviour’

and s.3.10.7 ‘Security and Staffing’ of Chapter 3 of Vol. 2 of the EIS.

Having regard to, inter alia, the mitigation measures proposed, I consider the Inchicore

Station access proposals to be acceptable.


An Bord Pleanala 79

5.2.1.4.5 SEVESO site

The CIE Works site in Inchicore is a notified Seveso site under the European Communities

(Control of Major Accident Hazards involving Dangerous Substances) Regulations 2006. This

designation relates to two large fuel tanks located near the south-western site boundary

within the Works, these tanks are surrounded by a large bund wall (see ‘Views: Area 101-21,

22 and 23’ in Appendix 6 attached to this report).

The permanent access road from Kylemore Way into the proposed station, which will also

be used during construction phase for construction traffic, will entail the reconfiguration of

the bund walls (see Railway Works Drawings, Plan Nos. DU-BU 101-A-B 01 and 02 submitted

with the application).

As required, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) were notified of the proposal. In a letter

dated 13th August 2010 the HSA informed the Board that they were seeking further

information from the applicant in relation to the proposal, the HSA attached a copy of the FI

request it issued to the applicant. On Day 1 of the Hearing Mr Mark Conroy for the

applicant told the Hearing that CIE had fully addressed all issues raised by the HSA. The

applicant’s response to the HSA is contained within Appendix D of ‘Brief of Evidence –

Coordination of Railway Order Application’ submitted to the Hearing on the 22/11/10. This

response includes a Societal Risk Assessment with respect to the storage of materials at the

Works and the proposal for introducing a publically accessible station into the Works as part

of the DU. The response also includes an analysis of the effect and benefit of increasing the

bund wall around the tanks. Subsequently, the HSA wrote to the Board (letter dated

08/12/2010) stating, inter alia, that “on the basis of the information supplied and the

measures proposed in the additional information submitted by the applicant, dated 29

November 2010, the Authority DOES NOT ADVISE AGAINST (HSA emphasis) the granting of

planning permission in the context of Major Accident Hazards” (the applicant’s response to

the HSA submitted to the Hearing on the 22/11/10 is dated October 2010, there was a

subsequent correspondence between the HSA and the applicant with a covering letter

dated 29/11/10, a copy of that correspondence was submitted to the Hearing on the

16/12/10 following a request from the Inspector. The HSA were notified of the holding of

the Hearing into the RO but did not attend).

The Board granted, subject to conditions, permission for 300 apartments, a crèche,

community hall, retail units and café on a site immediately to the east of the site containing

the tanks (ref: PL 29S.224467, copy of order in Appendix 6 attached to this report). Dublin

City Council granted permission, subject to conditions, for a mixed use development on a

site immediately to the south-east of the site containing the tanks (ref: 2274/09, planning

application details in Appendix 6 attached to this report).


An Bord Pleanala 80

I note and accept the HSA advice of the 08/12/2010 concerning the applicant’s proposals

relating to the Seveso site.

5.2.1.4.6 Construction Traffic Access

I refer the Board to s. 5.14 of Mr Wallace’s ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ (see

Appendix 5 attached to this report) in relation to construction traffic impacts in this area

where it states, inter alia, the following:

“Access routes for this site would be from the south only, via the newly created permanent access road linking with Kylemore Way and thereafter connecting to the N7 and the M50 via Kylemore Road. Access to the shaft works in the Inchicore playing fields would also be provided via this route and not through the Inchicore Estate, apart from using a short section of Inchicore Parade next to the railway works gate. The 7% increase in traffic at the Kylemore Road / Kylemore Way junction would not significantly increase queuing and this junction such that it would remain within capacity. A temporary truck stacking space that could accommodate 10 vehicles is proposed on Kylemore Way. Even though Inchicore is second busiest site in terms of construction traffic movement, there are no significant impacts to pedestrians, cyclists, bus or taxi associated that require mitigation.”

I concur with the above.

5.2.1.4.7 Industrial Heritage

The CIE Railway Works at Inchicore, established by the Great Southern and Western Railway

Company in 1846, is the largest surviving engineering complex of its kind in Ireland, ref:

s.19.8.3.2 of Book 3, Vol. 2 of the EIS. The history and evolution of the Works is outlined in

Chapter 19 of the EIS. There is considerable industrial heritage associated with this site.

At its height there was some 2000 people employed there and there was the associated

Railway Estate with a church, school and community centre, it formed a significant historical

aspect of Dublin’s social, economic and cultural development and represents a significant

element of the city’s industrial heritage. The Works site is included in the Dublin City

Industrial Heritage Record (ref: DCIHR 18 09 004).

The DU proposal includes for the partial or complete demolition of some 12 structures

within the Works site, these are listed in Table 19.5 of the Chapter 19 of the EIS, these

structures will also be cleared of any surviving plant and equipment, in addition, Table 19.6

lists 3 further structures which will be indirectly impacted by the removal of adjoining or

adjacent buildings. The Board is referred to Figures 19.20 to 19.40 in Book 3 of Vol. 3 of the

EIS which contains photographs of a number of these structures that are to be impacted by

the proposed development. Impacts on each of the structures was further assessed in

Chapter 20 ‘Architectural Heritage’ of the EIS, the assessment concludes that for a

significant number of structures the impact rating will be significant i.e. The Foundry, The

Smithy, The Fleet Overhaul Shop, The Technical Office and The Fire Station.


An Bord Pleanala 81

I concur with the concerns of IOT and other observers relating to the extent of demolition

proposed in the CIE Works site. Despite the fact that many of the structures that are to be

impacted have been altered/changed over time, as a collective they are a valuable record of

the city’s industrial heritage. While the Works site is not an Architectural Conservation Area,

nor are any the impacted buildings on the Record of Protected Structures, notwithstanding

the proposed ‘mitigation by record’ (and Condition 6 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document), I

am of the opinion that the large scale demolition proposed constitutes a negative,

permanent and significant impact on the industrial heritage of this unique engineering

complex. However, notwithstanding this loss to the city’s rail-related industrial heritage,

the benefits accruing the city and region from the DU are significant and on balance

outweigh this significant loss to the industrial heritage, there is a further consolation in that

the Works site will continue into the C21st with a new rail-related function.

While the Railway Estate developed in tandem with the Works site, given the physical

separation that exists today between the Estate and the Works, and also noting that it is no

longer the case that many of those who reside in the Estate are employed in the Works site,

and further noting that no dwellings or structures are to be demolished in the Estate

pursuant to the RO, I do not consider that the demolition proposed and new station use

proposed within the Works will have an adverse impact on the architectural heritage or the

urban integrity of the Railway Estate. I would consider that a Dart railway station serving,

inter alia, the Railway Estate can be considered as a long term positive impact.

5.2.1.4.8 ESB Substation

One of the two substations required for the DU project is to be located in the south-eastern

corner of the CIE Works site. A number of observers have raised concerns in relation to the

siting of this structure. It is to be located to the rear of St. Patrick’s Terrace. Concerns relate

to proximity to dwellings with possible resultant electromagnetic interference, possible

health impacts and noise emanating at operational stage.

Chapter 18 of Vol. 2 of the EIS addresses Electromagnetic Compatibility and this issue was

also addressed by the applicant in the Hearing with the submission titled ‘Brief of Evidence –

Electromagnetic Compatibility’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11. Electromagnetic

interference from the substation will be minimised by ensuring that it meets the

requirements of EN50121-2:2006, this standard defines the emission limits from the

substation at 10 m from the boundary fence. The substation is legally required to conform

with EU EMC Directive 2004/108/EC and effectively this conformance will be demonstrated

by meeting EN50121-2:2006. Beyond 10 m from the boundary fence of the substation, the

substation is unlikely to interfere with domestic electronics equipment. The Inchicore

substation is some 40 m from the rear of St. Patrick’s Terrace.


An Bord Pleanala 82

The applicant informed the Hearing that, in relation to health effects, the emission levels are

approximately 3 orders of magnitude lower than the ICNIRP guidelines. The potential health

impacts were addressed at the Hearing in the above mentioned document submitted on the

13/01/11 and in the submission by Dr. Hogan titled ‘Brief of Evidence – Human Health’ also

submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11.

Given the separation distance proposed, the mitigation measures outlined in s.18.6 of the

EIS and having regard to other legal requirements imposed on the applicant as outlined

above, I consider the location of the substation to be acceptable. I note there are

substations existing in the city in closer proximity to established residential areas than that

proposed by the applicant at Inchicore.

Some observers also raised concerns about possible noise emanating from the substation at

operational stage, as indicated previously in this report the technical adviser to the

Inspector on ‘Above Ground Noise’ is recommending a 35LAeq limit for fixed plant and

equipment for the operational stage of the DU, that recommendation is incorporated into

the draft conditions for the Board’s consideration at the end of this report. It should be

noted that the substation will have its own enclosure and there is a c. 3.5 m high wall

between the CIE Works site and the back lane that runs behind St. Patrick’s Terrace.

5.2.1.4.9 ‘Project Splitting’

The DU is one part of a programme of works to upgrade/enhance the rail infrastructure in

the Dublin region. There are a number of major projects included in the overall DART

programme which form part of Transport 21. In addition to the DU through the city the

DART programme includes for resignalling of parts of the Northern and Maynooth lines,

track capacity enhancements including 4 tracking along the Kildare line, the electrification of

the rail commuter services where it currently is a diesel-powered service (effectively

electrified DART will be extended to Hazelhatch, Maynooth and Drogheda) and the upgrade

of the DART fleet and facilities.

The current RO application provides for a terminus station at Inchicore but it does allow for

the future tie-in to the Kildare lines, the tie-in does not form part of this RO application. The

DART programme includes the 4 tracking of the Kildare line, some of this 4 tracking has

already been carried out between Hazelhatch and Cherry Orchard, this is known as the

Kildare Route Project Phase 1 (KPR1). Some observers hold that the remaining 4 tracking

and the tie-in should form part of this RO application and the environmental impacts from

that proposal should be considered in conjunction with the impacts from the DU in the area.

The remaining 4 tracking to be carried out east of Cherry Orchard towards Inchicore and the

tie-in is known as the Kildare Route Project 2 (KRP2).

While all of the projects together will be interconnected and there will clearly be cumulative

gains, each in themselves as standalone projects have specific objectives and gains. The


An Bord Pleanala 83

executed KRP1 has facilitated a bypass of slow trains increasing capacity for both commuter

and intercity services on that line. The RO application before the Board is not dependent on

the provision of the missing 4 track element on the Kildare line, there is a turn-back

provision at Inchicore for the DU, the DU can operate irrespective of whether the 4 tracking

of the Kildare line is completed or not. If the KRP2 project is to proceed it will be subject of

an EIA and the cumulative impacts can be considered at that stage, in that regard I do not

consider that the current DU application and any future KRP2 application constitutes

‘projecting splitting’ for the purposes of avoiding proper environmental impact assessment.

5.2.1.4.10 Land Use Zonings

The siting of the Inchicore shaft and the construction compound associated with the shaft

have taken account of the playing pitch to the south, this pitch will continue in use. The

shaft and adjoining enclosure is confined to the north-eastern corner of the Z9 ‘open space’

zoned area, I do not consider that the shaft at this location impedes the recreational use of

the open space to the south and therefore does not conflict with the land-use zoning, in any

event, the DU is supported by a number of objectives in the Dublin City Development Plan

2011-2017 and ‘public service installations’ are ‘permissible uses’ on Z9 zoned lands as per

s.15.10.9 of the Development Plan.

I note the observer submission in relation to an alternative location for the shaft (i.e. Horses

Field) and I have considered the applicant’s response (including references to Dublin Fire

Brigade requirements), I have also considered Appendix 4 of Dr. Massarsch’s report

contained in Appendix 3 of this report, having regard to the forgoing I would not

recommend that the applicant be required to relocate the shaft. At operational stage the

shaft will not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, in my opinion.

Given the established use in the CIE Works and the Z6 zoning applicable to it, I do not

consider that the proposed station at this location conflicts with the land use zoning

objective, ‘public service installations’ are ‘permissible uses’ on such zoned lands as per

s.15.10.6 of the Development Plan. The railway use is a long established use here and the

proposal is an evolution of that use, in my opinion.

5.2.1.4.11 Asbestos Removal

Observers have raised concerns about the removal of asbestos material from the buildings

that are to be demolished in the Works site and at the Sherlings premises to facilitate the

development.

Mr Lavery for the applicant reminded the Hearing that the removal of asbestos is covered

by stringent health and safety regulations, he referred to the need for a license and a waste

haulage contractor to remove any asbestos, he referred to the methodology of dampening


An Bord Pleanala 84

down asbestos panels, double bagging of same as they are removed and the use of dust

debris screens (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 59 p. 162).

Dr. Hogan for the applicant went on to tell the Hearing that the removal of asbestos from

industrial and other installations is “a well established practice”, he stated that with the

tried and trusted procedures “there will be no significant health effects” (ref: O.H.

Transcripts Day 59 p. 164).

Under s.21.3.2 ‘Demolition Phase’ of Book 4, Vol. 2 of the EIS it is stated that an asbestos

audit will be carried out on buildings prior to demolition and that any asbestos

encountered will be removed in accordance with the relevant legislation and disposed of by

specialist contractors to an appropriately licensed facility. This was reiterated by Ms Manning

for the applicant in her ‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’ presented to the Hearing on

Day 15.

Having regard to mitigation measures proposed, need for compliance with other legal codes

regarding asbestos disposal and also noting that asbestos has been successfully removed from

other industrial premises in the city in the past, I consider it unwarranted to refuse the RO in

relation to this matter (the asbestos would must probably have to be removed at some stage

in the future from the site irrespective of whether the RO was granted or not).

5.2.1.4.12 Contaminated Soil

As indicated previously in this section, there has been a continuous rail-related industrial use

at the Inchicore Works site since the mid-1800s. An assessment of soil contamination at the

Inchicore Works is included in s.13.3.7.2 of Book 3, Vol. 2 of the EIS. That assessment

indicates that the maximum levels of antimony, chromium, selenium, Polychlorinated

byphenyls, Total Organic Carbon, Loss of Ignition, Diesel range Organics and Mineral Oil all

exceed the maximum allowable limits for insert landfills.

Under s.13.5.1.1 it is stated that contaminated soils will be assessed, characterised,

excavated and managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy set out in the Landfill

Directive (99/31/EC) and any disposal will be in accordance with the Landfill Directive Waste

Acceptance Criteria for Landfills, and the Waste Management Acts 1996-2008. Ms Manning

for the applicant reiterated that no stockpiling of contaminated soil will occur at Inchicore

(ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 59 p.12). Mr Feely for the applicant told the hearing that a qualified

environmental engineer will remain on site until all contaminated soil is excavated and

removed, he stated that the movement of the contaminated soil will be done in one go, there

will be no double handling (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 55 p.38).

Subject to compliance with these mitigations I am satisfied that there should not be an

adverse impact on the surrounding environment from the removal and disposal of

contaminated soil from the site.


An Bord Pleanala 85

5.2.1.4.13 Works to Sarsfield Road

Strengthening works are required to the retaining wall located on both sides of the Sarsfield

Road to the east of the Sarsfield Road rail bridge. This will entail installing some 100 ground

anchors in each of the walls flanking the road.

While there will be some restrictions to traffic during these works (i.e. reduced to one lane

for a period), the road will remain open for the duration of the works which is expected to

take some 3 months. I note and concur with the assessment as contained in s.5.13 of Mr S.

Wallace’s ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ as contained within Appendix 5 attached to

this report where it states, inter alia, the following:

“As part of the overall construction strategy it is proposed to strengthen the two existing retaining walls on Sarsfield Road in advance of the tunnel boring machines passing under this area. The strengthening would be carried out in two stages, each involving reducing the existing carriageway to one lane and implementing shuttle working controlled by traffic signals. With Sarsfield Road being relatively lightly trafficked the main impact of this traffic management arrangement is on bus services 78a and 79. Westbound services would experience a delay of up to 1 minute, with no delay encountered by eastbound services since the signals would be linked to those at the adjacent junction.”

In relation to the stability anchors proposed to the walls (see drawing no. DU-RW 101-C-O

07 submitted with the RO application) I note that under Condition No. 7 of the DCC/CIE

‘Agreed Position’ document, details of the finishing bolts will be agreed with DCC to protect

the visual amenity and heritage value of the wall, this appears reasonable.

5.2.2 Area 102 Memorial Park to Heuston


After the Sarsfield Road site the next surface site is located in the south-eastern corner of

the War Memorial Park in Islandbridge, this is within the western end of Area 102 of the

submitted RO drawings. The War Memorial Park is a designated ‘Conservation Area’ and is

zoned Z9 ‘to preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space & green

networks’ as per Map E of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, the Gardens are

also on the RPS (ref: 2028). The N4, the Con Colbert Road, runs along the southern

boundary of the site, to the west is the main body of the War Memorial Gardens, adjoining

the site to the north is Gaelscoil Inse Chor and adjoining the site to the north-east is St. John

of Gods School.

As with the Memorial Garden the Gaelscoil is located on lands zoned Z9, the St. John of

Gods School is located on lands zoned Z15 ‘to provide for institutional, educational

recreational, community, green infrastructure & health uses’ as per Map E of the

Development Plan.


An Bord Pleanala 86

The site where works are proposed is heavily planted with semi-mature trees, there is a low

wall with railings over separating the site from the public footpath that runs along the Con

Colbert road at this location. The N4 has six lanes at this location (3 each direction including

a bus lane in each direction). Ground levels drop significantly from the road south to north

across the site.

The next area where surface works are proposed is at Heuston Station. Heuston Station is a

protected structure and a designated ‘Conservation Area’ as per Map E of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017. The main station building and all associated grounds to the

west are zoned Z5 ‘to consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area, and to

identify, reinforce and strengthen and protect its civic design character and dignity’ as per

Map E of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The N4, St. John’s Road West

bounds the station to the south, the Luas Red line runs along the front entrance to the

station on the eastern/city side, the Liffey bounds the station to the north, the Camac River

runs beneath the main concourse of the station building and outfalls to the Liffey.


It is proposed to construct a ventilation/intervention shaft in the south-east corner of the

War Memorial Gardens. This will be a deep structure extending some 40 metres below the

ground level at the compound entrance (ref: drg. No. DU-IS-102 O-A 4 submitted with the

application).

At operational stage when viewed from the Con Colbert Road the above ground structure

will not be that substantial being some 3.5 metres high and set back from the footpath edge

with screen planting to be reinstated on either side. When viewed from the north given the

significant drop in ground levels from south to north across the site much more of the

structure will be above ground, the north elevations will be c. 8.5 metres high.

There will be a single vehicular entrance/exit provided for off the N4 at operation stage, this

will provide access to an open yard/congregation/fire tender area surrounded by a low wall

and railings to the west, south and east. The above ground structures to the shaft are

divided into two blocks, one in the north-west corner and the other in the north-east

corner. The above ground structures will be finished in terracotta tiles.

The works duration here is estimated to be some 53 months including the fit out stage (ref:

s.15.4 ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling & Programming’ submitted to

the Hearing on the 30/11/10). The construction methodology will be ‘top-down’. There will

be a separate entrance and exit serving the site during construction stage both of which will

be located further west along the N4 (ref: Slide 91 ‘Memorial Park – CTMP Mitigation

Measures’ in ‘Brief of Evidence – Traffic & Transportation’ submitted to the Hearing on the

14/12/10).


An Bord Pleanala 87

The first underground station on the DU moving west to east across the city will be located

at Heuston Station (as stated previously the Inchicore Station is in a retained cut). The DU

station will be located within the existing Heuston Station building which is a protected

structure.

There are three main elements proposed as part of the DU station in Heuston: a west shaft

housing escape and ventilation facilities; a central escalator shaft; and, an east shaft for

escape and ventilation. All of these works are located at the southern side of the station

building along St. John’s Road West, the southern part of the existing station concourse

together with the pedestrian entrance from St. John’s Road West and the Ticket Hall will be

closed for public access for the construction period.

A number of commercial outlets currently operating in the station will be closed/removed

to facilitate the construction. The works at Heuston Station will also entail the remodelling

of existing platforms for the duration of the project.

As with the War Memorial Garden site there will be separate entrance and exit arrangement

for construction traffic off the N4. The culvert containing the Camac River runs south-north

between the proposed east shaft and the proposed escalator well, works to the secure the

culvert will form a significant element of the initial works.

An existing ESB substation in the basement of the station requires relocation to facilitate the

development, this will be relocated to the northern side of the station building adjacent the

Liffey alongside a number of other buildings at this location.

The proposed shafts along the southern end of the station will be constructed with secant

piled walls and the ‘top down’ methodology will be adopted given site area constraints and

in order to reduce environmental impacts at the surface. The piling operation and

construction of the surface slabs will progress across the three shafts in an east to west

sequence, however, once the top slab is cast works on all three shafts can proceed in

parallel. Including the fit out stage it is estimated that works for the Heuston DU Station will

take some 84 months (ref: s.15.5 of ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling &

Programming’ submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10).

As the tunnels leave the Inchicore area they travel across the Con Colbert Road (N4) and the

east bound tunnel runs beneath the southern end of the War Memorial Gardens while the

west bound tunnel runs beneath the N4. The alignment then cuts under both the Gaelscoil

Inse Chor and St. John of God’s properties. The tunnels cross the South Circular Road just to

the north of the SCR/N4 junction before heading into CIE lands to the west of Heuston and

to the south of the Clancy Barracks development, the Board granted a tall hotel structure

just to the north of the east bound tunnel on the east side of the SCR. The tunnels then

cross beneath the N4 (St John’s Road West) and the west bound tunnel skirts to the south of

the IMMA gardens, the east bound tunnel then re-enters CIE lands at Heuston and travels


An Bord Pleanala 88

beneath the main station structure while the west bound tunnel runs beneath the N4

immediately to the south of the station, both tunnels then pass underneath the Luas Red

line and N4 and enter the Diageo lands at Victoria Quay.






























5.2.2.4 Area 102 Memorial Park to Heuston Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.2.4.1 Architectural Heritage Protection


An Bord Pleanala 89

The War Memorial Gardens are located at Islandbridge and were constructed between

1933-1939 to a design by Edwin Lutyens, they are on the Record of Protected Structures and

within a designated Conservation Area.

I would concur with s.20.4.1.7 of Vol. 2, Book 4 of the EIS when it is stated that while the

memorial itself is of considerable architectural merit, a trademark feature of Lutyen’s

designs can be seen in the entire site: the positioning of the memorial relative to the natural

topography, together with views and vistas to and from the memorial, and general

landscaping renders the entire site as particularly significant.

The shaft is to be located in the south-east corner of the gardens. The works will entail the

removal of a number of trees in this area and works to the roadside boundary. However, I

again concur with the above mentioned section of the EIS where it states that the south-

eastern extension of the park where the shaft is proposed cannot be considered to be

particularly significant.

It is a sliver of land sandwiched between the N4 and the school buildings to the north and

north-east, much of the planting in this area would appear to date from the era of the

Chapelizod bypass/N4 (Table 12.9 of Chapter 12 ‘Flora & Fauna’ of the EIS rates this area as

‘moderate ecological value’), it does not appear to form part of the formal garden layout to

the west, the roadside boundary to be altered consists of a low masonry wall with railings

over, it too dates from the N4 project and of little heritage value as such.

While the northern elevation of the shaft will be substantial in scale given the significant fall

in ground levels from south to north across the site, having regard to the proposal to retain

some 3 m deep of existing planting along the northern end of the shaft site and subject to

the replanting as proposed as part of the mitigation measures, I am satisfied that the

proposed shaft will not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the

protected gardens and there will not be an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the

area. The replanting proposed on the western and eastern side of the shaft site will also

lessen its visual impact when viewed from the N4. The main entrance to the garden is off

the South Circular Road to the east, the proposed entrance to the shaft site is off the N4.

No specific architectural heritage protection concerns relating to the War Memorial Garden

were raised in the reports on file or submissions to the Hearing from the OPW, DoEHLG, An

Taisce, or the Irish Georgian Society (nor in any of the other observer submissions received).

In their report to the Board of the 17/08/10 the Planning Authority noted that the shaft

presented a discreet and understated aspect to the road but they did raise concerns about

the northern elevation and recommended a condition to be considered by the Board. In the

‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and the applicant Condition No. 4 requires

agreement to be reached at detailed design stage relating to finishes and planting at the

shaft sites.


An Bord Pleanala 90

Substantial works are proposed to the protected structure that is Heuston Station (ref: RPS

7742). The original station dates from the mid-1800s, however, the station has gone

through some change since then. The changing needs of railway operations since the mid-

1800s to current day has resulted in the demolition, significant alteration and reconstruction

of historic buildings, in addition to the introduction of new buildings over the period.

Nevertheless, while the constituent buildings have undergone some alterations over the

years, Heuston Station is of considerable architectural and historic merit. There will be

significant impacts to existing station structures particularly the Train Shed, the Passenger

Terminal and the Western Satellite Building on foot of the RO if granted, the Board is

referred to s.20.5.3.1 of Vol. 2, Book 4 of the EIS and Figures 20.226 to 20.227 in Vol. 3, Book

4 of the EIS for an understanding of the works proposed to this protected structure to

facilitate a DU station at this location. Mitigation measures relating to Heuston Station are

outlined in s.20.7.4.2 of Vol. 2, Book 4 of the EIS. It should also be noted that significant

works are proposed to the Camac culvert that runs beneath the existing main concourse of

the station, this Victorian brick culvert is described as ‘a feat in C19th engineering’ in

s.19.4.3.4 of Ch. 19 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ in Vol. 2, Book 3 of the EIS. A

photographic and measured survey of this Culvert is proposed as a mitigation under

s.19.5.1.4 of Ch. 19, this is also referred to in the DoEHLG submission to the Board of August

2010.

While the impacts will be significant I consider that subject to delivery of the mitigation

measures proposed and delivery on the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document

between DCC and CIE (ref: Condition No. 8 relating to Heuston Station), the character and

setting of Heuston Station will be suitably protected. The proposed DU station at this

location is most consistent with the original intended use of the protected structure and can

be considered yet another chapter in the evolution of rail transportation in Ireland, this

proposed C21st rail infrastructure will ensure that Heuston remains a major transportation

hub for the city. I note s.7.3.1 of the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines’ (DoEHLG

2004) where it states, inter alia, the following: “…usually the original use for which a

structure was built will be the most appropriate…”.

5.2.2.4.2 Retail Impact

The construction phase of the DU station at Heuston will necessitate the closure of a

number of retail units, these are: The Sugar Loaf; The Sweet Factory; Mullins; Supermac’s;

Butlers kiosk; and, a vending kiosk located along the south of the station concourse.

One of the impacted retail operators has made a submission to the Board and was also

represented at the Hearing (ref: Mr P. McDonagh, M.D. Supermac’s Ltd.). They hold that

alternative locations within the station are available that would protect the existing

commercial outlets and would offer greater protection to the historic fabric of the structure.


An Bord Pleanala 91

Maintaining existing intercity and commuter services into and out of Heuston is a priority

for CIE and this greatly limits the options available for the DU construction at this location.

At the Hearing Mr Lavery and Mr Muldoon for the applicant outlined difficulties with

locating the DU station on the north side of the existing station building, these included

construction traffic impacts, impacts on the existing car park and impacts on use of

platforms for mainline services (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 52 pages 35-37).

It was also outlined as to why the DU site cannot be accommodated towards the centre of

the concourse, this would also impact on existing train services that need to be maintained

throughout the construction period, there would also be considerable challenges in gaining

access to a construction site in the middle of an active station, this contrasts with locating

the site along the southern side of the station adjacent the N4 which allows for relative ease

of access to the construction site and ensuring that pedestrians/commuters are

segregated/isolated from the active construction site.

Having considered the conflicting demands at construction stage and the need to limit or

mitigate impacts, I am of the opinion that the construction site location along the southern

end of the station adjacent the N4 is the optimum solution.

I would acknowledge that the impacts on the retail outlets that will be forced to close to

facilitate the construction of the DU station will be significant. This is regrettable but

unavoidable in my opinion, however, the benefits accruing Heuston Station, Dublin city and

the region from the delivery of the DU project are considerable.

At operational stage retailing will be reintroduced to the concourse area and the additional

footfall from the DU will add to the existing commercial opportunities that the station

presents. The applicant informed the Hearing that post DU construction roughly the same

amount of retail floor space will be reintroduced into Heuston (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 3

page 197). I would also note that whether the DU station was to be located at the northern

end or towards the centre of the existing station it would still entail works to the historic

fabric of the protected structure.

Having regard to the foregoing I would not recommend that the Board condition the DU

station be relocated within the existing station building.

5.2.2.4.3 Existing Residential Amenity

The nearest established residential development is known as ‘Parkgate Place’, it is a

serpentine apartment block located on the northern side of the Liffey and faces towards the

side elevation of Heuston across the river. There is also a new apartment development

located to the south of the station down the Military Road that is located off the southern

side of the N4 (part of the Heuston Quarter development to the south of the Eircom office

block).


An Bord Pleanala 92

An observer submission on behalf of the owners and occupiers of Parkgate Place was

submitted to the Board in August 2010, concerns raised include impacts from tunnelling,

air/noise monitoring, construction impacts, hours of operation and community relations.

Having regard to the separation distances proposed between these established residential

areas and the main surface construction site (i.e. some 90 metres to Parkgate Place), and

also having regard to the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures and compliance with

recommended conditions attached at the end of this report, I am satisfied that the

residential amenity of these apartments can be protected. The east bound tunnel is some

80 metres south of Parkgate Place and the westbound tunnel is a similar distance from the

apartment development on Military Road.

5.2.2.4.4 Works adjacent schools

The shaft in the south-east corner of the War Memorial Gardens is located to the south of

Gaelscoil Inse Chor and to the south-west of St. John of God’s School and associated

services. In addition, the east bound tunnel travels beneath the southern section of the

Gaelscoil site and beneath a number of buildings on the St. John of God’s School site, the

west bound tunnel also skirts along the southern section of the St. John of God’s School site.

The tunnels are c. 25 m (ground level to tunnel crown) below the ground at this location.

Section 1.6.3.4 and Table 1.8 of Vol. 2, Book 1 of the EIS indicates that the applicant

consulted with both schools during the preparation of the EIS. Section 2.7.3.2 of Vol. 2

outlines the 5 different site options considered for the shaft in this general area, it

acknowledges potential impacts on the schools during construction stage but indicates that

suitable mitigation would likely limit the construction impacts.

A monitoring station was set up adjacent the St. John of God’s as part of the baseline noise

monitoring assessment (ref: Table 8.1 of Vol. 2, Book 2 of the EIS) and vibration

measurements were also taken to assess the current levels of vibrations at this location

close to the proposed shaft site (ref: Table 8.2 ‘Baseline Vibration Monitoring Locations’,

Vol. 2, Book 2 of the EIS). Table 9.13 of Vol. 2 indicates that following mitigation there will

be no permanent groundborne noise impacts at the St. John of God’s School. Section

10.4.3.2 of Vol. 2 indicates that both schools are sensitive receptors in relation to air quality

and predicts that significant soiling will occur with standard mitigation measures, however,

additional measures are listed in s.10.5 and will be incorporated as a minimum in the Dust

Minimisation Plan to address this potential impact.

Further consideration was given to impacts on the schools under Chapter 23 ‘Human

Health’, particular note was taken of the special requirements of those attending the St.

John of God’s facility, no significant impacts are predicted. This issue was further addressed

in the Hearing by Dr Hogan for the applicant (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 19 page 50), Dr

Hogan in response to questions from the Inspector stated that they went to the school to


An Bord Pleanala 93

discuss potential impacts noting the special needs of those attending the school. He stated

that the school was “quite happy with regards to assurances that were given” (ref: O.H.

Transcripts Day 19 page 88).

I note also the applicant’s environmental risk management proposals, including, inter alia,

the comprehensive monitoring proposed, as outlined to the Hearing and as addressed in Dr

Massarsch’s report (see Appendix 3 attached to this report), subject to compliance with

those mitigation measures and compliance with conditions (recommended) attached to any

RO granted, there should not be an adverse impact on those schools due to construction

activities associated with the shaft construction and the tunnels. I have adopted for the

Board’s consideration the recommended limiting values as contained within Mr Walsh’s

report in Appendix 4 in relation to construction generated airborne noise at facades of

schools.

Neither school made a submission to the Board on the RO application.

5.2.2.4.5 Construction Traffic Impacts

In relation to construction traffic impact assessment at the Heuston Station site, I refer the

Board to s. 5.11 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr S. Wallace as contained

in Appendix 5 attached to this report where it states, inter alia, the following:

“The construction activity at Heuston would primarily be confined within a linear site running parallel to the St John’s Road dual carriageway. An access gate into the site would be created 300m west of the Military Road junction and an extra arm added to this junction to form the site exit. Site vehicle movements at both locations would be controlled by a flagman and the Military Road traffic signals reprogrammed to allow for a green stage for site traffic. This would have no effect on junction capacity as the green time would align with the all-red pedestrian signal stage. The applicant confirmed there would be no conflict between crossing pedestrians and site traffic in this scenario. Other traffic management measures for the construction stage are as follows:

relocation of pedestrian crossing on St John’s Road by approximately 4m to east to provide queuing space for one HGV that would left turn out of the site exit;

provision of a temporary footpath adjacent to the site hoarding in the western ventilation shaft area;

Taxi bays would be moved to east to make up for the loss of parking bays at the western ventilation shaft site hoarding.”

In relation to the War Memorial Garden, I refer the Board to s. 5.12 of Mr Wallace’s report


“Construction traffic would access this site via separate left-in / left-out slip roads created on the N4 Con Colbert Road dual carriageway. The majority of traffic would arrive via the M50 and the N4. Exiting traffic would require to turn at the N4/R111 junction at Island Bridge to return to the M50. No operational issues are anticipated at this location.”


An Bord Pleanala 94

I concur with, and accept, the above construction traffic impact assessments at the sites in

Area 102.

5.2.3 Area 103 Heuston to Christchurch


The first surface site where works are proposed in Area 103 is located at the junction of

Bridgefoot Street and Island Street, Dublin 8, in the Liberties. This is a brownfield corner

site. There is an existing two-storey disused industrial building located on part of the site

with its gable fronted façade fronting onto Bridgefoot Street. Island Street bounds the site

to the south, Bridgefoot Street bounds the site to the east, there is a four storey apartment

building along the western boundary and a four storey apartment building to the north.

Both of the apartment blocks to the west and north are constructed right up to the site

boundaries, however, they present blank elevations along these boundaries to the subject

site. There are new, mostly five-storey, mixed-use developments immediately across

Bridgefoot Street from the subject site, these consist of commercial units at ground floor

level with apartments over. To the south-east across the Bridgefoot Street/Island Street

junction from the subject site the DCC Oliver Bond House Flats complex is located, this is a

four-storey residential development. To the south of the subject site across Island Street

there is an open area that currently accommodates basketball courts and a garden area,

part of this site also appears vacant/underutilised (these lands are owned by DCC, ref: p.41

of the Liberties LAP).

The Board granted permission, subject to conditions, to Flancrest Enterprises Limited for a

seven-storey mixed-use residential/commercial development on the subject site (ref: PL

29S.223337). The site is zoned Z5 ‘to consolidate and facilitate the development of the

central area, and to identify, reinforce and strengthen and protect its civic design character

and dignity’ as per Map E of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017.

The next surface site where works are proposed is within the grounds of the Church of the

Immaculate Conception (a.k.a Adam and Eve). The proposed site will be to the south-west

of the church inside the railings that bound the site with Cook Street to the south.

The church site has a vehicular entrance off Cook Street, there is a lane connecting Cook

Street across the site and exiting onto Merchant’s Quay along the Liffey, the church has a

protected façade onto Merchant’s Quay (ref: RPS DCC 5076). There is an impressive view

from Cook Street down the lane towards the Four Courts across the Liffey.

The area where the works are proposed includes the main entrance to the church site off

Cook Street, the remainder of the site consists of a garden area with semi-mature trees that

present as the foreground to the church when viewed from Cook Street. There is a statue


An Bord Pleanala 95

located in the garden area where the works are proposed. There is a c. 3.5 m high rubble

stone wall along the western boundary of the proposed site, immediately to the west of

that boundary wall there is a four-storey apartment block, this apartment block is c. 2.5 m

from the proposed construction site, it has several windows and balconies facing east

towards the church site.

As with the Island Street site the Cook Street site is also zoned Z5 ‘central area’ as per the

Development Plan. To the south of the site across Cook Street St. Audoen’s Church is

located, to the west of that, and adjacent Cook Street, part of the historic City Wall remains

intact, both the church and City Wall are protected structures (ref: RPS DCC 2041, the wall is

also a National Monument). To the east of St. Audoen’s there is a row of two-storey red

brick dwellings fronting onto Cook Street, these are estimated to date from the early C20th.

The next surface site is located in the grounds of Dublin City Council Civic Offices, the site

will take up most of the existing amphitheatre that is located towards the centre of the Civic

Offices site. The construction site at this location will be bound to the north, east and south

by the Civic Offices and to the west by the vehicular entrance off Winetavern Street to the

basement car park that serves the offices. Part of the City Wall, a National Monument, is

located in the basement of the offices to the south-east of the construction site.

Christchurch Cathedral is located c. 70 m to the south. There are offices located on the

opposite side of Winetavern Street that look across the street towards the Civic Offices. The

amphitheatre site is zoned Z9 ‘to preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and

open space and green networks’ as per Map E of the Development Plan, the adjoining lands

on which the Civic Offices are located are zoned Z5.


An intervention (only) shaft is proposed at the Island Street/Bridgefoot Street site. A shaft is

required in this area due to the distance between the proposed DU stations at Heuston and

Christchurch. It will accommodate a passenger escape stairs, a fire-fighting shaft containing

a 16 person lift and equipment rooms.

At ground level the plan of the shaft is considerably smaller than the lower levels and is

located away from the corner of the site so as to facilitate future development of this site.

The escape doors open out onto Bridgefoot Street, the shaft structure at ground level is c.

4.3 tall with the Bridgefoot Street façade being c. 10.5 m wide. The shaft is c. 33 m deep

(i.e. from ground level to lowest point of structure) with the track level being c. 28 m below

ground level at this location. It is envisaged that the works at this site will take some 4 years

(ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling & Programming’ submitted to

the Hearing on the 30/11/10). Following the clearance of the existing structures on site

archaeological investigations will be undertaken. The construction methodology for the


An Bord Pleanala 96

shaft will be ‘top-down’. During the construction stage site entry will be off Bridgefoot

Street with site egress onto Island Street.

At Cook Street within the grounds of the Church of the Immaculate Conception the western

ventilation/intervention shaft serving Christchurch Station is to be located. This will be, at

its highest point, c. 5 m above ground. The escape stairs will open out onto the green area

to the east of the shaft. The shaft is located inside and back from the railings along the Cook

Street frontage of this church site, in addition, the shaft will be located to the east of the

lane that runs through the site from Cook Street to Merchant’s Quay. It is envisaged that

the works at this site will take some 5 years (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy;

Scheduling & Programming’ submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10). Again the

construction methodology will be ‘top-down’ which will be preceded by archaeological

investigations. The works at this location will require the temporary closure of a section of

the northern side of Cook Street for the duration of the project. Construction traffic will

enter the compound at the south-western corner of the site off Cook Street and exit at the

south-eastern corner onto Cook Street.

At the Civic Offices site the Christchurch Station and eastern ventilation/intervention shaft

serving the station will be located. The station is to be designed around a new public space

that is to replace the existing amphitheatre at operational stage. The station entrance will

be located along the northern side of the site. Entry to the station is via a series of lifts and

escalators. The eastern shaft will be located along the western edge of the new civic space

adjacent to Winetavern Street. Including the archaeological investigation, works at this

location are expected to take some 5.5 years (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy;

Scheduling & Programming’ submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10). The historic City

Wall, a National Monument, is located in close proximity to the works, to facilitate the safe

and orderly access and egress by construction traffic, a vehicle turntable and haul route

from Winetavern Street will be installed between the City Wall and the new station

structure. The construction methodology at this location will also be the ‘top-down’

approach.

The tunnels will enter this Area 103 firstly under the Diageo lands, the eastbound tunnel will

run underneath the public road at Victoria Quay to the north of the Diageo lands before re-

entering the Diageo lands. Both tunnels will then cross underneath Watling Street before

travelling underneath several properties in the urban block defined by Usher’s Island to the

north, Bridgefoot Street to the east, Island Street to the south and Watling Street to the

west. There is a variety of land uses in this block including, inter alia, residential,

commercial (offices and retail) and small-scale industrial (upholstery and mechanics shop).

The buildings are also from various eras with a number of Georgian Townhouses fronting

onto the Liffey with protected structure status being the oldest, most of the buildings in this

block would date from the late C20th, some would have basements.


An Bord Pleanala 97

The eastbound tunnel then passes under the urban block defined by Usher’s Quay to the

north, Usher Street to the east and south, and Bridgefoot Street to the west. The vast

majority of this urban block consists of residential and commercial properties dating from

the late C20th/early C21st, there are no protected structures in this block. The westbound

tunnel passes under Oliver Bond Flats to the south of the above mentioned urban block.

Both tunnels then pass under an urban block that includes a petrol service station, a multi-

storey car park, residential and commercial properties, some with basements. Between

Augustine Street and the Civic Offices, the tunnels pass underneath Augustine Street itself,

Bridge Street Lower, Winetavern Street and the westbound tunnel passes under Cook

Street.

The tunnels between Augustine Street and the Civic Offices again travel beneath a variety of

land uses, these include residential, commercial and some include basements. There is a

primary school (St. Audoens) off Cook Street located between the westbound and east

bound tunnels, there are also a number of protected structures in this same block defined

by Cook Street to the south, Bridge Street Lower to the west, Merchant’s Quay to the north

and Winetavern Street to the east.























An Bord Pleanala 98









5.2.3.4 Area 103 - Heuston to Christchurch Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.3.4.1 Station Name & new Public Square

Both Temple Bar TASCQ (Traders in the Area Supporting The Cultural Quarter Ltd.) and the

Temple Bar Cultural Trust in separate submissions to the Board in August 2010 have, like

most observers, indicated support in principle for the DU project. However, they both have

requested that consideration be given to naming the station at this location ‘Temple Bar –

Christchurch’ or ‘Christchurch & Temple Bar’. They indicate that the station will be an

important gateway to Temple Bar west, they hold that the western section of Temple Bar

has suffered from poor footfall, they are of the opinion that such a name would be of

strategic value to tourism and the social and economic interests of all stakeholders in

Temple Bar. The Board is also requested to ensure that there will be no diminution of the

quality of the public amenity that is the existing amphitheatre located at the centre of the

Civic Office development.

I would have no particular concern to such a name, however, I would note that the station is

adjacent Christchurch Cathedral (the station has been designed so that those exiting the

station are given an impressive view of the cathedral to the south uphill from the station). I

would also note that this station, in addition to being a gateway for Temple Bar west, would

also act as a gateway to other attractions/destinations such as the Guinness Visitor’s Centre,

the Digital Hub, NCAD and the wider Liberties area. The Board may wish to add a condition

to any RO granted imposing Temple Bar as part of the station name but given that the

station will be an important gateway to other areas that are also subject to regeneration

proposals and other landmarks/destinations, I am not recommending such a condition.

The existing amphitheatre is to be replaced with a new civic space. The layout of this space

does take account, in my opinion, of the surrounding urban fabric, it allows for the station

to be easily accessible from the north-west (the Quays), the east (Temple Bar) and the

south-west (Christchurch, the Liberties). An important functional civic space will be retained

at this location although it will be reduced in size from its current scale. I note Condition No.

2, Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 9 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and


An Bord Pleanala 99

CIE to be included in the Eleventh Schedule of any RO granted and would be of the opinion

that no additional conditions are required in relation to this matter.

5.2.3.4.2 Impacts on Existing Structures

As with all other areas where tunnelling and deep excavations are proposed, many property

owners in Area 103 have raised concerns about potential impacts from such issues as

settlement and subsidence from tunnelling beneath or adjacent their properties. Concerns

have also been raised about potential impacts on existing structures from deep excavations

required to facilitate the construction of the shafts and the station box. Concerns have also

been raised about potential impacts from groundborne noise and vibrations at both the

construction and operational phases.

Works in Area 103 will entail tunnelling beneath, or deep excavations adjacent, old

structures, some being protected structures. Works are also proposed adjacent the City

Wall which is a National Monument, elements of the City Wall are located to the south-east

of the station site and to the south-west of the Cook Street shaft site. The frontages along

Victoria Quay, Usher’s Island, Usher’s Quay and Merchant’s Quay are also within a

designated ‘Conservation Area’ as per Map E of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-

2017. Observer submissions have been received in relation to a number of protected

structures in the area including: St. Audoen’s Church on Cook Street, Church of the

Immaculate Conception on Merchant’s Quay, Nos. 12 and 14 Usher’s Island and No. 26

Fishamble Street. A submission was also made in relation to Noel Leonard Public House at

the junction of Watling Street/Victoria Quay (submission to the Board in August 2010 and at

the Hearing), while not on the RPS parts of this structure would appear to date from the

1800s. Some owners of contemporary structures in the area have also made submissions

relating to, inter alia, potential impacts on their properties from tunnelling, these include:

29-30 Island Street, 9 Bridge Street and the Diageo Lands.

As indicated previously under s. 5.1.2 the Board engaged the services of Dr R. Massarsch to

advise on impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is contained in

Appendix 3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to ‘Appendix 4 –

Review of Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr Massarsch’s

main report. Pages 29-32 of that Appendix 4 includes a detailed consideration of Area 103

observers’ concerns relating to settlement, groundborne noise, vibrations, development

potential, impacts on existing pile foundations and other geotechnical related matters. As

indicated previously I have given detailed consideration to the contents of Dr Massarsch’s

report and accept the advice and recommendations contained therein, I have incorporated

the recommendations of Dr Massarsch’s report in the draft conditions for the Board’s

consideration attached to the end of this report.


An Bord Pleanala 100

An observer submission from Mary & David O’Flanagan of Usher’s Island raised concerns

about a series of historic tunnels below their property and in the area which originally linked

the Guinness Brewery to the Liffey Quays for the transfer of barrels. I am recommending an

amendment, in the interests of clarity, to one of Dr Massarsch’s conditions under ‘Soils and

Geology’ to specifically refer to this issue. Dr Massarsch’s report was submitted to the

Board on the 05/10/11, I have communicated with Dr Massarsch subsequently on this issue

and he concurs with the proposed amendment to the recommended condition.

5.2.3.4.3 Liberties LAP 2009

Two of the three surface sites in Area 103 are located within the boundaries of the Liberties

LAP, these are the Island Street shaft site and the Cook Street shaft site, the third site at the

Civic Offices is just outside the eastern boundary of the LAP. At operational stage the

northern end of the Liberties LAP area will be bookended with DU stations: Heuston to the

west and Christchurch to the east. The benefits of the DU to the area are acknowledged at

various sections throughout the Liberties LAP (e.g. under s.2.1 ‘The Vision’, under ‘Area 6

Bridgefoot Street/Oliver Bond’, under ‘Area 9 Heuston Square’, under s.3.4, s.4.1, s.4.10,

pages 85, 86, 87, 138). I am satisfied that the applicant’s proposals do not conflict with the

provisions of the LAP.

5.2.3.4.4 Future Development

The Board granted permission for a mixed-use development on the Island Street site where

the intervention shaft is proposed, ref: PL 29S.223337. The applicant in that case has made

an observer submission to the Board in relation to the RO and also attended the Hearing.

Should the DU be constructed as per the RO application, the development granted under PL

29S.22337 cannot proceed. There is planning gain in the development of this city centre

corner site. The site post-DU construction will remain unfinished/incomplete and in that

regard provision should be made to allow for future development above and around the

shaft structure.

The applicant has allowed for such future development of this site by others. Provision has

been made for load-bearing at the interface of the shaft and any future development. The

shaft location on site has also taken account of future site development potential. Subject

to the safe-guarding of the structural integrity and safety of the shaft and tunnels,

development can be accommodated on this site post the construction of the shaft and

tunnels (but not that exactly as granted under PL 29S.22337). In that regard I do not

consider that the proposed development conflicts with the policies and objectives of the

City Development Plan governing the area nor do I consider that the proposal for this site

conflicts with the policies and objectives of ‘The Liberties Local Area Plan’. (I would also

refer the Board to ‘Planning Blight’ under s. 5.1.11 earlier in this report in relation to this

Island Street site.)



The Diageo lands at Victoria Quay are identified within the Liberties LAP as a ‘significant

development site’. Diageo made a submission to the Board in August 2010 and raised a

number of concerns. They also were represented at the Hearing, it appears that,

subsequent to the August submission, discussions between the applicant and the observer

have addressed many of the concerns. Two main issues were raised in the Hearing (ref:

O.H. Transcript Day 52 pages 96-120), one related to impact on an existing well on the lands

and the second related to future above ground development. With reference to the well I

would refer the Board to Dr. Massarsch’s report in Appendix 3 attached to this report and,

therein, to Appendix 4, pages 31-32, of Dr. Massarsch’s report.

In relation to the above ground development the applicant submitted an indicative solution

on how above ground development in line with the LAP provisions for the Diageo site could

be accommodated. Where the loading exceeds the design capacity of the tunnels (the

design of the tunnels accommodates a surcharge pressure of 75 kN/sq.m. at tunnel crown

level), piles will be required either side of the tunnels with a transfer structure over (ref:

Drg. Nos. SK-S-1001 to 1006 submitted to the Hearing on the 22/03/11).

I am satisfied that the DU should not prohibit the future development of this site in line with

the LAP, the design teams for the two developments i.e. the DU and any proposal over,

would need to co-ordinate with one another as referred to by Mr Flaherty for the applicant

(ref: O.H. Transcript Day 52 p. 110). There are engineering solutions for such scenarios,

these have been successfully executed in many other cities with extensive underground rail

networks. (I would also refer the Board to ‘Planning Blight’ under s. 5.1.11 earlier in this

report in relation to the Diageo site.)

5.2.3.4.5 Construction Traffic Impacts

In relation to construction traffic impacts at the Christchurch and Cook Street sites, I refer

the Board to s.5.9 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr S. Wallace as

contained in Appendix 5 attached to this report where it states, inter alia, the following:

“As well as the main construction site at the civic offices there would be a ventilation / intervention shaft constructed on the edge of Cook Street mainly within the grounds of the Church of the Immaculate Conception. All construction traffic to both sites would route via the Quays arriving via Bridge Street and Cook Street and leave using Winetavern Street. The works on the Cook Street shaft would extend into the carriageway such that a temporary traffic signal shuttle arrangement would be required. Given that traffic flows on Cook Street would remain low, there are no operational issues anticipated with this traffic management measure. Further temporary traffic management measures identified include:

relocation of pedestrian crossing on Winetavern Street approximately 5m to south to accommodate proposed construction access adjacent to car park exit;

provision of a flagman at the construction access to control vehicle entry and exit and ensure the safe passage of pedestrians;



incorporation of pedestrian crossing stage in Cook Street temporary signals since a section of the northern footpath would be closed;

suspension of five of the nine tourist coach bays in Cook Street, some of which clash with the temporary traffic management, some to accommodate displaced parking and some to allow for stacking space for construction vehicles.”

In relation to construction traffic impacts at the Island Street site, I refer the Board to s.5.10

of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr S. Wallace where it states, inter alia, the

following:

“Access to this site would be taken from the Quays, however given that many of the routes in this area are one-way a number of roads such as Oliver Bond Street, Bridge Street, Cook Street and Bridgefoot Street to the south of the site would be used by construction traffic. Access into the site would be via Bridgefoot Street (north) with an exit formed onto Island Street with vehicles turning right onto Bridgefoot Street to access the wider road network. No operational issues are anticipated given the relatively low traffic generation associated with this site. Proposed traffic management measures for the construction stage are as follows:

suspension of two on-street parking spaces on Island Street at site exit;

suspension of six on-street parking spaces on Bridgefoot Street to allow for construction vehicle stacking;

closure of footpaths immediately adjacent to the construction site, with pedestrians directed to cross to use other footpaths.”

I have considered Mr Wallace’s assessment and concur with same.

5.2.3.4.6 Proximity to existing school

St. Audoen’s Primary School is located on the north side of Cook Street. The westbound

tunnel will be to the south of the school and the eastbound tunnel will be to the north.

While the tunnels are not proposed directly underneath the school two ventilation tunnels

connecting the two rail tunnels will be located c. 20 m under the school. The Cook Street

shaft is c. 30 m to the east, there is a 4 storey apartment block between the school and that

construction site.

The applicant met with the Board of Management of the school on the 27/01/2010 as part

of the consultation process (ref: Table 1.8 Book 1 Vol. 2 of the EIS). There is no submission

on file from the school, the school did not attend the Hearing. Subject to compliance with

the mitigation measures proposed (including the comprehensive monitoring proposals) and

the draft conditions recommended at the end of this report, there should not be an adverse

impact on this school.



5.2.3.4.7 Residential Amenity

There is a 4 storey apartment block that will be in close proximity to the Cook Street

construction site, it is located just to the west of that site and has windows and balconies

overlooking the proposed site. There are apartment blocks on the boundary line to the

west and north of the Island Street construction site, although they have blank elevations

where they immediately abut the site.

Given the close proximity of these residential developments to the proposed shaft sites

there is considerable potential for negative impacts on the residential amenity of these

dwellings. It is critical that the mitigation measures being proposed by the applicant, and

the limiting values being imposed in the recommended conditions attached to the end of

this report, are fully complied with so as to ensure that impacts are keep within acceptable

levels.

I am not aware of any submissions from the occupants of those apartment developments.

5.2.4 Area 104 Christchurch to Merrion Square


The main DU above ground elements in this area will be located in St. Stephen’s Green. The

Green itself is a National Monument and there are several built elements in and around the

Green that enjoy protected structure status, these include railings, gates, trough, bollards

and kerbs. St. Stephen’s Green is zoned Z9 ‘to preserve, provide and improve recreational

amenity and open space & green networks’ as per Map E of the Dublin City Development

Plan 2011-2017. That Map E also indicates that the Green and areas to the north, east and

south are designated as a ‘Conservation Area’.

The applicant is proposing to construct an intervention/ventilation shaft just inside the

railings of the Green along the St. Stephen’s Green North side. The area where the shaft is

proposed is currently well landscaped with impressive mature and semi-mature deciduous

trees. The railings along the boundary adjacent the shaft form an important part of the

heritage fabric of the Green. Immediately across the road from the site there are a number

of buildings that will face towards the proposed shaft. These include Nos. 18-21 St.

Stephen’s Green North (Stephen Court), this is 6/7 storey office development thought to

date from the early 1980s (accommodating the former Anglo Irish Bank and ESB

International). Immediately to the east of that is No. 22, a fine 3-bay 4-storey over

basement Georgian townhouse dating from the late 1700s which currently accommodates a

boutique hotel (‘The Cliff Townhouse’) including a restaurant, bedrooms, a dining room and

a bar, this is a protected structure. To the east of that is No. 23 St. Stephen’s Green North,

another fine 3-bay 4-storey over basement house also dating from the late 1700s and also a



protected structure. To the east of that is a modern 5-storey office development

accommodating retail units at ground floor level. To the east of that and located at the

corner of Kildare Street and St. Stephen’s Green North is a 3-storey building that

accommodates a Fine Art Auction House (‘James Adams & Sons’).

The other works being proposed under the DU application will take place within the Metro

North compound to be located in the north-west corner of St. Stephen’s Green. The

applicant will be constructing the above ground element of a ventilation shaft that is located

just inside the railings along St. Stephen’s Green West. This shaft will be immediately

opposite the road from a 4-storey modern office development (formerly Bank of Scotland

Ireland), to the north of that building is the 5 star Fitzwilliam Hotel and to the south of it

across Glover’s Alley is the Royal College of Surgeons, a protected structure. The Luas Green

line currently terminates adjacent the location of the proposed ventilation shaft.


As part of the Metro North RO, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) will construct the

civil/structural interface area at the western end of the station. This includes all of the

station entrance areas, ticket hall level, mezzanine level, Metro North platform and part of

the DU platform level. Access to the station is via two banks of three escalators located

close to Grafton Street on St. Stephen's Green North and West, to be provided for under the

Metro North RO.

There will be a shared ticket hall for Metro North and DU passengers. Passengers will then

access the underground platforms using either the DU or Metro North gate lines. An

interchange between Metro North and DU will also be provided at respective platform level.

A shared intervention shaft will be constructed under the Metro North RO at the northwest of

the Green. This will be for use by both DU and Metro North.

Under the DU RO application before the Board, the applicant is seeking consent to construct

the above ground structure for a ventilation shaft within the Metro North site at the west side

of the Green, known as the west shaft (the below ground element is as granted under the

Metro RO).

At the eastern end of the station CIE wants to construct a combined ventilation/intervention

shaft on the park side of the railings along St. Stephen’s Green northeast – known as the east

shaft, this will serve the DU station only. Below ground elements in this area for which consent

is sought by CIE includes the remainder of the DU platforms not being provided under the

Metro North RO and the housing for the escalators from the Metro North/DU station box

down to the concourse and cross-passages to the DU platforms. Fit-out of the DU parts of the

shared station box will also be carried out by the applicant’s contractor.



The RO before the Board does propose some minor amendments to the shared (i.e. Metro

North / DU) intervention shaft in the northwest corner of the Green, a fire fighting lobby is to

be added adjacent the fire fighting stairs, the lobby is added following discussions with Dublin

Fire Brigade (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 16 pages 142-143).

In terms of construction strategy, the two worksites i.e. Metro North site and the DU east shaft

site, will be physically separate and operate independently, with the main spatial interfaces

being below ground. Construction of the DU platforms and platform level passenger

concourses will be undertaken through the east shaft by the DU contractor. The construction

of the above ground element of the west shaft will be carried out by the DU contractor

operating within the Metro North site compound.

The general phasing of the main works at the DU east shaft site on the Green is estimated to

take some 5 years (ref: page 1-41 ‘Brief of Evidence – Construction Strategy; Scheduling &

Programming’ submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10). The construction methodology will

be ‘top-down’. Due to the constrained nature of the site a purpose built gantry crane will be

used to service the shaft. Since the east shaft site will be used for access to platform level,

once the shaft is excavated down to base level the underground works are continued to

include the station tunnels and cross passages. It is envisaged that from the base of the shaft,

a construction access tunnel will be driven along the line of the future eastbound platform

enlargement in order to enable connections to be made into the lower concourse area thus

facilitating work on the base of the escalator tunnel.

In relation to the tunnel alignments as they travel through this Area 104, the tunnels leave

the Civic Office area and both travel beneath Fishamble Street, heading in a south-easterly

direction they travel under hotels, commercial, retail and apartment developments in the

west end of Temple Bar before crossing under Lord Edward Street and continuing in a

south-easterly direction travel under the Dublin Castle complex.

The tunnels travel beneath South Great Georges Street, Stephen’s Street Lower, Digges Lane

and Mercier Street Lower as they continue their journey towards St. Stephen’s Green, in

these areas the tunnels will pass beneath hotels, retail units, apartment developments,

public houses, a multi-storey car park, an office development containing two radio studios,

student residential accommodation, a library and medical centre.

The westbound tunnel will then travel beneath St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre and

the Fitzwilliam Hotel before entering under the Green along its western side, the eastbound

tunnel will travel along the northern side of South King Street skirting to the front of a

number of buildings including the Gaiety Theatre.

The eastbound tunnel continues along the northern side of St. Stephen’s Green North

before it starts to change direction and heads in a north-east direction, it will travel beneath

the Shelbourne Hotel and buildings to the east of that before travelling under Government



Buildings on Merrion Street Upper. The westbound tunnel will exit the Green in the north-

east corner, travel under Merrion Row and a number of buildings also including Government

Buildings.






























5.2.4.4 Area 104 – Christchurch to Merrion Square Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.4.4.1 Tunnelling beneath Protected Structures & other buildings



Probably the greatest concentration of protected structures encountered along the route of

the DU occurs in this Area 104 ‘Christchurch to Merrion Square’. The tunnels will pass under

many protected structures in this area including the City Hall, buildings in the grounds of

Dublin Castle, a number of protected structures fronting onto South Great Georges Street, a

building on Stephen Street Lower and the Mercer Library. The east bound tunnel will run

close to the front of the protected Gaiety Theatre and will then enter the St. Stephen’s

Green area where this tunnel runs just to the front of several protected structures along the

northern side of the Green, it then passes under the protected Shelbourne Hotel, both

tunnels will then pass beneath Government Buildings on Merrion Street Upper which enjoy

protected structure status.

A number of owners of protected structures in the St. Stephen’s Green area have made

submissions on the RO application in writing in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing. These

include submissions relating to the Mercer Library (now known as the Mercer Library &

Medical Centre, part of the Royal College of Surgeons) and several protected structures

along the northern side of St. Stephen’s Green. Submissions relating to protected structures

along the northern side of St. Stephen’s Green included submissions from Nos. 6 & 7 St.

Stephen’s Green, No. 9 St. Stephen’s Green (Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club), No. 10 St.

Stephen’s Green, No. 11 St. Stephen’s Green, No. 16 St. Stephen’s Green, No. 17 St.

Stephen’s Green (Kildare Street & University Club) and No. 22 St. Stephen’s Green (The Cliff

Townhouse).

Some of these protected structures contain very fine plasterwork which form an important

part of the historic fabric of the structure. Some of the observers are concerned that the

vibrations from the TBMs or settlement caused by the tunnelling could adversely impact on

this historic fabric. Some have concerns about geological conditions in the area and are

concerned that tunnelling in such conditions close to protected structures could have

serious adverse impacts should failures occur. Other concerns raised included issues

relating to blasting for cross-passages and adits, and questions in relation to the Property

Protection Scheme.

Concerns relating to potential impacts from tunnelling works under buildings were not

confined to owners of protected structures. Owners of more modern developments have

also raised concerns about such matters as tolerances and ‘Article 3’ of the draft RO (see s.

5.1.10 earlier in this report), settlement/ground movement, impacts on existing ground

anchors, existing pile foundations, annual compliance requirements, impacts on existing

deep basement structures etc.

As indicated previously under s. 5.1.2 the Board engaged the services of Dr R. Massarsch to

advise on impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is contained in

Appendix 3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to ‘Appendix 4 –

Review of Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr Massarsch’s



main report. Pages 20-29 of that Appendix 4 includes a detailed consideration of the issues

raised in the St. Stephen’s Green area including, inter alia, observations on protection of

plasterwork, considerations on the possibility of sinkholes in the area, applicant’s proposals

for monitoring of vibration and settlement/ground movement, the importance of

environmental risk management, the Property Protection Scheme and blasting concerns.




Board’s consideration attached to the end of this report. Subject to the compliance with the

mitigation measures proposed and compliance with the recommended draft conditions

attached at the end of this report, there should not be significant adverse impacts resulting

from tunnelling beneath the protected structures or other structures along the route of the

DU. (See also s. 5.1.20 earlier in this report.)

5.2.4.4.2 Impacts on Hotels & Restaurant Uses

There are several hotels/guesthouses and restaurants in the St. Stephen’s Green area.

Some of the protected structures mentioned in the preceding section accommodate hotel

and/or restaurant uses, these include the Hibernian Club at No. 9, Il Posto at No. 10,

Peploes Restaurant at no. 16, the Kildare Street & University Club at No. 17 and The Cliff

Townhouse at No. 22. In addition, while not a protected structure, the Fitzwilliam on the

west side of the Green has a hotel and restaurant use and a submission was made to the

Board on that property in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing.

(It is noted that there are other hotel and restaurant uses in this Area 104 and consideration

was given to them notwithstanding that no observer submissions were received in relation

to them.)

In relation to potential impacts on hotel and restaurant uses from groundborne noise or

ground vibrations, I would refer the Board to Dr. Massarsch’s report in Appendix 3 attached

to this report. Dr. Massarsch has made a number of recommendations including limiting

values to be applied for both construction and operational phases for vibrations and

groundborne noise, I am recommending that the Board apply those limiting values should

they be disposed to grant the RO.

In relation to airborne noise I draw the Board’s attention again to Appendix 4 attached to

this report which contains ‘A Study of the Airborne Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart

Underground Railway Development’ by Mr Fred Walsh of Acoustic Associates Limited. I am

recommending that the Board apply a number of conditions to limit airborne noise impacts

for both the construction and operational phases as contained in Mr Walsh’s report.



In relation to potential impacts from dust generated by the construction I refer the Board to

s. 5.1.5 earlier in this report. I note under Table 8.20 of Book 2 Vol. 2 of the EIS that a 7m

high hoarding is envisaged to the north, east and west of the East shaft while the hoarding

will be 4 m to south (park) boundary. Under 10.6.3 of Book 2 Vol. 2 of the EIS it is

acknowledged that construction activities associated with the DU at St. Stephen’s Green

east will result in a slight residual impact with enhanced mitigation in place.

5.2.4.4.3 Traffic Impacts

A number of businesses located along the northern side of St. Stephen’s Green have raised

concerns about impacts arising from changes to loading bays, Mr McDaid for the applicant

told the Hearing that the DU application does not propose any changes to loading bays in

this area: “We are not making any changes on the northern side of St. Stephen’s Green in

relation to loading bays. We are not changing anything there” (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 49

page 105). He also told the Hearing that DU proposals have no impact on access to the

Fitzwilliam Hotel, he reminded the Hearing that the issue of the closure of the corner of St.

Stephen’s Green at Grafton Street were dealt with through the Metro North RO (ref: O. H.

Transcripts Day 50 page 45).

I concur with Mr McDaid on these matters, many of the issues around access to and impacts

on established businesses in the St. Stephen’s Green area relate to the Metro North RO and

in that regard may be considered res judicata.

In terms of scale of development and size of construction sites, the DU east shaft site is

relatively small compared to that granted to facilitate the Metro North/DU station under

the Metro North RO. Under the Metro North works, all traffic accessing St. Stephen’s

Green/Royal College of Surgeons car parks and the Fitzwilliam Hotel loading/servicing area

and car park will occur via Mercer Street, no further impacts to these car parks are

anticipated as a result of the DU construction works (ref: s.24.5.2.1 ‘Construction Traffic’

Book 4, Vol. 2 of the EIS). I note here the contents of s.5.8 of the ‘Dart Underground –

Report on Traffic and Transportation’ in Appendix 5 attached to this report in relation to

construction stage impacts:

“The construction traffic assessment contained in the EIS focuses on the eastern ventilation shaft site since it is assumed the main station box will be constructed as part of the Metro North project. It also assumes Metro North and DART Underground works would run concurrently with access for construction traffic taken using the same routings. However DART construction traffic would only result in less than 0.5% increase traffic flows in the area, and therefore not be significant. Although St Stephen’s Green North would be reduced in width from three lanes to two lanes, an assessment presented in the EIS shows the link would remain within operating capacity.

Construction vehicles would enter the ventilation shaft compound on St Stephen’s Green North via a gate opposite the Kildare Street junction and thereafter exit at gate



on the northwest corner of the site near Dawson Street. Access and egress would be controlled by flagmen to ensure the safe passage of pedestrians, as well as ensuring buses can continue to access the stop near the proposed exit. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are as follows:

provision of a temporary 2m wide footpath provided to replace existing 5.5m wide footpath adjacent to the site (resulting in a Level of service C);

relocation of two bus stops from St Stephen’s Green North to Dawson Street and St Stephen’s Green East, as agreed with Dublin Bus. The applicant has appraised the extra walking distances, which are up to 250m extra, to be a moderate impact to bus users;

temporary removal of 32 on-street pay and display spaces on St Stephen’s Green North and East, an effect not judged to be significant given the amount of parking available in the area;

the provision of a truck stacking area on St Stephen’s Green East.”

I concur with the above assessment as prepared by Mr Wallace for the Inspector. In relation

to traffic impacts I would also note here conditions 101-111 in the ‘Agreed Position’

document between DCC and the applicant which is to be included in the Eleventh Schedule

of the RO if granted. Condition 104 requires specific details in regard to access to premises

and car parks to be detailed in the Scheme Traffic Management Plan (STMP). For the

operational stage assessment I refer the Board to s.4.8 of Mr Wallace’s report in Appendix 5

where the only concern raised therein relating to St. Stephen’s Green relates to the width of

the western footpath on Dawson Street which will require on-going monitoring. Again I

concur with, and accept the advice of, Mr Wallace on these matters.

5.2.4.4.4 Impact on Retail and Business Activity

I am satisfied that the applicant has carried out an adequate survey of businesses in the St.

Stephen’s Green area and refer the Board to ‘Brief of Evidence – Retail/Business Impact’

submitted to the Hearing on the 17/12/10 in that regard.

As stated previously the applicant is not proposing to remove any loading bays in the St.

Stephen’s Green area. The applicant is not proposing to remove any car parking spaces on

the northside of St. Stephen’s Green North. There will be no loss of footpath or carriageway

in front of the business premises on the northside of St. Stephen’s Green North. A total of

32 car parking spaces will be lost for the construction phase, these are on the southside of

St. Stephen’s Green North and on St. Stephen’s Green East, I do not consider this to be

significant given the existing level of car parking around the Green. There are no changes

proposed to existing access arrangements for businesses in the area under the DU

application.

I am of the opinion that the impacts from the DU at St. Stephen’s Green is considerably less

than that of Metro North given, inter alia, the relative scale of the works and size of



construction compounds associated with both developments. I note that the Metro North

assessment concluded that there would be slight impacts on businesses in the area, having

regard to the scale, type and location of works proposed under the DU scheme I am of the

opinion that the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. I note the applicant’s

commitment to provide a Public Liaison Officer and a manned 24 hour telephone line,

compliance with these and all other mitigation proposals and conditions of the RO if granted

should ensure that existing businesses in the area can continue to operate.

The long term impacts for businesses on St. Stephen’s Green will be significant and positive.

A DU station along with a Metro North station and Luas interchange will greatly enhance the

connectivity of St. Stephen’s Green, it will reinforce and strengthen its prime retail role. It

would be a considerable loss and a major mistake, in my opinion, not to provide a station at

this location.

5.2.4.4.5 East Shaft, the Green and Visual Amenity

St. Stephen’s Green is a National Monument and contains a number of elements that are on

the RPS. The proposed east shaft will be located just inside the railings of St. Stephen’s

Green North.

A number of observers have raised concerns about the proposed east shaft. Their concerns

relate to visual impact, impact on heritage items in the Green, works to a National

Monument, loss of mature trees and loss of amenity value of part of the Green. One

observer questions whether the applicant can carry out such works in St. Stephen’s Green

and refers to previous legislation and legal agreements relating to the ownership and

guardianship of the Green (ref: D. O’Regan submission received by the Board on the

10/08/10 and at the Hearing on the 14/03/11).

At the Hearing Mr Gerry Browner, Senior Architect with the Built Heritage and Architectural

Policy Section of the DoEHLG (now DoECLG) raised concerns about the proposed east shaft.

He indicated that the DoECLG are of the view that the east shaft may have a significant and

adverse impact on the architecture and architectural heritage of the park. He requests that

a condition be applied to the RO requiring the final design of the enclosures to structures

proposed within the Green be agreed with both the DoECLG and the OPW. Mr Browner

went on to tell the Hearing that such a condition could effectively avoid a conflict between

the DoECLG who have responsibility for works within the Green as it is a National

Monument (i.e. Ministerial consent will be required) and the applicant who would have

consent under separation legislation (i.e. if the RO is granted).

I refer the Board to the O.H. Transcript for Day 23, pages 21-61, in relation to exchanges

that took place with the DoECLG, the applicant and the Inspector concerning visual amenity,

architectural and archaeological heritage protection of St. Stephen’s Green.



I note the concerns relating to a ‘reference design’ and ‘exempt development’ should the

RO be granted, however, the applicant did confirm that above and below ground works will

be as indicated in the drawings, plans and particulars submitted with the RO application i.e.

heights, widths, building footprints will be as indicated in the RO documentation (ref: O. H.

Transcript Day 2 Mr M. Conroy page 34). So, while the details of the finishes may be agreed

at a later stage, the volumes of the above ground elements within the Green will be fixed

should the Board grant the RO.

Condition No. 4 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document requires the finishes of all shafts to be

agreed with DCC. As Mr Muldoon has indicated that the applicant has no objection to the

Board applying a condition on the RO that reflects Mr Browner’s requested condition (ref:

O.H. Transcript Day 23 page 42), I therefore am recommending such a condition given, inter

alia, the National Monument designation applicable to the Green and the need for

Ministerial Consent for any works here at a later stage. (I note that condition no. 10(c) of

the ‘Agreed Position’ document requires a similar agreement in relation to removal of wall

and railings.)

In relation to the removal of the trees to facilitate the east shaft I do consider that this will

result in a significant negative impact. I note the applicant’s mitigation proposals and

condition no. 4 and condition no. 99 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document. As this significant

negative impact will be for a medium term and given the strategic importance of the DU

proposal, I consider it regrettable but unavoidable in the interest of the common good of

the city.

In relation to the issue concerning previous legislation and legal agreements relating to the

ownership and guardianship of the Green, I’ve no reason to believe that there is any legal

constraint prohibiting the applicant from carrying out works in the Green, however, if there

is such a constraint, it is a matter for others to make a determination on as it is a civil legal

issue, in my opinion.

5.2.4.4.6 Cumulative Impact from Metro North and DU works

The cumulative residual impacts of the DU and Metro North at St. Stephen’s Green are

addressed in s.24.5 of Book 4, Vol. 2 of the EIS. In relation to the Luas BXD it was assumed

that there would be no concurrent construction activities with the DU at St. Stephen’s

Green and therefore it has not been assessed in the applicant’s EIS.

In assessing the cumulative impacts on St. Stephen’s Green area as a result of the DU and

Metro North projects, it was assumed that works on the Metro North would be underway

when DU work in the area commences.

For the construction phase cumulative impacts were assessed under: construction traffic

(relocation of bus stops – moderate impact, impact on existing multi-storey car parks –



slight impact, pedestrian level of service – slight impact, loss of on-street car parking –

moderate impact, loss/relocation of bicycle parking – slight impact); landscape and visual

(significant, negative and cumulative impact to the landscape character and amenity of the

Green); above ground noise and vibration (unchanged to that calculated within DU EIS);

below ground noise and vibration (potential impacts on St. Stephen’s Green North from

concurrent drill and blast works, common management process to mitigate/avoid this); air

quality (moderate impact in the vicinity of the works); climate (no significant impacts); flora

and fauna (no significant cumulative impact); soils and geology (small adverse impact on a

low value attribute); hydrogeology (negligible impact on a medium value attribute);

hydrology (direct, short-term and profound as a result of Metro North works, no change

with DU works); settlement (subject to appropriate mitigation no significant cumulative

residual impacts envisaged); material assets - utilities (slight impact); material assets –

property (land acquisition, major impact from Metro North, moderate from DU, cumulative

impact thus major): electromagnetic compatibility (no significant cumulative impact);

archaeology and cultural heritage (potential for archaeological remains being removed);

architectural heritage (Metro North works resulting in medium term loss, DU resulting in

temporary removal of elements); resource and waste management (no additional

cumulative in terms of waste management); socio-economics (significant negative impact

on amenity value of the Green), and human health (not significant).

Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Hearing that CIE and RPA have worked closely in the

preparation of the RO applications. He indicated that the RPA and CIE are committed to the

preparation of a joint Environmental Management Plan for the St. Stephen’s Green area

(ref: O. H. Transcript Day 48 pages 50-51). Mr Rory O’Connor, Project Director for Metro

North attended the Hearing and told the Inspector that agreement had been reached on

how the two contractors building the MN and DU stations should collaborate to avoid or

minimise the cumulative impacts and disruption risks, including the agreement of a Joint

Environmental Management Plan and a joint approach to monitoring settlement (ref: O.H.

Transcript Day 23).

For the operational phase the cumulative impacts of MN and DU works were assessed

under: landscape and visual (significant, negative, cumulative impact for medium term

reducing to slight negative in the longer term); climate (CO2 emissions, cumulative

magnitude of change not significant); architectural heritage (significant), and socio-

economic (major positive).

I am satisfied that the cumulative impact assessment of MN and DU works at St. Stephen’s

Green as carried out by the applicant is robust. I would note that for the construction and

operational phases, in those areas where significant negative cumulative impacts are

envisaged, the greatest source for those negative impacts arise from MN works more so

than from proposed DU works. This can be attributed to the difference in scale of works



and interventions proposed under MN when compared to the DU. The MN site is

significantly greater in size than the DU, it stretches much further into the Green than the

DU site, it directly impacts on significantly more man-made elements of heritage value in

and around the Green than the DU, more trees and planting is to be removed to

accommodate the MN than the DU.

Some observers have raised concerns about greater impacts arising if the Metro North and

DU were to be constructed consecutively with no overlap (i.e. not concurrently) as

envisaged in the EIS. I note that given the financial constraints currently being experienced

in the country there is now a degree of uncertainty as to which project, Metro North, DU or

Luas BXD, if any, is to proceed. The EIS assumes that Luas BXD will not be constructed

concurrently in the St. Stephen’s Green area, if Luas BXD was to proceed as the initial

project I note that the significant (and expensive) works for the Luas BXD in the area would

have to be undone and then reinstated to facilitate the Metro North and/or the DU at some

future stage, this would be, at the very least, unsustainable.

Should the DU proceed after the Metro North works were completed in St. Stephen’s Green,

given that the greatest source for significant negative cumulative impacts arise from Metro

North works, the impacts on the area would substantially reduce when just DU works were

underway and the main issue then would be duration of impacts (i.e. an additional c. 5

years).

The DU east shaft site is substantially smaller than the Metro North site and the above

ground works in this area are not extensive when compared with the Metro North works or

other DU works across the city.

If Metro North and DU works at St. Stephen’s Green were to be consecutive and not

concurrent, I am still of the opinion that the proposed development would not have an

adverse impact on the area as the impacts from the DU can be appropriately mitigated and

the benefits accruing the city and the area from the DU are considerable.

(It should also be noted that both projects have to be substantially complete with a 10 year

period so this would also limit the possibility of both projects being consecutive rather than

concurrent. It is my understanding that Metro North works would take some 5 years in St.

Stephen’s Green, likewise the DU works would also take some 5 years, so the ‘worst case

scenario’ for consecutive works would be 10 years of foot of the two Railway Orders – if the

DU RO is granted.)

5.2.4.4.7 Implications should Metro North not proceed

Much of the infrastructure required to facilitate the DU station at St. Stephen’s Green has to

be provided for pursuant to the Metro North RO. A number of observers raised the



question as to what would happen if the Metro North project is postponed or cancelled but

the DU was to proceed.

Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Hearing that if the Metro North project is cancelled

that CIE could go back to the Board to put an application for a station within St. Stephen’s

Green. If it is postponed he stated that CIE will enter into discussions with the NTA and RPA

as to the best way forward (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 48 pages 32-33). It was also indicated

by the applicant’s team that the DU could proceed without a station at St. Stephen’s Green

but that this was not desirable (see 2 no. drawings submitted to the Hearing on the

20/01/11 titled ‘St. Stephen’s Green Station – Scenario: Dart Underground is Operational Prior to

Opening of St. Stephen’s Green Station’).

5.2.4.4.8 RPA Condition Request

On Day 23 of the Hearing Mr Rory O’Connor, Project Director for Metro North outlined to

the Hearing how the integrated design inevitably results in significant interfaces between

the two schemes, he listed 5 specific interfaces: the construction of the DU plant and

equipment rooms beneath the MN station; the construction of the eastbound DU tunnel

beneath the two MN tunnels; the construction of the westbound DU tunnel through the MN

station box; the construction of the escalator shaft from the common ticket concourse to

the DU platform level; and, the fitting out of parts of the DU station as constructed by the

RPA (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 23 pages 83-88). He indicated that the interfaces between the

two projects will require careful management to avoid disruption and delay.

On Day 60 Mr O’Connor sought again to address the Hearing and informed the Inspector

that the RPA and CIE had reached agreement on the technical interfaces and that these

have been incorporated into an overall commercial agreement between RPA and CIE. He

requests that the Board apply a condition requiring CIE to get the written agreement of the

RPA for the construction, maintenance and operational interfaces prior to the issue of the

Best and Final Offer for the MN project. Mr O’Donnell BL for the applicant told the Hearing

that CIE had no objection to such a condition but also indicated that CIE were bound to the

agreement without the condition (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 60 pages 104-105).

As the RPA’s construction of elements of the DU station mitigate environmental risks, and as

coordination between the RPA and CIE of works in the area are essential in the interests of

orderly development and the proper planning and sustainable development in the St.

Stephen’s Green area, notwithstanding the commercial agreement, I would recommend

that the Board consider such a condition.

5.2.4.4.9 Hoarding and the Public Notice

Observer submission on behalf of James Adams & Sons holds that, given the duration the

site hoardings will be in place, they are not exempt development under the Planning &



Development Acts and should therefore have been specifically referred to in the public

notice of the DU RO application.

The RO application is made pursuant to the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, as

amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and not

under the Planning and Development Acts. I am satisfied the applicant has complied with

the provisions of s.40 (1)(b) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended

by s.49 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 concerning the

public notice.

The location of the hoarding is indicated in the RO plans, the envisaged heights of the

hoarding have been given in Table 8.20 of Book 2 Vol. 2 of the EIS, the likely duration of the

works at this location has also been indicated in the EIS and reiterated at the Hearing.

5.2.4.4.10 Provisions of a lay-by at St. Stephen’s Green North

Observer submission on behalf of James Adams & Sons request that a lay-by be provided in

front of their premises. I refer the Board to ‘Traffic Impacts’ above and to the ‘Dart

Underground – Report on Traffic and Transportation’ in Appendix 5 attached to this report.

I am not convinced that such a lay-by is required as a mitigation and I note that no such

recommendation on same is made in the report in Appendix 5. However, noting, inter alia,

the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and the applicant, should

such a lay-by be required then, arguably, it can be provided for pursuant to that ‘Agreed

Position’ in agreement with the Roads Authority.

5.2.4.4.11 RCSI Operations

Tunnelling will occur beneath, or close to, a number of buildings associated with the

operations of the Royal College of Surgeons in the St. Stephen’s Green area. Subject to

compliance with the limiting values been recommended under the draft conditions attached

to this report and subject to compliance with the mitigations measures proposed by the

applicant, there is no reason to believe that the operations of the RCSI in the area would be

adversely impacted upon by the DU either at construction phase or at operational phase, in

my opinion.

5.2.4.4.12 Radio Stations and the tunnels

There are two national radio stations operating from Marconi House on Digges Lane. While

the owners of Marconi House did make an observer submission on the DU proposals

(concerning the basement accommodation, see submission from Pat & John Sexton c/o

Acumen Facilities Management received on the 16/08/10), no specific submissions were

received by the Board relating to the operations of the radio stations at this location.



In a response to questioning Mr Tom Rowley for the applicant told the Inspector that they

had met with representatives of both stations and that there was on-going meetings with

them (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 2 page 114).

The westbound tunnel goes beneath Marconi House. The EIS acknowledges that Marconi

House with the two stations is a sensitive receptor. As indicated in s.25.2.5.2 of Book 4, Vol.

2 of the EIS the applicant’s contractor will be required implement a mitigation strategy for,

inter alia, Marconi House in order to reduce or remove the adverse groundbourne noise

effect from the TBMs.

Impacts on Marconi House for both the operational and construction phases from the

tunnels have been assessed in Dr Massarsch’s report which is contained in Appendix 3

attached to this report, I am recommending that the Board adopt and apply Dr Massarsch’s

recommended conditions as contained within his report.

5.2.5 Area 105 Merrion Square to River Liffey


There are three sites located to the south-east of the existing Pearse Station where works

are proposed to construct and facilitate the Pearse DU station and to allow for the

interconnection of the two stations i.e. the existing above ground DART station and the

proposed DU station. The proposed Pearse DU Station is to be located within an urban

block that is defined by Upper Erne Street to the east, Boyne Street to the south, Sandwith

Street to the west and the existing raised rail lines to the north. There is a terrace of 7 no.

two-storey dwellings estimated to date from the mid 1800s to the east that front onto

Upper Erne Street and back onto the subject site (Nos. 29-35 Erne Street Upper, see ‘View:

Area 105-1’ in Appendix 6). There is a double height industrial type structure of brown brick

finish located in the north-west corner of the DU station site, this appears to be a former

Post Office storage facility that is now in use as a car park (see ‘View: Area 105-4’ in

Appendix 6), to the south of that structure there are single storey industrial/commercial

buildings with frontages onto both Sandwith Street and Boyne Street (see ‘Views: Area 105-

3 & 4’ in Appendix 6). The remainder of the site is of a vacant brownfield nature (see

‘Views: Area 105-8 & 9’ in Appendix 6). Across Boyne Street to the south of the DU station

site a new commercial and residential block is located, this includes the KBC bank and

holiday apartment lets, the Archer’s Garage Protected Structure is located in the south-west

corner of that block. That new urban block varies in height between 3-6 storeys for the

most part, the upper floor being stepped back.

The proposed development also includes works within an area immediately adjoining the

existing Pearse Station. This site is located on the western side of Sandwith Street and at

the eastern end of the existing station complex. It includes a cul-de-sac known as Devlin’s



Place which is located to the rear/north of an established 3 storey residential development

that fronts onto Boyne Street (see ‘View: Area 105-6’ in Appendix 6). There is a raised red

brick water tower located on the site to the north of Devlin’s Place (see ‘View: Area 105-7’

in Appendix 6). There is an access lane/ramp running through this site and continuing along

the southern side of the existing station complex.

A third site where works are proposed is located along the western side of an urban block

that is defined by Fenian Street to the south, Sandwith Street to the east, Boyne Street to

the north and Bass Place to the west. This site includes part of the public lane known as

Bass Place that connects Fenian Street to the south to Boyne Street to the north. The site

itself includes a number of boarded-up vacant dwellings that front onto Bass Place (see

‘View: Area 105-10’ in Appendix 6), there is a two-storey commercial building that appears

vacant and in need of upgrade fronting onto Fenian Street to the south (see ‘View: Area

105-11’ in Appendix 6). Outside of the site boundaries and located to the east is a 3 storey

block of flats (St. Andrew’s Court) estimated to date from the 1960s, there is a row of red

brick late 1800s/early 1900s dwellings fronting onto Boyne Street to the east of the Bass

Place site (see ‘View: Area 105-5’ in Appendix 6).


The Pearse DU station and northern ventilation/intervention shaft are to be located in the

urban block defined by Sandwith Street to the west, Boyne Street to the south, Upper Erne

Street to the east and the raised rail line to the north. The entrance to the station will be at

an angle to the Sandwith Street/Boyne Street junction, the shaft will be located to the rear

of the station entrance in the northeast corner of the site. The above ground portion of the

proposed station at this location is c. 5.8 m high.

A bank of escalators and 2 lifts will bring passengers down to the ticket hall level from the

ground floor entrance, there will be an underpass connecting the Pearse DU station with the

existing DART station to the west. This underpass will be c. 5.5 below the level of Sandwith

Street.

The second (southern) shaft is to be located at Bass Place, it will be located at the junction

of Bass Place and Fenian Street. Approximately 8.4 m of the shaft’s frontage onto Fenian

Street has been kept free to allow for any future development to relate to the street (ref:

Vol. 2, Book 1 p. 3-29 of the EIS).

In terms of construction it is envisaged that the works at the DU station site will take some

five and half years. Secant piles wall will be formed using a boring piling rig, these walls will

form the station box. As the site is only marginally larger than the footprint of the station

box itself, a ‘top down’ approach will be adopted in constructing the station. The concrete



slab which will form the entrance level floor will be used as a working platform from which

the underground elements of the station will be progressively excavated and constructed.

As stated above the DU station will be connected to the existing station by an underpass,

the underpass will cross beneath Sandwith Street and bring passengers to a new bank of

escalators to be installed within the existing arches in Pearse Station. Construction of the

underpass will require the temporary closure of Sandwith Street for a period of c. 4 months.

To allow for plant access it will also be necessary to temporarily remove part of the existing

Sandwith Street rail overbridge at this location, this is a protected structure (ref: RPS 889).

Construction works on the Bass Place shaft will take in the region of 5.5 years. As with the

DU station site, as the available space is only marginally larger than the proposed

permanent structure the construction methodology will be ‘top down’. The shaft will

extend under the public carriageway at Bass Place and will thus require the temporary

closure of Bass Place for the duration of the proposed works. Works here will also entail the

demolition of the boarded up dwellings on the site that front onto Bass Place and the

demolition of the 2 storey building fronting Fenian Street.

On leaving Area 104 the tunnels enter Area 105 in front of Government Buildings on

Merrion Street Upper, both tunnels pass beneath protected structures located on the

eastern side of Merrion Street Upper, Merrion Square South and Merrion Square North. In

addition to being protected structures these buildings in the Merrion Square area are within

a designated Conservation Area and are zoned Z8 (protect the existing architectural and

civic design character, to allow only for limited expansion consistent with the conservation

objective) as per Map E of the Dublin City Council Plan 2011-2017.

The tunnels then pass beneath Denzille Lane at the rear of Merrion Square North, then

beneath modern residential and commercial developments zoned Z4 (mixed services

facilities) on the southern side of Fenian Street. The eastbound tunnel crosses Fenian Street

and enters the south-eastern corner of the Cumberland House Office site (zoned Z5).

Both tunnels pass under the urban block where the Bass Place Shaft is proposed. The

eastbound tunnel passes beneath Boyne Street and underneath residential developments

on the north side of that street, these residential units are on lands zoned Z2 (residential

conservation area). The westbound tunnel passes under the northwest corner of the KBC

Bank site (zoned Z5). Both tunnels then enter the Pearse DU Station site which is zoned Z4

(mixed services facilities). The westbound tunnel then travels beneath a row of dwellings

backing onto that site (Nos. 29-35 Erne Street Upper).

Both tunnels pass under the existing Dart and mainline railway to the south of the existing

Pearse Station. The eastbound tunnel passes under dwellings located on Erne Terrace Front

and Erne Terrace Rear (both terraces zoned Z2 – residential conservation area) before

travelling under DCC Library building on Pearse Street which is a protected structure.



Between the rail line and Pearse Street the westbound tunnel is located beneath residential

zoned lands.

On the northern side of Pearse Street the tunnels are located beneath an existing hotel and

other Z4 ‘mixed services facilities’. Both tunnels then enter the Pearse Square area passing

under protected structures, these dwellings are also in a designated Conservation Area.

The tunnels then enter the south Docklands area where the westbound tunnel will pass

under the western end of the new Grand Canal Theatre. The tunnels in this recently

redeveloped south Docklands (Grand Canal Dock) area will pass under several modern

developments including hotel, office, substation, residential and commercial uses. The

eastbound tunnel will also travel beneath a C19th industrial brick chimney stack retained as

part of a new urban space. Both tunnels will then travel under the Liffey.
































5.2.5.4 Area 105 Merrion Square to River Liffey Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.5.4.1 Over-site development at DU station

A number of observers in the immediate vicinity of the proposed DU station have raised

concerns that this site may see additional construction activity above that specified in the

RO application. Their concerns relate to the potential of over-site development on top of

the DU station. They are concerned that the construction activities if this occurs will be

prolonged.

The applicant has allowed for passive over-site development at the location of the DU

station. The station is c. 5.8 m high, I consider it appropriate that the proposed

development does allow for future over-site development. This is a city centre site and will

be the focus of a new transport hub for the city, it is appropriate and in the best interests of

proper planning and sustainable development of the area that over-site development be

accommodated/facilitated. This is a serviced urban site Zoned Z4 ‘To protect for and

improve mixed services facilities’ as per Map E of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-

2017. Many of the developed urban blocks in the area, including that immediately to the

south (KBC bank, 3-6 storeys), accommodate developments of a density appropriate for city

centre locations in proximity to public transportation services.

I would not therefore recommend that the Board’s decision prohibits any future over-site

development at this location. However, the applicant is not proposing any over-site

development in the RO application. Should any future application be made for such

development then the consent authority would have to consider, inter alia, impacts of such

development on adjacent properties and their occupants including, inter alia, cumulative

impacts if applicable.

5.2.5.4.2 Grand Canal Theatre

The Grand Canal Theatre (GCT) is located on Grand Canal Dock. The west bound tunnel

travels beneath the western (stage) end of the theatre and there is a cross-passage

proposed immediately to the rear of the theatre.

The theatre operators hold that this is a world class venue, they say that as a facility it is

superior to any other theatre of its type and size in Europe and that the theatre acoustics

are second to none for a theatre of its type. It was outlined to the Hearing how it was

specially designed and constructed to provide precise acoustic reverberation times.



I am satisfied that the operator’s description of the GCT is not hyperbole or an exaggeration.

This is a state of the art theatre, it must be considered as an important part of the cultural

infrastructure of Dublin and the state. In that regard, the integrity and reputation is

deserving of protection.

On Day 47 of the Hearing GCT made a number of submissions, one included an assessment

of the likely DU operational structureborne noise levels within the auditorium. The observer

held that based on their own assessments they cannot be satisfied that the applicant’s

proposals will be sufficient to provide adequate protection to the theatre. They requested

that to ensure DU operational noise does not disturb the theatre, their criteria be adopted

and requested that consideration be given to realigning the DU away from beneath the

theatre.

Having considered the observer’s submission of Day 47 and having also considered the

applicant’s response, the Inspectorate requested both parties give consideration to the

carrying out of further tests within the theatre, after some degree of discussion on the

matter at the Hearing, both parties agreed to carry out their own tests and presented them

to the Hearing. The results of the tests were presented to the Hearing on Day 61, the

Inspectorate queried both parties on their submissions, both parties were given an

opportunity to respond to each other’s submissions and both were given the opportunity to

question one another.

As stated previously Dr Massarsch was appointed to assist and advise the Inspector on a

number geotechnical related matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is contained in Appendix 3

attached to this report. I would refer the Board to ‘Groundborne Noise’ page 120, ‘Theatres

and Concert Halls’ page 121 and ‘Observations and Submissions at Oral Hearing’ page 122 of

that report in relation to the groundborne noise and potential impact on GCT.

I have given detailed consideration to the contents of Dr Massarsch’s report and accept the

advice and recommendations contained therein, I have incorporated the recommendations

of Dr Massarsch’s report in the draft conditions for the Board’s consideration attached to

the end of this report. Subject to compliance with the applicant’s mitigation proposals as

clarified in the Hearing and subject to compliance with the recommended conditions

attached at the end of this report, the integrity and reputation of the GCT should not be

adversely impacted upon.

5.2.5.4.3 Tunnelling and deep excavations in the area

Observers in the area have raised concerns about ground conditions and the proposed

nature of the works in such conditions. Reference was made to the location of the old

shoreline in the area. Concerns raised as to the possibility of the occurrence of liquefaction

given the ground conditions. Questions were raised in relation to, inter alia, blasting,

monitoring, vibrations, groundborne noise, ground movement, the PPS, the age of



structures above the proposed tunnels or adjacent the proposed deep excavations. Specific

heritage structures referred to, some on the Record of Protected Structures, include C18th

townhouses on Merrion Square, Erne Street Bridge, Upper Erne Street Terrace, the DCC

Library & Archive on Pearse Street and the dwellings forming Pearse Square, all of Pearse

Square dwellings are on the RPS. Submissions were also received from residents on Boyne

Street, Sandwith Street and Fenian Street. Submissions were also received in relation to

modern structures and the implications of below ground activities for these structures and

occupants and uses therein, these include submissions relating to office developments in

the Grand Canal Dock area, hotels in the vicinity of the Pearse DU station and a bioscience

building located at the Pearse Street/Sandwith Street junction.

As indicated previously under s. 5.1.2 and s. 5.2.5.4.2 above the Board engaged the services

of Dr R. Massarsch to advise on impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s

report is contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s

attention to that report and to pages 14-23 of ‘Appendix 4 – Review of Submission and

Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr Massarsch’s main report, in relation to

specific issues raised concerning Area 105.







from tunnelling beneath the protected structures or other structures along the route of the

DU or from deep excavation works adjacent such structures. (See also s. 5.1.20 earlier in

this report.)

5.2.5.4.4 Missing borehole results at DU station site

An observer has raised concerns about missing information in the EIS concerning a borehole

dug at the site of the DU station (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 42 p.102). Mr Flaherty explained

to the Hearing (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 45 p. 255) that borehole BH60 was relocated away

from the originally intended location due to proximity to the boundary wall, there was no

drilling done at location BH60 and hence no log information exists for it. The ground

conditions at this location have been indicated in the EIS and highlighted again at the

Hearing i.e. alluvial silts and clay.

This matter was also referred to in Appendix 4 page 17 to Dr Massarsch’s report ‘Assessment

of the Environmental Impacts in Relation to Ground Vibrations and Groundborne Noise,

Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related Issues’ which is contained in Appendix 3

attached to this report.



5.2.5.4.5 Impact on the character of the area

Having regard to the existing level of pedestrian movements in and around the area of the

proposed DU station compared to the pedestrian movements envisaged at operation stage

(ref: s.6.5.5.5 of Vol. 2 Book 2 of the EIS) it must be acknowledged that there will be a

change to the character of the area at operational stage. However, I concur with Ms C.

White for the applicant who told the Hearing (Day 46) that Sandwith Street is a mixed street

with a new educational building on one end, a bank building at the other end, shops and

residences, it is not solely a residential street currently.

Pearse Station will become a major transfer station as a result of the DU project.

Notwithstanding the potential for some negative impacts such a reduction in residential

privacy at some locations, I am of the opinion that the long term impact will be positive.

The increase in pedestrian flows should increase a sense of security for pedestrians, security

at the station will further enhance that sense of security, there are vacant/underutilised

properties in the area that should benefit from the increase in pedestrian flows.

This is a city centre location with mixed land use zonings in the area of the proposed DU

station, I do not consider that the proposed development conflicts with those zonings.

Other negative impacts may include an increase in litter in the area, this may require an

increase in litter bins and street cleaning operations but these would remain a primary

responsibility of the City Council.

5.2.5.4.6 Alternative Proposals

Two observers have requested that the Board consider alternative proposals for the area.

Mr David Hughes who resides in the terrace at Upper Erne Street that backs onto the site of

the proposed DU station submitted a proposal to the Board in his August 2010 submission,

it consists of the proposed station being relocated to the site where the Cumberland House

office block is located fronting onto Fenian Street. The primary purposes for this relocation,

as it is held by the observer, is to reduce the transfer time between stations, it will use

commercial properties/lands, better location in terms of civic design and access, and it will

significantly reduce the impact on the existing residential community.

O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Companies submitted three alternative options for the

Bass Place shaft in their submission to the Board of August 2010. They own lands where the

Bass Place shaft is proposed by the applicant, they have proposals for a 240 bedroom hotel

and conference development over a double basement consisting of a large

conference/function room at this location, they hold that the proposed shaft will make their

proposal for the site unviable. All three options entailed utilising Cumberland House site for

the shaft instead of the Bass Place site (one option also included placing the vent shaft at

Denzille Lane and the Intervention shaft at Cumberland House site).



Both observers, David Hughes and O’Callaghan Hotels, also attended the Hearing and

further outlined the impacts the applicant’s proposal will have on their properties and

amenities. Mr Hughes expanded upon his proposal for the alternative location at

Cumberland House site (ref: submission to the Hearing on the 08/03/11). The O’Callaghan

Hotels options moved all the applicant’s proposed structures and works off their Bass Place

site but left the DU station as that proposed by the applicant i.e. to the rear of Upper Erne

Street. Mr Hughes’ proposal moved all the applicant’s proposed structures and works off

the Sandwith Street/Boyne Street/Erne Street site and onto the Cumberland House site.

It should be noted that subsection 2(d) of Section 42 of the Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act 2001 was deleted under the Planning & Development (Strategic

Infrastructure) Act 2006 i.e. an Inspector presiding at the Hearing no longer needs to

consider alternatives to the application submitted to the Hearing, nevertheless, I note that

Section 37(1)(d) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by s.49 of

the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 requires the EIS contains,

inter alia, “an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of

the main reasons for its choice, taking into account the environmental effects..” With

reference to Chapter 2 of Book 1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS, I am satisfied the applicant has met this

requirement.

The Board’s attention is drawn to s.2.6.3.4 of the said Chapter 2 and Figure 2.14 V3 in Book

1, Vol. 3 of the EIS where the applicant considered four options for the Pearse DU station at

Phase 2. This was further investigated at Phase 3 and following, inter alia, public

consultation, 2 options were assessed, the Board is referred to s.2.7.4.5 of Chapter 2 and

Figure 2.61 V3 and Figure 2.62 V3 in Book 1, Vol. 3 of the EIS. Option 2 was chosen for a

number of reasons and is now the proposal before the Board. One reason that Option 2

was chosen over Option 1 related to adverse impacts Option 1 would have on established

residences on Boyne Street, while the EIS acknowledges the potential for impacts on

residences on Upper Erne Street from Option 2, these impacts can be effectively minimised

through the adoption of mitigation measures. Table 2.42 in Chapter 2 lists the advantages

and disadvantages of Preliminary Design (i.e. Phase 2) solution and the Phase 3 Alternative

Proposal for Pearse Station.

The applicant has given further consideration to the alternative proposals submitted by the

observers, the Board is referred to pages 110-117 of ‘Brief of Evidence – Design

Development and Alternatives Considered’ by Conor Lavery and Peter Muldoon submitted

to the Hearing on the 23/11/10. Furthermore, the applicant did consider the potential of

impacts on future development of the Bass Place site. The applicant noted a lapsed

permission ref: 02/1940 for a 7 storey block of affordable accommodation at this location,

the applicant envisages that a building of similar height could be proposed on the site in the

future (ref: p.1-66 ‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed description of the Railway Order Works’



submitted to the Hearing on the 24/11/10). At the Hearing the applicant highlighted a

number of technical difficulties (relating to the alignment) and environmental impacts from

the observers’ proposals. While it is understandable that the observers would wish to

lessen the impacts on them or their properties, I am of the opinion that they have

transferred the impacts onto other locations without fully assessing the likely impacts on

the environment of their alternative proposal, furthermore I find the applicant’s assessment

of the likely adverse impacts from those alternative proposals compelling and would

therefore not recommend them to the Board.

I note that the site of the proposed DU station is underutilised, vacant, it is a brownfield

urban site and the site of the Bass Place shaft contains a number of vacant structures, also a

brownfield site, yet the Cumberland House site can not be described as that, it

accommodates a functioning occupied office block. With reference to evidence submitted

at the Hearing it also appears that neither observer discussed their alternative proposals

utilising the Cumberland House site with the owners or occupants of Cumberland House.

There is an extant permission for development at the Cumberland House site (ref: 3327/08

copy contained in Appendix 6 attached to this report for the Board’s attention), while the

owners of the Bass Place site have proposals for a hotel and conference facility at this

location there is no extant permission for such a facility existing at this time nor am I aware

of any extant permission for the redevelopment of the brownfield DU station site. In that

regard it would be unreasonable, in my opinion, to refuse the RO. It is acknowledged here

that there will be an impact on the development potential of the Bass Place site for some

time but it will be temporary and development of this site can take place at some future

stage subject to the appropriate consents and subject to the appropriate engineering design

solutions to safeguard the DU structures should they be constructed. The DU is of strategic

importance and, on balance, the significant gains to the city, region and country, in its

delivery out-weigh the disadvantages at local level in delaying the redevelopment of this

Bass Place brownfield site, in my opinion.

In relation to the use of the Cumberland House site so as to reduce the transfer time

between stations I note here s.4.7 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr S.

Wallace contained in Appendix 5 attached to this report:

“The entrance to the proposed station at Pearse will be located on the corner of Boyne Street and Sandwith Street. This site has been chosen by the applicant following a series of iterations during the scheme development stages. The main operational issue is that it is some 200 metres walk distance from platforms in the existing station that will be re-designated for Maynooth – Greystones DART services. At oral hearing local observers contended that another site (at Cumberland House) would be more proximate and therefore more efficient to those interchanging between DART services. Whilst the applicant produced engineering and environmental reasons why the alternative site was not feasible, in transport interchange terms there would still be approximately 100 to 150 metres walk distance required between DART services. Overall interchanging between services that run to



an 8 minute frequency could mean a walk and wait combined time of between 4 and 11 minutes. My conclusion is that saving approximately 50 to 100 metres walk distance would be unlikely to significantly alter the user’s perception of interchange time and therefore there is no appreciable advantage in siting the station at Cumberland House…”

Notwithstanding the observers’ concerns, subject to compliance with the extensive

mitigation measures proposed I am of the opinion that the proposed development at the

Bass Place site and the DU station site will not have an adverse impact on the receiving

environment.

5.2.5.4.7 Ecological Value of the DU Station site

An observer raised concerns about the removal of vegetation from the proposed DU station

site at the back of Upper Erne Street Terrace. It appears some vegetation was cleared from

the DU station site in 2009. However, I would note that there is no environmental

designation pertaining to the site. I would concur with Mr Feely’s assessment (for the

applicant) of the existing condition of the DU station site as being of “low ecological nature”

(ref: O.H. Transcript Day 46 p.82). Also Dr Brennan, ecologist for the applicant, in relation to

the site told the hearing that “…I do recall that site and it (is) heavily covered with Buddleia

the butterfly bush, it is considered to be an invasive species as well. It doesn’t have nesting

potential. You will get a lot of insects on it but you won’t get nesting birds and the rest of it

was hard standing” (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 15 page 201).

The proposed development of the Pearse DU station site does not constitute a significant

adverse impact on the ecology of the area in my opinion and the loss of the remaining

vegetation on the site is not contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development

of the area.

5.2.5.4.8 Land Use Zoning

The Bass Place shaft is to be located in an area where the land use zoning is ‘Z1 – To protect,

provide and improve residential amenities’ as indicated on Map E of the City Development

Plan 2011-2017. As the applicant’s proposal at this location has allowed for future adjacent

and over-site development, subject to inter alia, appropriate engineering design solutions to

protect the integrity of the DU infrastructure, I am of the opinion that it does not conflict

with this Z1 zoning. In any event I would note that under s.15.10.1 of the written statement

of the City Development Plan ‘permissible uses’ include ‘public service installation’.

Likewise the DU station design has made allowances for over-site development and as such

future proposals that are compliant with the Z4 zoning ‘To protect for and improve mixed

services facilities’ can be accommodated. The station, in my opinion, therefore does not

conflict with, or prohibit the implementation of, the zoning, I further note that s.15.4 of the



Development Plan does allow for flexibility in determining what uses may be permissible on

Z4 zoned lands.

It would be inappropriate however in assessing DU compliance with the policies and

objectives of the planning authority (with reference to s.43(1)(h)of the Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by s.49 of the Planning & Development (Strategic

Infrastructure) Act 2006) to consider land use zoning alone and in that regard I note policies

and objectives SI1, SI2, SI3, SI4, SI8, SIO3 and SIO9 of Chapter 5 ‘Connecting and Sustaining

The City’s Infrastructure’ of the Development Plan that either directly or indirectly support

and seek the implementation of the DU for the city.

5.2.5.4.9 Dalkey Granite Wall at rear of Upper Erne Street Terrace

There is a granite wall separating the rear garden areas of Upper Erne Street Terrace from

the site of the DU station. Some observers have sought clarification from the applicant

regarding proposals for this wall. The applicant is not proposing to demolish/remove this

wall (ref: Ms Harmon for the applicant O.H. Transcript Day 44 p.65 and Mr Flaherty for the

applicant O.H. Transcript Day 45 p.265).

5.2.5.4.10 Access to No. 35 Upper Erne Street

No. 35 Upper Erne Street is the end dwelling of the terrace and has a vehicular side

entrance to the rear garden area off Boyne Street. The occupiers have raised concerns in

relation to the use of this vehicular access. The applicant confirmed at the Hearing that

access will be maintained at all times during the construction phases save for perhaps a very

short period when paving works will be carried out (ref: Mr Muldoon and Mr Flaherty for

the applicant O.H. Transcript Day 45 p.219-221).

5.2.5.4.11 Emissions from the Northern Ventilation Shaft

Observers in the Upper Erne Street terrace have raised concerns relating to the proposed

ventilation shaft at the northern end of the DU station site in proximity to the boundary wall

at the rear of the terrace. Their concerns relate to emissions from the shaft at operational

stage.

I note the contents of s.10.4.4.1 of Book 2 of Vol. 2 of the EIS, the DU trains are powered by

electricity, no harmful or hazardous gases are discharged at the ventilation shafts. It goes

on the state that during normal DU operations the level and duration of dust particles likely

to be emitted from the shafts during the passing of trains is not considered significant and is

not expected to result in an exceedance of PM10 air quality standards. There is nothing on

file to indicate that the emissions from the shaft would have an adverse impact on those

residing in Upper Erne Street.



In the event of an emergency it is noted that the design principles will require that

emergency louvers on top of ventilation shafts will be at least 2.5 m above ground level so

that all discharges originate above head-height, and the exhaust of gases will be directed

upwards at high speed away from people that might be nearby (ref: page 11 of ‘Brief of

Evidence – Ventilation, Fire and Smoke Control’ submitted to the Hearing on the 30/11/10).

5.2.5.4.12 Traffic Restriction & Impact on car parking

Concerns have been raised by those residing in the area of the impacts on traffic and car

parking during the construction phase. I refer the Board to s.5.7 of the ‘Report on Traffic

and Transportation’ by Mr S. Wallace in Appendix 5 attached to this report where it states,

inter alia, the following:

“The proposed works at Pearse would primarily comprise the northern station box and two ventilation / intervention shafts; one located within the main compound at the Sandwith Street / Boyne Street junction and one located at the corner of Bass Place and Fenian Street. A passenger subway is also proposed under Sandwith Street to provide connection between the proposed station and the existing DART station. The most practical way of constructing this subway is to totally close Sandwith Street for a period of 4 months. This would be undertaken during the summer months (when traffic flows are generally lower) in order to minimise level of disruption. Given that traffic would be diverted via Erne Street the applicant appraised the operation of the Pearse Street traffic signalised junction by including for the re-routed traffic. This identified the need to temporarily ban the right turn from Erne Street Upper to Pearse Street (East) and improve the corner radius on south west corner of the junction. It would also be necessary to temporarily alter lanes in Pearse Street by removing the outbound bus lane to create two general plus one bus lane inbound. It was found that only with these mitigation measures in place would the junction operate with an acceptable level of queuing. These mitigation measures have been discussed and agreed with DCC and Dublin Bus.

The Bass Place works also require the closure of that road for almost the entire duration of the works. Local traffic accessing property in the area would be diverted via Boyne Street. Both these roads are lightly trafficked. The main mitigation measure proposed is the removal of 11 pay and display parking bays in Boyne Street to provide safe paths and manoeuvring space for construction vehicles. It is acknowledged that the section of Boyne Street immediately east of Bass Place would experience significantly higher traffic levels due the Bass Place closure of around 100 vehicles per hour during morning and evening peak periods, with only a small element of this being construction traffic. This level of flow is however well within the operating capacity of Boyne Street.

In terms of the local road network, access to the site is physically constrained by the presence of low-height railway bridges over Sandwith Street and Erne Street. The clearance height for Westland Row bridge is higher at 4.93m which is deemed acceptable to construction vehicles and agreed with DCC as being the principal access route to the site. Construction vehicles from the north and east would therefore use Pearse Street, Westland Row and Fenian Street to access the site compounds at Pearse. The applicant has constructed a localised traffic model (using TRANSYT software) to confirm that key junctions in the area continue to operate effectively with the additional construction traffic loading. However there would be



the need to remove a total 39 on-street parking in the local area, mainly to allow for the efficient passage of construction vehicles. The applicant’s surveys indicate sufficient parking capacity is available locally to absorb the temporary loss of these spaces, as well as offering to bring forward additional parking management measures should the local community wish to do so.”

Having regard to the forgoing and also having regard to the mitigation measures proposed

and agreements with DCC, I consider the applicant’s proposals in relation to traffic and

transportation to be acceptable.

5.2.6 Area 106 River Liffey to East Wall

In the interests of clarity Area 106, for the purposes of this assessment, has been divided

between that area lying to the north of Sheriff Street i.e. the East Wall area (Area 106A) and

that lying to the south of Sheriff Street i.e. the Docklands area (Area 106B).

5.2.6A Area 106A East Wall

5.2.6A.1 Site Location and Description

The two Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) required to construct the tunnels for the DU are to

be launched from the North Wall Yard. The southern boundary of the North Wall Yard is

defined by Sheriff Street which forms part of the Regional Route the R101. Sheriff Street

has a carriageway width of c. 11 metres at this location, it also has footpaths on both sides

of c. 2 metres width and there is also some on-street car parking provided for in the area

(see ‘View: Area 106-1’ in Appendix 6) . Sheriff Street at this specific location is bridged over

the ground and Royal Canal below, consequently, vehicular access is provided for under the

street from the North Wall Yard (Eastern Portal site) to the Docklands area immediately to

the south of Sheriff Street. There are new apartment blocks located on the southern side of

Sheriff Street that overlook the street and the North Wall Yard, these apartment blocks,

known as Longford House and Riverstown House, form part of the Spencer Dock

development and are, in the main, 7-8 storeys high. Located running along the western

boundary of the North Wall Yard is the terminus of the Maynooth Commuter line, this

commuter rail service terminates at the new Docklands Station which is located on the

northern side of Sheriff Street and in the south-west corner of the North Wall Yard.

Immediately to the west of this rail line and station is the Royal Canal. Further to the west

of the Royal Canal there are the established residential areas of Ferryman’s Crossing and

Bellman’s Walk.

To the south-east of North Wall Yard is Abercorn Road, this forms a T-junction with Sheriff

Street. There is a large disused shed located at the junction of Sheriff Street and Abercorn

Road, this disused shed is located within the site boundaries of the North Wall Yard. To the

north of the disused shed there is a vehicular entrance that appears to provide access to the



North Wall Yard. To the north of this entrance there is a terrace of some 14 single-storey

cottages that back onto the North Wall Yard, these cottages have small rear yards, there is a

high wall running along the rear of these cottages that separates them from the North Wall

Yard area. On the opposite side of Abercorn Road from the site there is a new 7 storey

office building that fronts onto Sheriff Street. To the rear of this office building and on the

eastern side of Abercorn Road there is a row of two-storey dwellings facing the disused shed

and vehicular entrance on the site (see ‘View: Area 106-2’ in Appendix 6). Within the North

Wall Yard there are several rail lines, some appear to be still in regular use while others

appear disused for some time, there are a number of structures that also appear disused or

underutilised, these include a water tower estimated to date from the late 1800s and a

signal cabin, there are several industrial type buildings located around the yard. Piles of

sleepers and rails are to be seen at various locations within the North Wall Yard (see ‘View:

Area 106-3’ in Appendix 6). The yard is physically connected to another yard some half a

kilometre further east along Sheriff Street. This yard to the east is known as the North Wall

Freight Yard. It contains a number of railheads and associated tracks. It has a vehicular

entrance off the eastern end of Sheriff Street (see ‘View: Area 106-4’ in Appendix 6). To the

south-west of the North Wall Freight Yard and east of East Road the predominant landuse is

industrial, the industrial landuse also dominates the area to the north of the Freight Yard

save for a residential enclave known as Merchant’s Square. The Freight Yard and North Wall

Yard are connected by a corridor, this corridor contains a number of rail tracks and a

vehicular road (a private road). The corridor runs under the East Road rail bridge,

immediately to the west of this bridge the corridor is bounded to the south by a row

dwellings known as Irvine Terrace that back onto the corridor, Church Road bounds the

corridor to the north, there is a terrace of red brick two-storey dwellings on the northern

side of Church Road that face the corridor. There are sound barriers in place at various

locations on both the south and north side of this corridor (see ‘View: Area 106-5’ in

Appendix 6).

The North Wall Yard (Eastern Portal site) is bounded to the north-east by the residential

area of East Wall. There is a variety of residential units in this area from various eras

stretching from the late 1800s up to contemporary structures. These include single storey

and two storey dwellings which, for the most part, are either terraced or semi-detached

units, there is also some low-rise new apartment developments in the area. The Church

Road mentioned in the above paragraph runs through the centre of this residential area

from the north-east to the south-west before swinging south-east along the above

mentioned corridor. The East Wall residential area is bounded to the south-east by the East

Road, to the north-east by the East Wall Road and to the north-west, west, south-west and

south by rail lines which, for the most part, are on raised embankments. These surrounding

roads and rail lines provide a boundary that creates a clearly defined residential area (in

spatial terms) that is East Wall. While the East Wall area itself is bisected by several roads

and streets, access into and out of this area is somewhat restricted by the surrounding rail



lines. For example, there is only one vehicular access into the area from the west/city side,

that is via the Ossory Road/West Road route.

There are a number of residential roads and streets in the East Wall area that are

immediately adjacent the North Wall Yard. Blythe Avenue is a residential cul-de-sac street

that has a row of houses (single and two-storey) on its north-east side that face towards the

North Wall Yard. The boundary between Blythe Avenue and the North Wall Yard consists of

a c.5 metre high wooden screen on a masonry wall (see ‘View: Area 106-6’ in Appendix 6).

There is a freight line located on the other side of this screen. To the north-west of Blythe

Avenue is another cul-de-sac consisting of 3 dwellings and a commercial garage known as

Malachi Place. Further to the north of Malachi Place is Hawthorn Avenue which backs onto

North Wall Yard. Further north is West Road, this road runs along the western boundary of

East Wall, it consists, for the most part, of two-storey red brick terraced dwellings estimated

to date from the early years of the C20th. These dwellings face west across the public road

towards the existing fright line that is located on a raised embankment. As stated above

there is only one vehicular access into and out of the East Wall area along its western

boundary, this is located along West Road, there is an opening formed in the rail

embankment by a rail bridge that carries the rail line over the West Road/Ossory Road route

(see ‘View: Area 106-7’ in Appendix 6).

To the north of this West Road/Ossory Road route is a green field site known as Coady’s

Yard, works are also proposed in here as part of the DU project. Coady’s Yard is surrounded

by rail lines to its west, north-west and east (see ‘View: Area 106-8’ in Appendix 6). To the

south-west of Coady’s Yard is a new residential and commercial development known as

Crosbies Yard, this is a 6 storey development consisting mostly of apartments. Across the

road from this development is an established industrial estate known as Ossory Business

Park (see ‘View: Area 106-9’ in Appendix 6). This industrial estate is bounded to the south-

west and east by existing rail lines and is bounded along its north-western boundary by

West Road/Ossory Road.

5.2.6A.2 Proposed Development At This Location

It is proposed to tie the two new DU lines into the existing northern line at a location

approximately 80 metres south of the River Tolka adjacent the existing East Wall Rail

Junction. These lines will then head in a southerly direction towards the North Wall Yard,

the DU lines will be located to the west of the existing freight lines that run along the top of

the embankment along the western boundary of East Wall.

As the DART approaches the tunnel portals it will start to descend at a gradation of 3%. To

accommodate this descent a number of works are required. The existing West Road rail

bridge will have to be relocated further north by approximately 65 m from its current

location, this is required to ensure adequate clearance is maintained for vehicular traffic



travelling under the bridge, consequently, the West Road/Ossory Road will have to be

realigned to meet up with the new bridge. The new realigned road will run along the

western and northern sides of Coady’s Yard.

Just south of the new bridge a retained cut structure shall commence, this will run in a

southerly direction for some 400 metres. The new DU lines will continue to descend as the

run in a southerly direction through this open cut structure. They will then enter into a cut

and cover structure which will continue towards the tunnels, this cut and cover structure

will be of some 270 metres in length and will accommodate the TBM launch chambers

towards its southern end.

The two portals to the tunnels will be located at the end of the cut and cover structure, the

portals are approximately 60 metres to the north of Sheriff Street. At operational stage

three new buildings will be located in the North Wall Yard.

An ESB substation will be located in the south-east corner of this site at the junction of

Sheriff Street and Abercorn Road, this substation is required to power the DU. To the north-

west of that structure a Maintenance Facility building will be located, this will be located

towards the centre of the site, this building will house maintenance monitoring terminals,

office and staff facilities. It is a single storey structure and rectangular in plan of c. 50 m X

16 m. To the north of the Maintenance Facility building is the entrance to the North Wall

Intervention Shaft which accommodates emergency access/egress to the DU below. That

area of the North Wall Yard that is to accommodate these three buildings i.e. the

substation, the Maintenance Facility building and the Intervention Shaft, will have its ground

level raised to +4.31 m AOD, the design flood level, this is c. 2.8 metres above existing

ground level at that location. At operational stage access to the North Wall Yard will be via

the existing Abercorn Road entrance that is to be upgraded. All three buildings are to have

an external finish of terracotta cladding.

Further north along the new DU lines an emergency footbridge across the lines will be

provided. To the north-west of that footbridge a building referred to as the Operational

Control Centre (OCC) will be located, this OCC building will be bounded to the east by the

DU lines and will be bounded to the west by the new realigned West Road/Ossory Road. A

vehicular entrance off the new realigned road will provide access to the OCC site. The OCC

building will be a two storey structure, it is rectangular in plan of c. 60 m X 16 m. To the

north of the OCC building a Traction Substation will be located in the corner of the Coady’s

Yard site. The Traction Substation is c. 12 m X 11 m in plan and is a single storey structure.

Both the OCC building and the Traction Substation have an external finish of terracotta

cladding. In addition to those new structures, new track work will be required along the

lines adjacent Coady’s Yard (east and north), in the North Wall Yard and in the Freight Yard

to the east of the North Wall Yard. Minor alterations are also proposed to the existing track

adjacent the Fairview Depot.



In relation to the construction activities and phasing for the East Wall area, initially enabling

works will take place here consisting of the reconfiguration and realignment of railways in

the area, this is expected to last some 12 months, realignment works are required at the

East Wall Rail Junction and the Church Road Rail Junction.

Then there will be a start on the secant piling activities for the construction of the portals,

the portal construction is expected to last 12 months, contemporaneously with that are the

works to relocate the West Road Rail bridge and realign West Road (re: Mr McManus for the

applicant O.H. Transcripts Day 37 p. 36). Once the TBMs are launched from their chambers

it is expected that tunnelling will last for 22 months with the spoil from the tunnels being

removed via the North Wall Yard portals.

While the tunnelling is taking place construction on the approach structures will continue to

the north of the chambers, these are the retained cut structures mentioned in the above.

Once the tunnelling is complete the support equipment will be removed and the portal

chambers and the rest of the cut and cover structures (of some 270 metres mentioned

above) will be roofed and covered over. A railhead will then be constructed at the new

ground level and the DU track and associated permanent railway equipment will be installed

from this railhead, this will take some 22 months also. Work will also commence on the

surface buildings e.g. the Maintenance Facility building and the OCC building. The West

Road realignment including the new bridge is expected to take 12 months. The approach

retaining walls construction will take some 36 months. It should be noted that there will be

a degree of overlap between the various construction activities in the East Wall area, for

example, while work is taking place on the tunnelling, work will also be taking place on the

retained cut structures (i.e. the approach retaining walls). Overall, from the start of the

enabling works until the completion of the track laying, railway systems and completion of

the Maintenance Facility and OCC building (the ESB substation will be required earlier in the

construction phase as it can be used to power the TBMs, ref: s. 2.7.7 Vol. 2 Book 1 of 4, EIS

and Mr Flaherty for the applicant O.H. Transcripts Day 37 p. 23), it is estimated that the

entire construction activity in this area will last some seven years, this then will be followed

by some 8 months of system testing and trials (ref: slide 59 in ‘Construction Strategy;

Scheduling & Programming’ presented to the Hearing by K. McManus on the 30/11/10)

5.2.6A.3 Issues Arising





























for the environment to be addressed in relation to Area 106A (East Wall) are as contained in

Section 5.1 of this report and Section 5.2.6A.4 hereunder.

5.2.6A.4 Area 106A –East Wall Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.6A.4.1 A Station for East Wall

An often repeated refrain in the Hearing and in the observer submissions to the Board in

August 2010 was that ‘East Wall was getting all of the pain but none of the gain’. Many of

the residents in East Wall feel aggrieved that their area will see substantial construction

activity for several years but unlike other areas where DU works are proposed, they will not

have the benefit of a DU station in their area at the end of the construction activities.

The applicant did assess a proposal for a station in the area of Coady’s Yard where the OCC

building is proposed. However, this was determined not to be feasible for alignment

reasons, both horizontal and vertical. A station at this location would require either the

closure of West Road or the closure of the GSWR rail line which, the applicant states, is

essential for the on-going operations of IE. And it appears that these alignment difficulties

also prohibit a station being provided for between the proposed Docklands Station and the

East Wall rail junction (ref: p. 120 of ‘Brief of Evidence – Design Development and



Alternatives Considered’ presented to the Hearing on the 23/11/10). The applicant did note

that the East Wall area will be served by the proposed Docklands Station and the existing

stations at Connolly and Clontarf.

Some observers requested that an entrance be provided at the northern end of the

proposed Docklands Station. Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Inspector (ref: O.H.

Transcript Day 35 p.50) that consideration was given to providing an entrance to the

Docklands Station from the Sheriff Street end but this was not incorporated into the design

given that there were two entrances already proposed to the Docklands Station and that

there would be little benefit in terms of travel distance for pedestrians given the location of

the platforms.

Notwithstanding the submissions concerning a station for the East Wall area, the Board

should note that the Docklands North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 (DDDA) in Diagram 27

indicated a station on the DU line (then referred to as the ‘Interconnector’) in the area

where the applicant now proposes the station, no station was indicated in the area of the

North Wall Yard or Coady’s Yard. That proposal also highlighted the opportunity for the

integration of the Red Luas line and the DU services at this location, this would not be

possible if a DU station was at the North Wall Yard or Coady’s Yard. Likewise, in the Dublin

Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 (DDDA) in Figure 5.3 ‘Public Transportation’ indicated a

station at the proposed Docklands Station location but no station was indicated at either the

North Wall Yard or Coady’s Yard. That Figure 5.3 again highlighted the opportunity for a

public transport interchange between the DU and Luas in the proposed Docklands Station

area. In the recently adopted Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 in Figure 7 ‘City

Centre Integrated Transport’ the route of the DU is indicated and the proposed city centre

stations along that route coincide with the applicant’s proposals for stations in the city

centre, one such station is identified for North Wall where the Red Luas Line and proposed

DU cross, again no station is indicated for the North Wall Yard or Coady’s Yard.

The DU is part of an integrated transportation network, there will be considerable benefits

accruing from this infrastructure, not all communities in the city will have a station directly

serving their neighbourhood but areas like East Wall will have access to a DU station either

by bus, walking or cycling. Having regard to the foregoing I would not recommend that the

Board require the applicant to provide a station at either North Wall Yard or at Coady’s

Yard.

5.2.6A.4.2 Two TBMs – V – Four TBMs

The tunnel boring strategy at the end of the Phase 2 Preliminary Design was to tunnel from

both ends of the tunnel, at that stage the western end was envisaged to be Heuston Station,

the strategy was to tunnel from Heuston to St Stephens Green and from the North Wall Yard

to St Stephens Green.



During the Phase 3 Reference Design the decision was made to extend the project to

Inchicore, initially the principle of tunnelling from both ends was retained although at that

stage it was proposed to tunnel from Inchicore to Heuston and from North Wall Yard to

Heuston.

Later in the Phase 3 Reference Design the tunnelling strategy was again looked at and

subsequently changed from a 4 TBM strategy (i.e. 2 from each end) to a 2 TBM strategy

from the North Wall Yard only.

Many observers in the East Wall area indicated their dissatisfaction with this late change in

strategy as they saw it. It results in all of the tunnel spoil having to be removed via the

Eastern Portal, some questioned how this change in tunnelling strategy came about, they

appear to suggest that it was in response to concerns from the Inchicore area, they feel that

the applicant ignored the concerns of the residents of the East Wall area, they indicated that

they understood that tunnelling was to take place from both ends and only found out at

application stage that all the tunnelling was to commence from the eastern end.

Section 2.7.8 of Vol. 2, Book 1, of the EIS outlines the approach and considerations in

relation to the TBM strategy, Table 2.6 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a 2

TBM strategy versus a 4 TBM strategy. Based on those considerations the applicant opted

for a 2 TBM strategy. However, the applicant then gave further consideration as to which

end tunnelling would commence from i.e. it was not automatically assumed that a 2 TBM

strategy would be from the eastern end.

When a 2 TBM strategy from either end was assessed it was determined that it should

commence from the eastern end, the advantages of this approach include less percentage

increase of spoil at the North Wall Yard site (i.e. distance from North Wall to Heuston is

greater than Inchicore to Heuston), simpler preparatory works required at the North Wall

site (a visual inspection and comparison of the two sites would confirm that this is a

reasonable assessment), North Wall Yard site closer to Dublin Port and M50 (via Port

Tunnel) for transportation of excavated material, and adverse effects on severance and

amenity are more significant at Inchicore compared with East Wall (the launch chamber

would have been located in the Inchicore playing field which is surrounded and overlooked

by residential development [ref: Mr Flaherty for the applicant O.H. Transcripts Day 37, p.18]

the launch chambers in East Wall are located in a railway related industrial site, the site is

isolated from adjacent residences and does not provide for either active or passive

recreation unlike the Inchicore playing field).

Mr Lavery for the applicant also told the Hearing that a 2 TBM strategy would also lead to a

reduction in land required for construction, he also stated that international precedence

from similar tunnelling projects would suggest that using 2 TBMs for a drive length of 7.6 km

is normal practice if programme is not an absolute constraint (ref: p. 74 ‘Brief of Evidence –



Design Development and Alternatives Considered’ submitted to the Hearing on the

23/11/10).

I am satisfied that the decision to switch from a 4 TBM strategy to a 2 TBM strategy with the

start at North Wall Yard, came about from an appropriate environmental impact assessment

of each strategy, the applicant does acknowledge the impacts such a strategy will have on

East Wall i.e. increase in tunnel drive period resulting in an additional 6 months of

construction activity in the North Wall Yard and greater potential for greater airborne noise

impacts at East Wall/Docklands area.

After giving due consideration to the option of a longer tunnel drive period versus reduced

overall environmental impacts and landtake, the applicant opted for the 2 TBM strategy

from the North Wall Yard, I am of the opinion that this is reasonable and stands up to

scrutiny.

I cannot find that the applicant was dismissive of the concerns of the East Wall area in

relation to the TBM strategy. As it is, the DU project does include for a shaft in the playing

pitch in Inchicore and hence there will be impacts at that location, so it is not the case that

potential impacts in the Inchicore area, particularly in the playing pitch area, were

transferred over to East Wall with the change in the TBM strategy. In many respects the

North Wall Yard is a lot more suitable and adaptable for tunnelling works, it can be more

easily isolated from the adjacent residential areas and does not require the use of

residential streets for the removal of tunnel spoil by road. It does not require extensive

demolition as is still required in the Inchicore Works area even after the 2 TBM strategy was

adopted. The TBMs in Inchicore travel beneath, or in close proximity to, several dwellings

and the TBMs are at their shallowest depth adjacent a number of dwellings in Inchicore (i.e.

St. Georges Villas and St. Patrick’s Terrace), the TBMs do not travel directly beneath any

dwellings in East Wall or the Docklands area. The applicant repeated in the Hearing that the

preparation of the EIS/EIA and the design development were both linked and iterative, one

informing the other, the fact that preparation started on the EIS in May 2009 and the TBM

strategy was finalised almost a year later, after a number of options were considered,

demonstrates that iterative process and also demonstrates how proper EIA should inform

the design of the project.

I also note here s.5.6 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ (by Mr S. Wallace, see

Appendix 5 attached to this report) where it states, inter alia, the following:

“Concern was also raised by East Wall residents relating to applicant’s decision to drive tunnels from East Wall portal only and not Inchicore as well, as was originally planned. In road network terms this decision does not result in any increased intensity of spoil removal traffic on a day-by-day basis, the main consequence being a lengthening of the tunnel drive period and associated peak construction traffic activity duration by 6 months.”



5.2.6A.4.3 Access in and out of East Wall & the new West Road Bridge

As stated previously in the this report access into and out of East Wall is somewhat

restricted by the surrounding rail lines, for example, there is only one vehicular access into

the area on the west/city side boundary, that is via the Ossory Road/West Road route.

Many observers have raised concerns that this access route will be impacted upon by

construction works, they have raised concerns that the road will be closed for a period

during construction. Those observers with business interests in the Ossory Road Business

centre have also raised concerns about this issue, there are height restrictions further west

along the Ossory Road due to other rail bridges and so these businesses rely on access from

the east side via this West Road/Ossory Road route. Concerns were also raised that the

realigned road would result in a longer walk for pedestrians using this route.

The applicant is proposing to relocate the West Road rail bridge on this route as part of the

DU works, this will also entail realigning the West Road/Ossory Road. The existing West

Road Bridge has to be located further north so as to maintain adequate clearance

underneath for vehicular traffic (as the new DU lines approach the portals they have to start

to descend at 3% gradation, hence eating into the head room under the existing bridge).

While the applicant is seeking consent under the Railway Order to carry out these extensive

works to this route i.e. new West Road bridge and West Road/Ossory Road realignment, the

applicant is not proposing to close the route at any time. Nowhere in the application

documentation is it indicated that the road is to be closed and the applicant repeated at the

Hearing that it is not their intention to close this route.

It is proposed to close one lane on the West Road in East Wall immediately to the east of

the proposed new rail bridge, but two-way traffic will be maintained along the remaining

lane under controlled conditions, this will last for a period of some 3-4 months. I consider

the extent of the temporary land-take along the West Road to be appropriate and

reasonable. But the applicant is not proposing to close the West Road/Ossory Road route

during (or after) the construction phase. Nevertheless in the interests of clarity and to

address the observers’ concerns should the Board decide to grant the Railway Order they

may wish to apply a condition requiring that the West Road/Ossory Road remain open to

vehicular and pedestrian traffic at all times during the construction phase. While the

realigned road will result in a longer route for pedestrians, the additional length is not

excessive in my opinion and is not such that it would warrant the refusal of this nationally

important infrastructure that is the DU. (The West Road bridge is also subject of Condition

31 of the DCC/CIE ‘Agreed Position’ document.)

I note here the observations of Mr Wallace on the West Road realignment and OCC site as

contained within s.5.4 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ (see Appendix 5

attached to this report):



“All construction vehicle access to this site would be via East Wall Road leading to Dublin Port Tunnel. No traffic would pass through the East Wall residential area, apart from using the northern section of West Road which has housing on one side. West Road itself would be subject to a traffic signalised shuttle arrangement for 4 months to allow works access to the proposed bridge site. During this period access would be maintained to all properties and existing on-street parking would be retained. The shuttle working arrangement has been rated by the applicant as being a moderate impact to road users, including buses. However the disruption is not likely to cause any significant queuing at the traffic signals as base traffic flows, and those generated by construction, are relatively low. At the oral hearing the applicant emphasized to observers that access to property, including the Ossory Business Park, would be available throughout all phases of the West Road realignment works. The construction of the OCC would occur following completion of the realignment works with hourly truck movement being around 50% of the peak activity associated with the realignment works.”

Some observers have also raised concerns about the location of the new West Road Bridge,

these concerns include its siting directly across from a number of dwellings on West Road,

sight lines, junction layout, width and aesthetic of the bridge.

With reference to the sight lines available and proposed junction layout, I do not consider

that the proposed layout would create an unacceptable risk to traffic safety, Mr McDaid for

the applicant told the Hearing that there are no safety implications in relation to creating a

priority junction at that location (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 30 p. 71). In relation to its specific

location the new bridge is somewhat fixed, it cannot be located further south as the

retained cut structure accommodating the descending DU line is to be located just to the

south of the new bridge and adequate vertical clearance would not be achievable if moved

south, in relation to moving it further north opposite the Strangford Gardens junction I

would share the concerns of the applicant that this location could result in substandard

junction as the forward visibility for motorists would be reduced as the approach the

junction from the west.

In relation to the design of the proposed bridge, with reference to drawing No. DU-RB 106

C-O 01 submitted with the Railway Order application, I do not consider that the bridge

would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area.

In relation to the width of the bridge, the applicant indicated that the width of the bridge

was in response to pre-application consultations with DCC, the drawings submitted with the

application indicate a cycle lane along the northern side of the realigned road (in addition to

a footpath along the southern side). The existing West Road/Ossory Road does not

accommodate a cycle lane. It appears that previous attempts to accommodate a cycle lane

along this route were opposed by some residents in the area. The applicant held that the

proposed road realignment was discussed with DCC Roads and Traffic Division. The

applicant held that the requirements for the road carriageway beneath the relocated bridge

have been developed on the basis of an 1800 mm wide footpath on the south side, a 5500

mm carriageway and a combined 3300 mm wide cyclepath/footpath on the northern side



(ref: s.11.8.6 of ‘Brief of Evidence – Detailed Description of the Railway Order Works’

submitted to the Hearing on the 24/11/10). On Day 37 of the Hearing Mr Meehan BL for

the Local Authority confirmed to the Hearing that DCC did require the bridge to be that

width (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 37 p.183). However, on Day 58 Mr Meehan sought to

address the Hearing again on this matter, he read into the record a letter from Mr Eoghan

Madden, Senior Engineer, Traffic Planning Division of the Local Authority (a copy was

subsequently handed into the Hearing on the 01/04/11 and is on file for the Board’s

attention).

The letter indicates that DCC approval does not exist to construct the S2S link to the Royal

Canal and there is no financial provision to construct the link, the letter quotes from a

Department of Transport letter to DCC stating that the proposed S2S spur via Ossory Road,

West Road, East Wall Road is no longer viable at this stage. Mr Madden’s letter indicated

that concerns were raised by the Central Area Committee and an agreement was reached

between the Traffic Planning Division and the CAC concerning a cross section for the bridge.

The letter requests the Board to consider Dublin City Council’s recommendation in relation

to the bridge dimension, that being: 6.5 m carriageway plus 2 x 2 m footpaths = 10.5 m. The

Board should note that the applicant’s design is to accommodate total road width of 10.6 m

while the revised requirement from DCC is 10.5 m. With reference to drg. No. DU-RB 106 C-

O 01 the horizontal clearance is much greater due to, inter alia, the alignment of the road as

it passes under the bridge. I see little benefit of seeking the redesign of this bridge for the

sake of 0.1 m, as stated above, I do not consider that the design of the bridge has an

adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. Notwithstanding DCC’s indication that the

cycle route will not proceed at this stage, it may proceed at some future stage (subject to,

inter alia, agreement with the elected representatives). A cycle route at this location is also

identified in Figure 5.2 ‘Cycle Network’ in Chapter 5 of the Dublin Docklands Master Plan

2008.

I refer the Board to s.4.4 of ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by Mr S. Wallace in

Appendix 5 attached to this report where it states, inter alia, the following in relation to the

proposed bridge and West Road realignment:

“The proposed vertical alignment for the new railway in the East Wall area has resulted in the need to realign West Road (West) to pass beneath the both the new and existing rail lines at a new bridge location. It is also proposed to locate the operational control centre in lands adjacent to the re-aligned road. These design decisions were raised as concerns by observers in East Wall and examined in detail during the course of the oral hearing. From the traffic operational perspective I make the following comments on the design layout.

Although subject the change during the course of the oral hearing, the ultimate position between the applicant and DCC was that the new bridge should have a clear span of 10.5 metres. This is to accommodate the realigned road with a 6.5 metre carriageway and two 2.0 metre wide footpaths. However the railway order drawings show that one of the footpaths would be laid out as a 3.3 metre wide cycleway so as



to become part of project being considered by DCC, the Sutton to Sandyford Cycleway. It did however emerge that this project would not be progressed in the immediate future, and that different routes are to be investigated in this part of the city. My view is that Ossory Road is an important link for sustainable travel between East Wall and the city centre, including public transport interchanges such as Connolly Station. Cycle facilities such as originally proposed are therefore of general benefit to local users, as well as having the potential to be used for longer distance routes. I therefore suggest the new bridge as dimensioned in the railway order drawings is appropriate (with overall footpath/carriageway/cycleway width of 10.6 metres), so that it does not preclude the incorporation of a cycle facility on this road in the future.

In terms of traffic routings in the East Wall area I do not foresee any changes as a consequence of the bridge re-location. The design layout has been checked by the applicant and the new junction is capable of accommodating the swept paths of all vehicles types turning, including articulated vehicles. Any larger vehicles routing to and from Church Road are likely to continue to use Moy Elta Road since it is wider than Strangford Road East.”

Therefore, having regard to the forgoing I would not recommend that the applicant be

conditioned to narrow the bridge to accommodate a slightly narrower road width, the

division/layout of the carriageway is a matter for the Roads Authority.

5.2.6A.4.4 Maintenance Facility and Noise generated

I have addressed issues concerning above ground noise generated for both the

constructional and operational stages under s. 5.1.6 earlier in this report and have made a

number of recommended conditions for the Board’s consideration having regard to, inter

alia, the Acoustic Associates (Irl.) Ltd. report in Appendix 4 attached to this report.

The RO proposal includes for a single storey Maintenance Facility in the North Wall Yard

which is to be accessed via Abercorn Road. As the name suggests this facility will be used as

a base from which maintenance of the underground will be carried out. As the DU will be

operational during the daytime, evening and early night time, most of the maintenance

works in the tunnels will be carried out at night. There are rail sidings proposed adjacent

the Maintenance Facility. Given the proximity of this proposed facility to a number of

established residential areas i.e. Abercorn Road, Blythe Avenue and Malachi Place, there are

concerns that the noise generated at this facility at night time would have an adverse

impact on these residential areas.

I refer the Board to ‘Proposed Maintenance Building and Facility’ on page 37 of the report

titled ‘A Study of the Airborne Noise aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground Railway

Development’ by Acoustic Associates Ltd. in Appendix 4 attached to this report. I note the

recommended noise limit of 40 LAeq between the hours of 2200 and 0700 for activities at

this facility (see also recommended Condition G on page 64 of Mr Walsh’s report). I am

recommending that the Board consider such a condition, however, I would note that this

may be difficult to achieve, I would therefore recommend that the Board condition that



mitigation measures ensuring compliance with this limit be agreed with the Planning

Authority prior to the commencement of development or that the applicant revise

proposals at this location by way of a Railway Order application.

I note here Mr Walsh’s recommended condition on the hours of use of the access off

Abercorn Road to the Maintenance Facility. This entrance also provides access to the ESB

substation and the shaft entrance at this location. Notwithstanding the recommended

Condition P on page 65 of Mr Walsh’s report, I would have reservations in applying such a

condition given, inter alia, that there has been an entrance at this location for many years

that has provided access to the yards to the rear of Abercorn Road.

5.2.6A.4.5 Human Health

The Protect East Wall group and other observers from the area are extremely concerned

over the possible impact of the project on their health, they also have concerns over the

assessment contained within the EIS of those likely impacts.

The PEW group presented a number of witnesses on this issue including Prof. Anthony

Stains of DCU, they also carried out a health survey in the East Wall area and presented

those findings to the Hearing, these are on file for the Board’s attention. Concerns relate to

exposure to noise, air pollution, dust particles, light pollution, sleep deprivation, vibration,

Weils Disease, Aspergillus Fumigatis etc. They request that the applicant be required to put

a ‘Health Protection Plan’ in place in order that a ‘Post Construction Health Evaluation’ can

be carried out. Dr Staines for PEW holds that the applicant’s submission on Human Health

impacts falls far short of any reasonable expectation of what is needed for a project of this

scale, he considers the work incomplete, he holds that no responsible judgement as to the

health effects of the DU project can be made on the basis of the materials submitted by the

applicant.

Chapter 23 of the EIS addresses Human Health, it analyses two possible approaches in

assessing possible health effects of the project, Method 1 assess the environmental baseline

in terms of existing conditions e.g. measuring existing levels of contaminants in the air, then

examining how these existing conditions will change due to the project and then estimating

the resulting effects on human health. Method 2 assesses the human health baseline

identifying in particular vulnerable groups and estimate possible effects of probable

emissions, then estimating how this could potentially change due to the project. The EIS

goes on to explain why Method 1 was chosen in assessing likely impacts. Dr Hogan for the

applicant addressed the Hearing on likely impacts from the project on Human Health (ref:

‘Brief of Evidence – Human Health’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11). He stated

that inconveniences/annoyances are to be expected during construction phase but

concluded none of these are predicted to have a significant health effect.



As stated previously in this report the principle approach being adopted by the applicant is

one of prevention of impacts rather than a cure post-impacts. Limiting values are to be

applied, a monitoring system will be put in place, trigger levels will be set. If the trigger

levels are activated the contractor will have to review operations and initiate further

mitigation proposals to ensure that emissions/impacts remain within the limits set by the

RO. I would concur with the applicant when it is stated that this approach is a far more

proactive and preventative approach than health screening. I understand a similar

approach was adopted in the Metro North RO application. A report on file to the Board

from the Department of Public Health, HSE, (received by the Board on the 18/08/10) has not

indicated an objection in principle to the applicant’s approach in assessing human health

impacts and mitigations proposed.

Subject to compliance with the mitigation measures contained within the EIS and as

outlined at the Oral Hearing and also subject to compliance with the conditions

recommended at the end of this report, there should not be an adverse impact on human

health from the proposed development.

5.2.6A.4.6 Pedestrian Bridge at Malachi Place

As stated above access into and out of East Wall is somewhat restricted by the surrounding

rail lines. Observers have complained that pedestrian access to the Docklands Station will

not follow a direct route, pedestrians will be forced to access the station via the more

circuitous route down East Road and Wapping Street. Reference has been made to the

Environmental Improvement Works EIW3 – ‘the provision of a pedestrian bridge across the

railway line upon redevelopment of lands to the south and the formation of the Royal Canal

Linear Park’ as contained in Figure 5.4 of the East Wall Area Action Plan 2004 (DDDA), this is

located at the southern end of Church Road in the area of Malachi Place/Blythe Avenue.

Observers also referred to Figure 6.6 ‘Indicative Connections’ in the Dublin Docklands Area

Master Plan 2008 which indicates a ‘desired pedestrian link’ down Church Road and into the

North Wall Yard site and exiting onto Sheriff Street.

The applicant has indicated that the pedestrian bridge did not form part of their proposal

for the North Wall Yard site at this stage as these are active railway lands, it was not

considerable desirable from a practical and safety perspective (ref: Donal McDaid, ‘Brief of

Evidence – Traffic & Transportation’ p.71 submitted to the Hearing on the 14/12/10). The

applicant held that the pedestrian bridge and route could be more appropriately catered for

as part of any future urban regeneration or development of these lands.

I would note that this is a Railway Order application for a major infrastructure project, the

North Wall Yard is an active rail yard and this is proposed to continue if the DU is granted.

There is an opportunity to accommodate access to the Docklands area from East Wall via

this site but as part of urban redevelopment proposals for these lands, which are zoned Z1



residential in the recently adopted City Development Plan and proposals for the brown field

sites to the south of Sheriff Street. It should be noted that EIW3 of the East Wall Area

Action Plan and the desired pedestrian link in Figure 6.6 of the Docklands Master Plan do

not coincide in terms of their route through the site and the final destination. The

applicant’s proposal does not hinder the future delivery of a pedestrian bridge across the

site.

The observations on this issue by Mr S. Wallace as per s.4.6 of the ‘Report on Traffic and

Transportation’ as contained in Appendix 5 attached to this report are reproduced here for

ease of reference for the Board:

“It is proposed to locate the Docklands Station immediately to the south of Spencer Dock LUAS stop with dual access points at Mayor Street and also through the LMS building from North Wall Quay. Such a location means there is good walk-in access from all the Docklands development area to the north of the river and also a significant part to the south, which could be gained via Samuel Beckett Bridge. A substantial part (around 75%) of the East Wall community also lies within a 1 kilometre walk of the station entrance, albeit the routing is not on the natural “desire line”. This is a consequence of the existing available crossings of railway lands in the area. Whilst East Wall observers to the Railway Order Application made requests that a footbridge at Blythe Avenue be provided to allow greater accessibility to Docklands Station, it is considered that such provision is not an essential “mitigation” to overcome a particular impact. The submitted design does not preclude the provision of a pedestrian facility as a separate project in the future, possibly as part of the initiative to create a linear park along the edge of the Royal Canal. Such a concept was introduced in the East Wall Area Action Plan in 2004. Whilst the provision of such a facility would lead to better accessibility between East Wall and the IFSC area generally, it would not shorten the distance to the proposed underground station at Docklands for East Wall residents. This is demonstrated in

Figure 4.1 below…” (Note: Figure 4.1 is contained in page 13 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’.)

Given the existing use at the North Wall Yard, the proposed use relating to the DU, and the

fact that the proposal will not hinder the delivery of a pedestrian bridge and route at some

future stage, I would not recommend that the Board refuse to grant the RO in relation to

this matter. Nor would I recommend a condition requiring the provision of a pedestrian

bridge at this location as part of the Railway Order, those living immediately adjacent such a

bridge at Malachi Place and Blythe Avenue should have an opportunity to view such a

proposal and submit any observations they may have on any such development.

5.2.6A.4.7 Consultation

Many of the observers in the East Wall area criticised the consultation process carried out

by the applicant. Many felt that the proposal was presented as a fait accompli, they held

that the applicant did not listen to their concerns, some felt that the applicant appeared to

give more consideration to other areas while ignoring the concerns of those in East Wall.

Other observers felt that information was withheld (e.g. the tunnel boring strategy). Some



referred to the attitude of the applicant at these consultations as being ‘negative in the

extreme’ (ref: p. 23 ‘Protect East Wall – Consultation’ submitted to the Hearing on the

10/02/11).

The applicant vehemently rejected the criticisms relating to consultation, the applicant

made reference to public meetings in the area, leafleting of the area, newspaper notices,

information being available on a website, submissions possible through standard mail,

email, phone calls, the applicant referred to 16 consultation events from 2008 to 2010, 4 of

which were in the East Wall area. The applicant rejected the accusation that people in East

Wall were treated differently from other areas in relation to the consultation process. Mr

Muldoon for the applicant went through a list of issues raised by those in the East Wall area

at the consultations indicating the changes brought about in some cases and explaining why

other changes could not be accommodated (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 36 p. 197). The

applicant referred to the change in the main site access following the consultation process

i.e. originally North Wall Yard access was to be via the Abercorn Road entrance but this was

changed and a ramp up to Sheriff Street was proposed instead, the applicant referred to the

proposed use of CWR (Continuously Welded Rail) in the North Wall Yard etc.

It is not possible at this stage for the undersigned to determine what occurred at the

consultation meetings in the area. However, having regard to the submissions made at the

Hearing and Section 1.6 ‘Statutory & Public Consultation’ p. 5 – 23 of Book 1, Vol. 2 of the

EIS I am of the opinion that the applicant has met the criteria of Section 1.5 ‘Consultation’ of

the ‘Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’

(EPA 2002).

5.2.6A.4.8 Overlooking & Overshadowing of West Road

The Operational Control Centre (OCC) is located some 40 metres across a public street from

a row of two-storey houses along West Road. The intervening space between the OCC

building and the front of these houses consists of a footpath, a two lane public carriageway,

another footpath, a wall, an embankment, a sound barrier, a freight rail line, and two DART

lines.

Given the separation distance and the nature of the intervening space the concerns relating

to overlooking and overshadowing of residences along West Road from the proposed OCC

building are unfounded. Such concerns relating to the proposed emergency footbridge are

likewise unfounded. It would set an undesirable and unreasonable precedent for the Board

to refuse the Railway Order on grounds of inadequate separation distances between this

proposed building and the front of existing dwellings. The normal standard of 22 metres

separation distance relates to back to back two-storey residential, in this instance it is in

excess of 40 metres and is neither back to back nor residential to residential.



There will not be a significant adverse impact on the existing dwellings from the OCC

building or the emergency footbridge by way of overlooking or overshadowing. I am

satisfied that the OCC building will not conflict with the land use zoning objective to the east

where the existing houses are located, this zoning is Z1 and Z2 as indicated on Map E of the

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017.

5.2.6A.4.9 Height & Finish of OCC & Traction Substation Buildings

Some observers hold that the height of the Operational Control Centre is inappropriate for

the area. The OCC building is a two-storey structure, it will be located on ground that will be

raised up to a level close to the ground level on top of the existing rail embankment. The

traction substation is to be located towards the northern corner of the site referred to as

Coady’s Yard, it is a single storey structure. Both buildings are to be finished in terracotta

cladding, some observers also felt that this finish is inappropriate.

In relation to height, it should be noted that there is a modern office and apartment

development to the south-west known as Crosbies Yard, this new development is some 6

storeys in height. It should also be noted that under PL 29N.233488 the Board refused

permission for two number 5-storey structures on the subject site accommodating offices,

incubator units, enterprise centre and storage warehouse, the Board refused for one reason

relating to the DU proposal, the Board did not refuse on grounds of height. I do not

consider the height of the OCC or traction substation to be unacceptable, I do not consider

that the OCC building or traction substation would have an adverse impact on the visual

amenity of the area by reason of height, design, external finish or location on site. The

terracotta cladding reflects the brick finish to a number of the dwellings in the East Wall

area.

5.2.6A.4.10 Visual Disamenity of the Eastern Portal Site

Some observers have raised concerns that the proposed works at the Eastern Portal site will

have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area.

Currently this site is an underutilised brownfield railway-related industrial site. In its current

condition it provides little by way of visual amenity to the area. There are limited views

from dwellings into the site, primarily from the upper floors of dwellings immediately

adjacent the site to the north-east (i.e. Blythe Avenue, Malachi Place, Hawthorne Avenue).

Existing screening will be maintained during construction and additional screening/hoarding

is proposed for the construction phase. Given the existing views into the site I do not

consider that the site during construction phase will constitute a significant adverse visual

impact. I consider the mitigation proposals acceptable. At operational phase the site, with

the Maintenance Facility Building, the Intervention Shaft and Substation, with hard and soft



landscaping proposed around, will constitute a gain in visual amenity terms, it will no longer

be a brownfield underutilised industrial site.

5.2.6A.4.11 Idling Trains

A number of the observer submissions received by the Board in August 2010 and several of

the observers who presented at the Hearing made reference to the impact idling trains has

had on residents in the area adjacent to the existing lines. Video evidence was submitted to

the Hearing indicating the trains idling on the tracks in the area, these are on file for the

Board’s attention.

Notwithstanding the frustration of a number of the observers in the area relating to these

(existing) idling trains, I am of the opinion that this issue is not one for the Board to make a

determination on.

The Eastern Portal site is an active railway site, it is an established use. This use actually

dates back to the mid-1800s, the establishment of the residential use in the area would

have been as a consequence of this railway use. The freight lines where these trains

apparently idle from time to time are existing, those trains do not form part of the Railway

Order application on which the Board is being asked to make a determination. It should be

further noted that those trains are diesel powered, the proposed DU is to be electrified. It is

not proposed to stable DU trains in the area north of the entrance to the tunnel portals.

It is my opinion that it would be ultra vires of the Board to refuse to grant the Railway Order

on the grounds of impact of existing trains in the area that have nothing to do with the DU

project, nor could the Board impose conditions on the applicant relating to existing uses on

the site that again have nothing to do with the DU proposal.

However, I do note that there is the opportunity of planning gain on this issue should the

Board decide to grant the Railway Order, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing

lines in the area to include, inter alia, CWR (continuous welded rails), in addition, existing

sound barriers are to be extended and improved under the Railway Order, this should

mitigate current impacts from idling trains to some extent. I also note here the

commitment of CIE under Condition 53 of the CIE/DCC ‘Agreed Position’ document in which

it is stated, inter alia, the following: “Idling of trains associated with the construction of

DART Underground, when such trains are not in use, will not be permitted.”

5.2.6A.4.12 Sounding of Train Horns

Concerns have been raised by some of the occupants of the dwellings to the east of the

proposed tunnel approach that there will be an adverse impact from the sounding of train

horns as they approach the tunnel portal.



Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Hearing (ref: OH Transcripts Day 27 p. 166) that there

is an existing rule book requiring train drivers to sound the horn before entering tunnels, he

told the Hearing that it is envisaged that this will not be a requirement for the DU as DU

operation and maintenance procedures will render that current practice unnecessary.

(Nevertheless in a response to questions on this issue from the Inspectorate Ms Harmon for

the applicant told the Hearing that she calculated that the worst case noise level from the

sounding of a horn approaching the tunnel entrance would be 63dBA at Hawthorn Avenue

and that the properties further back would experience noise levels in the range of 55-60

dBA (ref: OH Transcripts Day 37 p.218).) It should be noted that the trains will be well below

the top of the embankment as they descend towards the tunnel, the retaining walls of the

open cut structure at this location will exceed the height of the trains (ref: Plan No. DU-RO

106 B-C).

Some observers requested that the Board consider applying a condition addressing this

concern such as relocating the horn on the train to a lower level so that it would be below

the top of the trackside sound barriers. I would caution the Board against such conditions.

The rolling stock to be used on the DU does not form part of the Railway Order application

and in that regard I am of the opinion that it would be ultra vires of the Board’s powers to

apply such conditions.

Secondly, the DU operator, should the Railway Order be granted, has to comply with other

legal codes, in this instance the sounding of train horns may be a matter that the Railway

Safety Commission may make a ruling on, in that regard any condition restricting the use of

a train horn imposed by the Railway Order may cause the operator to be in conflict with

other legal requirements. (The Railway Safety Commission was notified of the Railway

Order application and was notified of the Board’s intention of holding an Oral Hearing into

the application, the Board did not receive any observations from the RSC on the application

and they did not attend the Hearing.)

As indicated elsewhere in this report, the railway use at this location is a long established

use, it is my opinion that it would be unreasonable for the Board to refuse to grant the

Railway Order for a reason relating to the sounding of a train horn and it is further my

opinion that it would be ultra vires of the Board to restrict the use of the train horn by way

of condition.

5.2.6A.4.13 Masterlabs

There is a sound engineering premises located in the rear garden area of No. 81 West Road,

this business provides ‘mastering’ and ‘remastering’ services to the music industry, it trades

under the name ‘Masterlabs’. The processes involved require the use of expensive and

delicate equipment in a specially constructed studio. The site on which the dwelling and

studio to the rear is located backs onto the North Wall Yard, the site is in close proximity to



the existing freight line that runs along the eastern side of the North Wall Yard. The owner

of the business informed the Hearing that the freight train to Tara Mines passes behind the

studio four times per day and that the vibrations of this passing train are clearly manifested

in the studio despite its specially designed construction, it appears that it is impossible for

the studio to operate for the 1-3 minutes it takes the freight train to pass.

The retained cut approach to the cut and cover section of the DU is to be located some 15

metres from the Masterlabs site. The owner of the business told the Hearing that he is very

sceptical that any mitigation measures could enable his business to continue at this location

both during the construction and operation stages of the DU. He requests that the Board

requests the applicant to relocate his studio. The observer submitted a report by John

Munnis Audio Consultant (dated 15th June 2009) that concluded inter alia, that the DU

proposal will “…make the operation of the studio completely impossible”. The applicant’s

agents also carried out a survey at the premises, the observer submitted a copy of that

report to the Hearing (ref: ‘Noise and Vibration Survey at Masterlabs Studio, 81 Hawthorn

Terrace, Dublin 3’ dated 20/09/10 submitted to the Hearing on the 27/01/11), it concluded,

inter alia, that “the results of the survey illustrate that noise and vibration levels within the

studio are significantly increased above background levels during passing freight train

movements”. In a response to a question from the Inspector the observer told the Hearing

that the studio was completed in 2001.

Mr Conroy for the applicant told the Hearing that they carried out a planning check and that

they found no planning history for any studio at that location, he also confirmed that the

applicant’s agents did carry out a baseline survey at the site (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 26

pages 104-147).

Mr Conroy told the Inspector that during the construction phase works in the area will

impact on the studio but he held that there will be no impact at operational stage. Ms

Harmon for the applicant told the Hearing that the existing NR20 value in the studio can still

be achieved with the operation of the DU. She noted that the DU is further away from the

Masterlabs site than the existing freight line and also noted that the DU line will be in a cut

of 8 metres below the existing rail embankment, she held that the operational noise from

the DU will be much lower than a passing freight train. She told the Hearing that the

existing joint track rail adjacent the Masterlabs site is to be replaced with CWR (Continuous

Welded Rail) which will be a significant improvement. Mr Muldoon for the applicant drew

the Hearing’s attention to the intensity of use of freight rail in the area, he stated that in

2002 when the studio was commissioned there were some 86 freight trains per day (on the

Northern line and Maynooth line) and that has continuously dropped over the years to just

12 movements per day in 2010. He stated that it is the intention of CIE to concentrate on

increasing the freight business.



As indicated previously under, inter alia, s. 5.1.2 the Board engaged the services of Dr R.

Massarsch to advise on impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is

contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to

‘Appendix 4 – Review of Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr

Massarsch’s main report. This matter has been considered by Dr Massarsch and I reproduce

Dr Massarsch’s comments on the issue for ease of reference for the Board:

“Prediction of noise levels from DART Underground 8 m below ground surface and 10 m horizontal distance will be less than currently existing freight trains passing. The studio can operate when DART operates but during spoil removal there will be increased down-time.

Track replacement works with jointed rails which will be carried out to improve the performance of the existing railway is independent of DART Underground project. In addition to these works the Applicant does not intend to mitigate an existing studio which has no planning permission.

The effect of DART Underground trains which pass in a cut will have less impact than the present freight train traffic.

If recommendations in EIS are followed by Applicant the environmental impact will be kept within

acceptable limits.” (ref: page 7, Appendix 4 of ‘Assessment of the Environmental Impacts in Relation to Ground Vibrations and Groundborne Noise, Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Construction-related Issues’)

It would appear that the studio at this location does not enjoy the benefit of planning

permission, but it also appears that no enforcement proceedings were taken in relation to

this use at this location. If the observer holds that it does not require permission (as he

does appear to hold) then the site would have to be considered as residential and assessed

accordingly. The observer built a studio adjacent an active rail yard in very close proximity

to an active freight line. The rail use at this location is well established and dates back to the

1800s. The DU is a critical piece of urban, regional and national infrastructure, to refuse to

grant the Railway Order because of its proximity to a studio that does not appear to have

the benefit of planning permission would be unreasonable. To now impose restrictions and

limitations on the railway use in the adjacent site would, likewise, be unreasonable in my

opinion. In any event, as indicated above, the applicant holds that there will be no impact

at operational stage. I would not recommend that the applicant be conditioned to relocate

the studio.

5.2.6A.4.14 ESB Substation & Abercorn Road entrance

The DU proposal includes two no. ESB substations, one each at Inchicore Works and at the

North Wall Yard. The substation at the North Wall Yard is to be located in the south-east

corner of the site at the Sheriff Street/Abercorn Road junction. A number of observers have

raised concerns about this structure. Some consider it too close to existing dwellings, some

have raised concerns about electromagnetic fields, some have suggested alternative

locations and concerns have been raised about the design of the structure. Some degree of



discussion also took place at the Hearing about a substation that would allow for

development over.

Mr Flaherty for the applicant told the Hearing that they did look at alternative locations for

the substation (ref: O.H. Transcript Day 30 p. 69). However, there are limitations placed on

the location due to the need to have the substation in place to drive the TBMs, construction

activities elsewhere on the site greatly limited the options available.

The substation is to be located on a part of the site that is currently occupied by disused

dilapidated industrial structures. There is planning gain in the removal of these structures

that currently provide somewhat of a visual disamenity. The proposed substation reflects in

scale and height the terrace of cottages to its north along Abercorn Road and the two-storey

dwellings on the opposite side of the road also. There is a recently completed 7 storey

office building on the eastern side of the junction. While some discussion did take place on

the possibility of facilitating a tall structure over the substation, as there is no site-specific

policy requiring a tall structure at this location, and also having regard to the scale and

height of the dwellings along Abercorn Road, I would not recommend changes to the siting

or design of the substation. While the substation is to be located on raised ground having

regard to flood protection measures, I do not consider the height of the substation to be

problematic given its context and also having regard to the height of the disused buildings it

replaces.

An alternative proposal for the Abercorn Road site entrance was submitted to the Hearing

by an observer. The applicant is proposing to use the existing Abercorn Road entrance

initially to allow for access to the site, this is required to facilitate the building of the ramp

from the North Wall Yard up onto Sheriff Street, thereafter this ramp will provide the

primary entrance/exit point for construction traffic to the site, only smaller vehicles will use

the Abercorn Road entrance. I would have concerns relating to the geometry of the

alternative Abercorn Road entrance layout submitted by the observer. In any event, as

indicated above, the ESB substation at this location is required in advance of the TBM

activity. The upgraded entrance as proposed by the applicant does not pose an

unacceptable risk to traffic safety in my opinion. The ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’

by Mr S. Wallace in Appendix 5 attached to this report does not raise any specific traffic

safety concerns with the applicant’s proposed entrance here (ref: s.4.5 page 12).

It was originally intended that all construction traffic accessing the North Wall Yard was to

do so via the Abercorn Road entrance however, the applicant’s EIA identified this as a

potential adverse impact following inter alia observations from residents in the area, the

alternative solution of the ramp was then adopted.

For the operational phase it is proposed that vehicular access to the Maintenance Facility

and ESB substation will be via an upgraded Abercorn Road entrance. Given the established



railway use at North Wall Yard and also noting that there has been a vehicular entrance at

this location for some time, I consider this access proposal acceptable.

Having regard to Chapter 18 ‘Electromagnetic Compatibility’ Vol. 2 Book 3 of the EIS,

Chapter 23 ‘Human Health’ Vol. 2 Book 4 of the EIS, the ‘Brief of Evidence – Electromagnetic

Compatibility’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11, the ‘Brief of Evidence – Human

Health’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11 and also noting the observer submissions

on these matters, I am of the opinion that there is nothing on file that would indicate that

the proposed ESB substation as this location poses an unacceptable risk to human health or

property.

5.2.6A.4.15 Traffic Calming on Church Street east / Abercorn Road

As indicated above at operational stage it is proposed to access the Maintenance Facility

building, the shaft and the ESB substation via an upgraded entrance off Abercorn Road. A

number of works are proposed to Abercorn Road and Church Street East to facility this.

These works include traffic calming measures at the junction of Abercorn Road/Church

Street East (see Plan Nos. DU-RO 106 A-B and DU-MC 106 A-B 11), the aim of these works is

to restrict access to the site via Church Street East. I refer the Board to s.4.5 of Mr S.

Wallace’s ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ (in Appendix 5 attached to this report)


“The Railway Order Application also shows traffic calming proposals for East Church Street. However it is clear from submissions made at the oral hearing these proposals would be unlikely to gain full public acceptance in the area. The applicant confirmed the reason for the traffic calming was to deter access to and from the Maintenance Facility via this route. However it is considered that routing via Sheriff Street Upper could be effectively achieved by appropriate signage (eg “No Left Turn” (signs at exit) together with enforcement at the manned gate. I therefore suggest the traffic calming proposals are removed from the railway order drawings.”

Should the Board consider granting the RO I would recommend a condition reflecting the

above.

5.2.6A.4.16 Flooding Concerns

Observers gave evidence in relation to a flooding event in 2002 when water came from the

Royal Canal to the west of, and via, the North Wall Yard and flooded adjacent residential

streets in East Wall, video evidence of these flood waters coming through a wall at the

North Wall Yard adjacent Blythe Avenue were presented to the Hearing and are on file for

the Board’s attention. It appears this flooding event was tidal related. Reference was also

made to other flooding events, one in 1995 and one in 2009, these appear to relate to flash

floods following heavy rain (ref: Observer Helen McCabe O.H. Transcript Day 31 p. 129-139).



As stated previously a Flood Risk Assessment was carried out as part of the EIS, the FRA is

contained in Appendix A15.1 Vol. 4 of the EIS. The FRA identified a number of areas most

susceptible to flooding, one such identified area is the Eastern Portal.

The FRA refers to such matters as the River Tolka flood event in 1954 and the remedial

works carried out subsequent to that event. It also highlights the tidal flood event in

February 2002 which affected the North Wall Yard and adjacent areas including Ossory Road

and residential streets in East Wall which was flooded to a depth of some 1.5 metres. It

appears emergency works were carried out by DCC at the entrance of the Royal Canal to the

Liffey following that tidal flood event. The FRA assesses risk of flooding from pluvial, fluvial

and tidal occurrences.

Section 4.3 of the FRA identifies levels of risk at specific locations of the DU works and refers

to mitigations proposed, it includes raising the ground where the OCC is proposed from c.

1.90m OD to 4.31m OD, likewise the traction substation at this location is to be on ground

raised to 4.31m OD, the realignment and changes to West Road/Ossory Road are also

expected to reduce the risk of flooding from a sewer along Ossory Road, the ground levels

where the ESB substation and Maintenance Facility are proposed are to be raised to 4.31m

OD and the entrance to the shaft at this location will be at least 4.31m OD also. The DU

portal will be protected by the approach walls up to a level of 5.0m OD. The DU has been

designed to withstand the 1 in 1000 year flood event. However, it should be noted that the

OCC and traction substation lie within a defended floodplain, however, it has been assessed

that in events rarer than 1 in 200 annual chance or if a breach occurs of the DCC flood

defences the impact of the displaced volume on water levels within this defended area

would be negligible (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Flood Risk Assessment’ submitted to the

Hearing on the 08/12/11). Mr Lavery for the applicant also told the Hearing that surface

water at the OCC site will be collected, attenuated and then discharged at a rate which is

equivalent to current run-off levels (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 27 p.171)

I have considered the observers’ submissions on this issue and the applicant’s mitigation

proposals at Coady’s Yard and the North Wall Yard site. There is nothing on file to indicate

that the applicant’s mitigation measures are inadequate nor is there anything on file to

indicate that the proposed works in East Wall would increase significantly flood risk on

adjacent lands. (See also s. 5.1.22 earlier in this report.)

5.2.6A.4.17 Works in the environs of the Tolka River

Works proposed in Coady’s Yard are some 250 metres from the River Tolka, there are no

proposals to discharge water to the Tolka at either construction or operational stage. I do

not consider that the proposed development poses an unacceptable threat to the quality of

water in the Tolka having regard to mitigation measures proposed. Dr Conor Buggy for the

applicant told the Hearing that there are no anticipated construction impacts for the Tolka



and Estuary (ref: page 7 ‘Brief of Evidence – Hydrology’ submitted to the Hearing on the

08/12/10).

I note the submission of Inland Fisheries Ireland dated 21/07/10 to the Board, the IFI notes

that the Tolka has “significant fisheries value both biologically and from an amenity

perspective”. I also note the submissions of the East Wall Water Sports Group Ltd. which

highlight the important amenity value of the Tolka to the area and the city, subject to

compliance with the mitigations measures proposed there is no reason to believe that this

important amenity will be adversely impact on. The Inland Fisheries Ireland submission

does not recommend refusal or raise any specific concerns relating to the Tolka.

5.2.6A.4.18 Ground movement/settlement, vibrations, groundborne noise, groundwater

impacts

Many observers in the East Wall area have raised concerns about potential groundborne

noise and vibrations from construction activities on the sites, concerns relate to, inter alia,

TBM activity, HGV movements, construction of TBM launch chambers, construction

activities for the cut and cover approach to the portal, construction of the retained cut and

construction of the realigned West Road and Rail Bridge. Concerns were also expressed

about groundborne noise and vibration at operational stage of the DU. In addition,

concerns were raised about potential of ground movement and impact on groundwater

arising from these construction activities.

As indicated previously under, inter alia, s. 5.1.2 the Board engaged the services of Dr R.

Massarsch to advise on impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is

contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to

‘Appendix 4 – Review of Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr

Massarsch’s main report. Pages 7- 12 of that Appendix 4 addresses the specific concerns

raised by the observers in the East Wall area, it considers matters such as, inter alia: use of

continuous welded rail in the area; vibrations due to HGV traffic; potential of damage to

buildings from construction activities such as diaphragm and bore pile methods; blasting

concerns; condition surveys and the PPS; monitoring of groundwater, settlement and

vibration; ground conditions in the area; further tests for the Detailed Design phase; limiting

values being applied; lowering of groundwater; tunnelling below the Liffey; seismic activity

in the Dublin region; and, risk management.









from tunnelling or other construction activities in the area and there should not be an

adverse impact on the area at operational stage either.

5.2.6A.4.19 Other Issues

An alternative arrangement as submitted to the Hearing by an observer for the West Road

realignment which included a bridge over the area has been considered, I would have

concerns in relation to compliance with road geometry standards and would not

recommend this as an alternative to the Board. I am satisfied that the applicant’s proposal

is acceptable in terms of traffic safety and will not have an adverse environmental impact on

the area having regard to, inter alia, mitigation measures proposed. I would refer the Board

to findings of Mr S. Wallace in his ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ in Appendix 5

attached to this report.

An observer’s alternative access onto Sheriff Street from the Docklands area as opposed to

the applicant’s proposed ramp up from North Wall Yard has also been considered here,

noting, inter alia, advanced development proposals in the Docklands area to the east of the

Docklands north box site and also noting space restrictions during construction activities on

the north box itself, I am not satisfied that this is a viable alternative to the applicant’s North

Wall Yard ramp, I am not satisfied that there would be the required space available to

facilitate the alternative arrangement. I do not consider that the applicant’s proposal here

poses an unacceptable risk to traffic safety and subject to compliance with the mitigation

measures proposed the use of the proposed ramp should not have an adverse impact on

the area. (It should be noted that another observer in the Docklands area wanted the spoil

removal from the Docklands south box site to be disposed of via the North Wall Yard site

ramp i.e. area based alternatives submitted by one observer often conflicted with area-

based alternatives submitted by another observer.) I am satisfied that the applicant did

consider a number of alternatives regarding access onto Sheriff Street both from its north

and south sides before settling on the proposal currently before the Board which appears to

be the optimal solution in terms of reducing impacts on the area.

Subject to the West Road/Ossory Road route remaining open at all times during the

construction phase, which the applicant has committed to, I am satisfied that the businesses

operating from the Ossory Business Park will not be adversely impacted upon.

In relation to works proposed at Blythe Avenue and Malachi Place, while there will be some

degree of disruption for a limited period, access to the dwellings along these streets will be

maintained during the works phase.

Spoil removal by rail option from the Freight Yard has been addressed under s. 5.1.23 earlier

in this report.



Concerns were raised about dangers posed by unexploded ordnances in the area relating to

the historic North Strand WWII bombing. Draft Condition 17 for the Board’s consideration

at the end of this report seeks to address, inter alia, these concerns.

In their written submissions to the Hearing the PEW quoted the Inspectorate and drew

inferences from the quotes. The Inspector considered this inappropriate and requested that

the practice cease. The Inspector did indicate that it was acceptable that the applicant’s

answers to the Inspectorate’s questions could be quoted and challenged, but it was not

acceptable to draw inferences from the Inspectorate’s questions or comments and use

them against the applicant. The PEW Planning Consultant acknowledged the difficulties this

practice posed for the Inspectorate and removed the quotes. However, a number of PEW

members held that this was unfair. They requested that the Inspector draw the Board’s

attention to their objection to the Inspector’s request. The Board is hereby notified of that

objection, specifically the submission titled ‘Submission to the Dart Underground Oral

Hearing – 14 February 2011’ read into the record by Ms M. Broderick on the morning of

15/02/11.

Mr Bradley SC for the applicant objected to the submission made to the Hearing on the

17/02/11 by Parkside North Residents Group represented by Mr Brian Harmon, and in

particular, references to issues around the construction of the East Wall Road Bridge (2002).

He requested that the Board be notified of his objection, the Board is hereby notified.

However, I have considered the Parkside North Residents Group submission.

5.2.6B Area 106B Docklands

5.2.6B.1 Site Location and Description

The southern site boundary is defined by North Wall Quay, there is a two-storey red brick

protected structure known as the LMS building facing the Liffey, this building is to form one

of the two entrances into the underground station (see ‘View: Area 106-10’ in Appendix 6).

The western boundary is defined by Park Lane, the northern boundary is defined by Sheriff

Street which is raised above the site at this location.

Mayor Street bisects the area of the proposed works and accommodates the recently

extended Red Luas line, there is a Luas stop located adjacent Station Square, currently

known as Central Square (see ‘Views: Area 106-11 and Area 106-12 in Appendix 6). The

Woolstore building, a three-storey protected structure of masonry construction, is located

to the south-east of the southern box (see ‘View: Area 106-13’ in Appendix 6), further to the

east and facing the Liffey is the disused Railway Hotel, also a protected structure.

There are two large vacant/under-utilised brownfield sites to the east of the site of the

proposed works, a part of the southernmost adjacent site is currently used as a surface car



park. The nearest existing residential developments to the east are located further along

Mayor Street, these consist of a terrace of six two-storey dwellings that face south onto

Mayor Street (1-6 Mayor Street).

The modern Spencer Dock development is located to the west of the proposed Docklands

Station works. These blocks are mixed use but the blocks to the north of Mayor Street and

facing onto the site of the proposed works are predominately residential, the two most

adjacent blocks are known as Packenham House and Saunders House, office and retail is

also accommodated in the blocks to the north of Mayor Street, these blocks vary in height

but are, for the most part, 7-8 storey (see ‘View: Area 106-14 in Appendix 6). The blocks to

the south of Mayor Street that form part of the Spencer Dock development are

predominately office use and are, for the most part, 8 storey (see ‘View: Area 106-15’ in

Appendix 6).

5.2.6B.2 Proposed Development at this Location

As stated previously there are 6 no. stations proposed along the length of the DU, 5 of which

are to be located underground. One of those underground stations is to be located in the

Docklands area (this forms the southern part of ‘Area 106’ as per the Railway Order

documentation).

The station is to be located in an area referred to as Central or Station Square. The

construction of this station differs from the other proposed stations in that a ‘bottom up’

construction is being proposed, as opposed to the ‘top down’ construction at the other 4

underground stations and the ‘retained cut’ proposed at the Inchicore Station. This

construction method is being proposed for the Docklands Station due to ground conditions

in the area.

The underground station is to be effectively contained within two cut and cover boxes that

are to be connected via a section of mined tunnel, this mined section is located under

Mayor Street along which the red LUAS line runs. The box to the north of Mayor Street is

referred to as the north box and that to the south is referred to as the south box.

There are two entrances proposed to the underground station, the main entrance is to be

located on the eastern side of a new urban space that is to be predominately hard

landscaped and referred to as Station Square. The second entrance is to be off North Wall

Quay via an existing building known as the LMS building, this LMS building is a protected

structure. Connection from the LMS building to the main station box (i.e. south box) is via a

cut and cover passageway.

Ventilation and fire fighting access shafts are proposed towards the south-eastern corner of

Station Square while another intervention/ventilation shaft, including escape stairs and lift,



serving the northern end of the platforms, will emerge at ground level just to the south of

Sheriff Street. While it is envisaged that Station Square will remain as an open public/civic

space, the proposed development does seek to facilitate future above ground development

over the remainder of the underground station structure at this location. The track level

through the Docklands Station is c. 20 m below the existing ground level in the area. For a

detailed description of the proposed development at this location the Board is referred to

Section 3.4.7 ‘Docklands Station’ of Vol. 2, Book 1 of 4 of the EIS and Section 10 of

document titled ‘Detailed description of the Railway Order Works’ by J. Flaherty and C.

Lavery submitted to the Hearing on the 24/11/10.

The construction phase for the Docklands Station is: 3 months preparation works, 7 months

for retaining walls, 19 months for excavation and concreting works and 24 months for the fit

out. Construction traffic will be split between the north and south boxes. Construction

traffic access to the north box will be via the Eastern Portal site (North Wall Yard) using a

vehicular underpass under Sheriff Street. Construction traffic for the south box will be via

North Wall Quay.

The north box is 105 m long by 40 m wide while the south box is 62 m long by 54 m wide.

The boxes will be constructed of secant piled walls and will provide the space for

construction of both the station platforms and the internal structures connecting to ground

level. These structures will be built from the bottom up in a conventional manner, leaving

the running tunnels intact within the boxes. This will facilitate continuous machine

excavation while establishing two distinct and secure working environments within the

boxes. The temporary rings forming the running tunnels will be removed from within the

boxes once TBM excavation has been complete. For a detailed description of construction

works relating to the Docklands Station the Board is referred to Section 5.13.13 ‘Docklands

Station’ in Vol. 2, Book 2 of 4, EIS and the documents titled ‘Construction Strategy;

Scheduling & Programming’ presented to the Hearing by K. McManus on the 30/11/10.

The Docklands Station is proposed in an area where the land use zoning is Z14 and within an

area identified as a ‘Strategic Development and Regeneration Area’ (SDRA No. 6) as per the

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The requirements of the SDRA 6 are as follows:

“SDRA 6 Docklands (Spencer Dock, Poolbeg, Grand Canal Dock) The Docklands Strategic Development and Regeneration Area comprises the three major areas of Spencer Dock North, Poolbeg, and Grand Canal Dock as set out in the DDDA Masterplan 2008. Future development shall be informed by the following development principles set out for each area. Spencer Dock North 1. To develop a new urban neighbourhood based on sustainable densities and with a strong sense of place, a „bridge‟ between the established communities of East Wall and North Wall/Sheriff Street.



2. To facilitate the provision of a socially cohesive community through the provision of a wide range of housing types and tenures in an integrated manner. 3. To create a high quality physical environment through the development of a coherent spatial structure based on a hierarchy of linked streets and spaces. 4. To open up the Royal Canal as a central component of this spatial structure, as a linear park - a „green lung‟, a vital connector to the river Liffey and a generator of a network of linked public spaces. 5. To improve accessibility from this new neighbourhood and the adjoining neighbourhoods to the city centre and the I.F.S.C. through the development of an integrated public transportation system. 6. To create a permeable quarter by removing existing physical barriers between these lands and the adjoining neighbourhoods of East Wall and North Wall/Sheriff Street, and by developing of a network of pedestrian and cycle linkages. 7. To explore alternative and innovative ways of creating a new public dynamic and energy within the linear park and forging a physical synergy between the park and future developments on the adjoining lands to the east.” (ref: S. 16.3 of the written statement and map E of the Development Plan)

The area is also subject to land use zoning Z14 as per the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan

2008 (ref: Map A and Chapter 4 of said Master Plan). The DU also follows closely a specific

objective for the ‘Interconnector’ as indicated on Map B of the Master Plan. A rail station

on the ‘Interconnector’ proposed route is also identified for the area as per Figure 5.3 of the

Master Plan where the Docklands Station is being proposed by the applicant. Reference is

also made to a ‘Docklands Station’ on the ‘Interconnector’ line in Diagram 11 of the

Docklands North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 for the site where the applicant is proposing

the station.

In relation to the tunnel alignment, the tunnels will enter Area 106 Docklands at the North

Wall Quay and travel beneath the LMS building and continue due north under the Station

Square, Mayor Street and the vacant lands where the North Shaft is proposed and then

continue in a northerly direction under Sheriff Street bridge and into the North Wall Yard.

5.2.6B.3 Issues Arising





























for the environment to be addressed in relation to Area 106B (Docklands) are as contained

in Section 5.1 of this report and Section 5.2.6B.4 hereunder.

5.2.6B.4 Area 106B Docklands Assessment & Recommendations

5.2.6B.4.1 Existing Residential Developments

The nearest residential development to the east of the proposed Docklands Station site is a

row of two-storey terraced housing. This terrace is located at the junction of New Wapping

Street and Mayor Street Upper. The occupants of these dwellings (1-6 Mayor Street) have

made observations on the application and were represented at the Hearing. Reference has

been made to the adverse impact on the residential amenity of these dwellings brought

about by the alleged non-compliance with the terms and conditions of permissions granted

in the area and the alleged failure to deliver the mitigation measures outlined in

Environmental Impact Statements relating to developments granted in the area. It is noted

that these dwellings are located in the middle of an area that has seen large-scale

redevelopment in recent years. There are vacant brownfield sites remaining immediately

adjacent these dwellings to the north and south. The Luas line passes by the front of these

houses as they face directly south onto Mayor Street.

Notwithstanding the observers’ previous bad experiences, as they hold it, from other

developments in the area, I consider it unreasonable and inappropriate to effectively

penalise the applicant for the alleged failures of others to comply with the terms and



conditions of their permissions. Reference was made by some of the observers to the

significant increase in anti-social behaviour in the area following the opening-up of the area

with new developments and the arrival of Luas. They are concerned that this problem will

be compounded by the arrival of the new station in the area. While those operating the

new station will have some responsibility and role to play with reference to security in and

immediately around the station, ultimately issues relating to the policing of anti-social

behaviour on the public streets approaching the station are a matter for the Gardai. Mr

Muldoon for the applicant told the Hearing that a liaison committee with local residents will

be set up where concerns could be aired and addressed, it was also indicated that the

applicant will liase with the Gardai and DCC in relation to security issues. I note issues

concerning anti-social behaviour in and around stations was a consideration in the design of

the DU (ref: s.3.10.6 and s.3.10.7 of Vol. 2, Book 1 of the EIS). The station will be monitored

by CCTV from the Operation Control Centre to be located at the West Road in East Wall.

The nearest established residential units to the west of the proposed Docklands Station are

located in Packenham House and Saunders House. These apartment developments form

part of the Spencer Dock development and both these blocks are in close proximity to the

northern box of the proposed Docklands Station, they are located on the western side of

Park Lane and some of the units in these blocks will directly overlook the construction site.

Some of the units in Packenham House and the adjacent Riverstown House will also

overlook the Eastern Portal site to the north of Sheriff Street. It should be noted that

irrespective of the DU proposal for the area, the lands to the east and north of Packenham

House are zoned for development and the lands to the east have already been subject of a

planning application.

The applicant has presented an assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed

development on the environment, including assessing impacts on established residential

amenities brought about by, inter alia, dust generated, noise, traffic generated, vibrations,

settlement, air quality etc. The applicant has sought to mitigate such impacts so as to

protect the residential amenity of those residing the area of the proposed development.

Subject to compliance with those mitigation measures and compliance with the conditions

attached to any Railway Order granted by the Board, I am satisfied that the residential

amenity of adjacent dwellings units can be safe-guarded. The applicant repeated many

times in the Hearing that all conditions attached to any Railway Order will be complied with

and repeatedly referred to the applicant’s history of carrying out works pursuant to other

Railway Orders where mitigation measures proposed and conditions attached to the orders

were implemented.

I note the requests for further mitigation measures by some of the observers such as

relocation of the existing terrace of dwellings further north and away from the public street

(Mayor Street) or the relocation of the occupants of the dwellings out of the area, however,



I consider these unwarranted given the suite of mitigation measures proposed by the

applicant.

Concerns regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of any Railway Order granted

are addressed in s. 5.1.17 of this report.

It should also be noted that a 6 m acoustic screen is being proposed around the construction

site for the Docklands Station. I am also satisfied given proposed separation distances and

heights of structures proposed that the residential amenity of existing dwellings units in the

area will not be adversely impacted upon by way of overlooking or overshadowing at

operational stage.

5.2.6B.4.2 Planning History, Over-site development, building height and future

development

Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd. outlined the planning history in the area. These

included two recent refusals by ABP who refused permission for reasons including

development being premature pending the final design for the DU, the two ABP refusals to

note are PL 29N.232995 which related to an 8 storey office development incorporating the

LMS building and extending back to the southern boundary of Station Square, and PL

29N.233240 which related to an application for a 11 storey office/retail building at the

location north of Mayor Street where the northern box of the DU station is proposed.

Evidence was also submitted relating to extant permissions for development to the east of

the proposed Docklands Station, these extant permissions are located to the north and

south of Mayor Street (references include DCC 3909/07, DCC 2839/08 for developments to

the south of Mayor Street, and DD167, DD326, DD513, DD546, DD587, DD329, DD394,

DD514, DD572 and DD628 for developments to the north of Mayor Street).

SDDC is concerned that the DU would potentially seriously restrict development in the area

once it is operational, they are concerned that the over-site development allowance is

inadequate and refer to the recently adopted policy contained in the City Development Plan

relating to building height, they argue that there is a need for greater flexibility in the DU

design to accommodate new development, they have raised concerns about the location of

the shafts at ground level and have also raised concerns about the impact on future

development of the Eastern Portal site (referred to as the Spencer Dock North by the

observer).

It is acknowledged that it is critical that the DU project does not prohibit the future proper

development of the brownfield sites to the north and south of Mayor Street. These sites are

located in the centre of the Spencer Dock development to the north and south of Station

Square. The Board’s decision in PL 29N.232995 notes that the site immediately to the south

of Station Square “is of strategic importance for the overall development of the Docklands



area having regard to its pivotal location in relation to the proposed Docklands rail

station/interchange, the River Liffey Quays, the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Liffey

and the proposed public open space at Station Square…” (ref: Refusal Reason No.2 of PL

29N.232995). It is critical to the continued development of the Spencer Dock area that the

proposed north and south boxes, the access from the LMS to the station and the tunnels

themselves should not prohibit the development of the sites above. However, I am satisfied

that the applicant has given due cognisance and recognition to that requirement.

The boxes have been designed to incorporate a certain loading capacity at the interface

between the station structures and future oversite development. Considerable discussion

took place in relation to this issue in the Hearing (ref: O.H. Transcripts Day 40). SDCC held

that the loading allowance was insufficient and that the station layout below ground would

not be able to accommodate standard structural grids from future office developments

above. They requested that the loading capacity be reviewed and increased and that the

design of the boxes be altered to facilitate modern office development over. The

specifically request, inter alia, that the north box retaining walls be designed for additional

axial load from transfer beams of 24,500kN at 9 m centres. The applicant has made

allowances to facilitate development above the DU structures, Mr Flaherty told the Hearing

on the 24/02/11 that there is a load allowance of 14,000 kN on the northern box wall, he

holds that this could provide for an oversite development up to 44 metres and this related

to a requirement of the DDDA.

I consider it inappropriate and unreasonable to place a requirement on the applicant to

redesign the structures so as to accommodate a greater load from developments by others

above. The principle approach of the applicant here appears to be one of allowing for

substructure over and around the DU i.e. independent of the DU structures. It will be an

issue for the developers of any future development to produce a design solution that will

facilitate their own development and insure that the integrity of the DU structures is not

compromised. The DU structures at this location will pose a greater design challenge for

future development in the area. It is a matter for any future developers to effectively

design around the DU structures. It is unreasonable to impose a requirement on the

applicant to allow for a certain future loading above when there isn’t even an extant

permission for over-site development let alone a detailed design for any such development.

(The Board has refused permission for developments at this location pending a decision in

relation to the DU, so it would be somewhat of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation if the DU was

refused or delayed pending a decision on developments above it.) The tunnels have been

designed with a layout to facilitate loading from above to be transferred over and between,

the substructure of any future development would be independent of the tunnels. Load

bearing allowance has been facilitated at the interface of station structures and future over-

site development. Any future proposals by others would have to consider, inter alia, the

safety and operational implications for the DU.



The recently adopted Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 identifies the Docklands

area as an area with potential for accommodating buildings in excess of 50 m (ref: section

17.6 and Fig. 21 of the written statement). It should be noted that this is subject to the

adoption of a LAP/SDZ/Section 25 Scheme. Policy UD20 of the Dublin Docklands Area

Master Plan 2008 effectively states that high buildings will be considered in accordance

with the provisions of the City Development Plan (ref: p. 164 of the Master Plan). Section

16.4.2 of the new City Development Plan also specifically refers to building height in the

vicinity of the proposed Docklands Station: “High buildings along the corridor should

contribute to a coherent extension of the city’s form (e.g. sited at the confluence of canals/

harbours with the river and public transport interchanges such as at the Spencer Dock, in the

vicinity of the proposed DART Underground station, and at Grand Canal Dock) and must not

result in a wall of high buildings or a sporadic approach.” The Docklands North Lotts

Planning Scheme (DDDA 2002) permits buildings of 8 storeys at this location.

The applicant has allowed for loading at the interface of the DU station boxes and future

development over, what exactly can be accommodated above those allowances is more of

an engineering issue, in my opinion, rather than a planning consideration to be addressed at

the Railway Order stage. As Mr Muldoon for the applicant told the Hearing on Day 40 in

relation to the discussion on building height “…the 50 metres is no difficulty, you are building

round our project, you can build it, you can make it 100 metres if you want..” (ref: O.H.

Transcript Day 40 p. 62). Mr Masterson for the applicant also told the Hearing that their

works are capable of dealing with the 50 metres height of development above (ref: O.H.

Transcripts Day 39 p.160).

Any future development would have to be designed taking account of the safety and

operational requirements of the DU. While the DU poses challenges for future development

in the area in engineering terms, I cannot find that the DU as proposed has not taking

account of the future development of the area nor am I convinced that the proposal

conflicts with the recently adopted City Development Plan on, inter alia, building height.

Again it should be noted that not only is there no extant permission for developments over

the proposed station or detailed designs for buildings at this location, the specifics of the

building height policy for this location have yet to be determined.

SDDC also raised concerns about the locations of the shafts where they emerge at ground

level, they are concerned that these shafts would severely compromise the sustainable

development of these important sites. In relation to the location of the shafts serving the

south box, I am satisfied that the location of these at ground level has been given due

consideration by the applicant’s architects. These shafts are located towards the south-east

corner of the Station Square and do not impede or erode the functionality of the public civic

space and allow for access to the square from all directions.



In relation to the location of the shaft serving the northern box I would note that its location

would pose some design challenges for any future development at this location but I am

satisfied that design solutions are possible and, as such, oversite development at this

location is possible and can be facilitated, future over site development would have to take

account of, inter alia, access for Fire Fighters and passenger escape. In response to this

issue the applicant submitted to the Hearing a drawing (ref: submitted on the 24/02/11

titled ‘Docklands – North Shaft’) indicating that if the shaft is moved further west it would

have to be significantly increased in height due to its proximity to the apartment block along

Park Lane and requirements of Dublin Fire Brigade relating to disbursal of smoke (ref: O.H.

Transcripts Day 40 p.93). The DDDA in their August 2010 submission to the Board indicated

that the location of the northern shaft is acceptable to them and that the shaft should be

designed to allow for future integration into a building of up to 44 m (ref: s.4.1.5 of DDDA

submission dated 18/08/2010).

In relation to the applicant’s proposed layout for the Eastern Portal site (referred to as the

Spencer Dock North site by SDDC), I would acknowledged that the layout of the 3 buildings

on this site at operational phase at first glance would appear somewhat haphazard but the

reality is somewhat different. The fact is that the location of these structures is dictated by

the DU below, the substation is required at an early stage of construction to power the

TBMs and its location on site is restricted by other heavy engineering works at construction

stage and the alignment of the DU below, likewise, the shaft location at ground level is

determined by, inter alia, safety requirements relating to the DU below, the maintenance

facility building is also somewhat anchored in position by the rail siding adjacent it which is

required for maintenance of the DU. Some degree of development could be facilitated at

this location in the future, particularly to the west of the Maintenance Facility building and

the Intervention Shaft, connectivity to the Spencer Dock development to the south of

Sheriff Street can be facilitated via a link underneath Sheriff Street bridge.

While the DU may pose certain design and engineering challenges for future development, I

am satisfied that the proposed development will not unduly impede or inhibit the future

proper development of the area, the applicant has taken account of the statutory plans for

the area and has given due consideration to the long term development of Spencer Dock.

5.2.6B.4.3 LMS Building and Wool store

As indicated above it is proposed to provide one of the entrances to the Docklands Station

via the existing LMS building, a protected structure. This building was previously a railway

station linking rail passengers with the ferry to England. Spencer Dock Development

Company Limited (SDDC) has indicated concerns with the applicant’s proposals in relation to

this building. Mr Cathal Crimmins, Conservation Architect, appearing for SDDC told the

Hearing that he considered the proposed station entrance via the LMS building to be poorly

designed and ill-considered. Mr John Spain, Planning Consultant, for SDDC told the Hearing



that the requirement and reasoning for the entrance via the LMS building was unclear and

inappropriate and should be omitted. (ABP refused SDCC permission for an 8 storey office

building that entailed works to the LMS building and the Wool Store, ref: PL 29N.232995.)

It should be noted that the use of the LMS building as one of the entrance points to the

Docklands Station was raised by An Bord Pleanala in the pre-application consultation

meetings (meeting dated 17/07/09), however, as the Board is aware such meetings are

without prejudice (ref: s.47C (3) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as

amended under s.50 of the Planning & Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006).

In its urban analysis the Docklands North Lotts Planning Scheme (Dublin Docklands

Development Authority 2002, p.12) notes that the areas landmark buildings are located on

the North Wall Quay and include the LMS building, the analysis also acknowledges that this

building has an attractive frontage onto the quays. Policy 4.12.14 states: “Encourage the

use of the existing former railway station at North Wall Quay as an entrance to the

Docklands Station”. On Diagram 11 of the North Lotts Planning Scheme the LMS buildings is

specifically identified as a potential ticket hall serving what was then referred to as the

Underground Interconnector Line (now known as the DU). Section 5.1.3 of the Planning

Scheme indicates that the new Docklands Station should, inter alia, integrate where possible

the former station buildings at North Wall Quay, which includes the LMS building.

The original use of the LMS building related to the railway infrastructure in the area dating

back to the late 1800s. Arguably, given the proposed use as an entrance to a new station,

this original use, to some extent, is being reintroduced. The Architectural Heritage

Protection Guidelines (DoEHLG 2004) states, inter alia, “Usually the original use for which a

structure was built will be the most appropriate…while a degree of compromise will be

required in adapting a protected structure…it is important that the special interest of the

structure is not unnecessarily affected…” (Ref: s.7.3 Keeping a Building in Use). I note that

the applicant’s Conservation Architect, Mr David Slattery, assessed the impact on the

architectural heritage of this building as ‘moderate’ (ref: ‘Brief of Evidence – Architectural

Heritage’ submitted to the Hearing on the 11/01/11).

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has welcomed the proposed use of the LMS

building as an entrance to the station (ref: p. 8 of the submission received by the Board on

the 18/08/10). While Dublin City Council did raise a concern relating to the use of the

building in its entirety, it did indicate support for the proposed reuse: “The use of the central

portion of the former London and North-Western Passenger building as a Dart Underground

is consistent with DCC policy for the appropriate re-use of heritage building” (ref: p.24 of the

submission received by the Board on the 17/08/10). In its report to the Board the DoEHLG

did raise a concern that the use of entire building should have been considered in totality

(ref: p. 4 DoEHLG submission to the Board dated 18/08/10) but would appear to be

supportive in principle of the use of the building as an entrance to the station.



I consider it appropriate and in the best interests of the proper planning and sustainable

development of the area that the new Docklands Station should have an entrance off the

quays. I am satisfied that the character and setting of this protected structure can be

safeguarded and in that regard I note the ‘agreed position’ relating to the LMS building as

contained on page 8 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document submitted to the Hearing on the

13/01/11.

In relation to the Wool store, which is also a protected structure and located to the north-

east of the LMS building, it should be noted that the applicant is not proposing any

intervention or changes directly to the fabric of this structure. Mitigation measures in

relation to settlement are required here, deep excavations to the west of the building are

proposed as well as tunnelling beneath. I am satisfied that subject to the works being

executed as proposed and subject to compliance with conditions relating to geotechnical

matters, the character and setting of this protected structure will not be adversely impacted

upon.

5.2.6B.4.4 Impact on Spencer Dock Brand

This area has undergone significant redevelopment in recent years and now contains

buildings of quality design accommodating offices, residential and commercial.

The Spencer Dock Development Company (SDDC) has been instrumental in delivering many

of the new developments in the immediate facility of the proposed Docklands Station site.

SDDC have raised concerns that the proposed development during the construction phase

will have an adverse impact on the Spencer Dock ‘brand’, they are concerned that the

construction works will make it difficult for them to attract in commercial and residential

clients.

It should be noted that the SDDC itself has proposals for large redevelopment projects in the

area, including those sites that are subject of the Railway Order application. The impacts of

the construction works for the proposed Docklands Station are not wholly dissimilar from

the impacts of the observer’s own proposals for the area.

The applicant has sought to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the

surrounding properties and address those impacts by mitigation. Subject to the

implementation of those mitigation measures the established adjacent uses can be

protected and the ‘brand’ of the Spencer Dock area should not be adversely impacted upon.

There will be considerable long term benefits to this area following the completion of the

construction phase. The delivery of the station should greatly enhance this new urban

quarter in the North Docklands.



5.2.6B.4.5 Station Square

The proposals for the finished Station Square have been the subject of discussions between

the applicant, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Dublin City Council. Mr

Masterson for the applicant told the Hearing that the applicant will maintain the Square

after the works are complete (ref: OH Transcripts day 39 p. 161).

The lands that constitute the square are CIE lands but form part of those lands that are

subject of a ‘Master Development Agreement’ between CIE and SDDC. The SDDC requested

that an alternative park be provided during the construction stage. Mr Masterson stated

that CIE seeded lands to the DDDA along the canal to provide a liner park previously, it is my

understanding that works have now commenced on that park, it is envisaged that the linear

park will be completed and open to the public by the time construction works begin on the

Docklands Station should the Board grant the Railway Order.

I consider the design and layout of the Station Square to be acceptable, provision has been

allowed for some degree of over-site development should this be permitted at some future

stage. Noting, inter alia, that the materials and finish have to be agreed with DDDA and DCC

as outlined on page 8 of the ‘Agreed Position’ document submitted to the Hearing on the

13/01/11, I am of the opinion that the proposals here are in accordance with the proper

planning and sustainable development of the area, I also consider that there will be long

term positive consequences for the environment with the provision of this square.

5.2.6B.4.6 Dust and Pollutants Generated

Please refer to s. 5.1.5 earlier in this report. In response to site specific concerns relating to

dust generated, Ms Sinead Whyte for the applicant told the Hearing that 6 m high hoarding

is proposed around the construction sites in the Docklands area. She reiterated proposals

regarding other mitigation measures including the provisions of wheel washes and the

spraying of works. The covering of the north and boxes during construction with dust

screens as requested by the SDDC is not warranted in my opinion.

5.2.6B.4.7 Construction Site Access

SDDC requested that alternative arrangements be made for construction traffic access to

the southern box site. They requested that access be via the North Wall Yard/Sheriff Street

ramp. I draw the Board’s attention to s.5.6 of the ‘Report on Traffic and Transportation’ by

Mr S. Wallace in Appendix 5 attached to this report where it states, inter alia, the following:

“Observers in the area asked the applicant about alternative construction access proposals during the course of the oral hearing. This was mainly to overcome the perceived impacts on residential property such as Packenham House that lies directly opposite the proposed site access. Whilst an access to the south side of Upper Sheriff Street currently seems achievable such land is allocated for development, which is presumed to happen in advance of DART Underground. Also



Spencer Dock Development Company tabled an alternative strategy that totally avoids access being taken from North Wall Quay. However the applicant explained it would be impractical to link the northern and southern box sites with a haul route under the live LUAS lines. Given the relatively low impact on North Wall Quay I consider the applicant’s access strategy for this overall area to be the most suitable.”

I concur with, and accept, Mr Wallace’s advice in relation to the access strategy.

5.2.6B.4.8 Ground water protection, groundborne vibrations, groundborne noise

Concerns have been raised by observers in the Docklands area about, inter alia: potential

impact on groundwater levels during construction; groundborne noise during construction

and operational stages; vibrations from construction activities and from DU at operational

stage; impact on existing ground anchors in the area; noise generated by supply trains at

construction stage; the PPS; and, limiting values to be applied to vibrations and

groundborne noise generated.

As indicated previously the Board engaged the services of Dr R. Massarsch to advise on

impacts in relation to geotechnical matters. Dr Massarsch’s report is contained in Appendix

3 attached to this report. I would draw the Board’s attention to ‘Appendix 4 – Review of

Submission and Evidence to Oral Hearing’ which is attached to Dr Massarsch’s main report.

Pages 12-14 of that Appendix 4 addresses the specific concerns raised by the observers in

the East Wall area relating to geotechnical matters.







from tunnelling or other construction activities and there should not be an adverse impact

on the area at operational stage either.

6 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.1 Preface

As the Board will be aware, in the preceding sections of this report I have sought to, inter

alia, assess the environmental impacts arising at both the construction and operational

stages from the proposed development. Therefore to avoid repetition the EIA hereunder

must be considered in conjunction with the assessments contained in the preceding

sections. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information now on file to facilitate a full EIA

for this Reference Design stage.



6.2 EIS

I am satisfied that the applicant’s EIS taken with the clarifications provided in the public Oral

Hearing, meets the requirements of s.39(1) and (2) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure)

Act, 2001 as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006

and I am further satisfied that the EIS and Oral Hearing clarifications meet the requirements

of Article 5 and Annex IV of the EIA Directive.

6.3 EIA Procedural Issues

In relation to public participation in the consent process, the Board received some 245

observer submissions in August 2010 following the public notification of the RO application.

Those 245 submissions are summarised for the Board and that summation is contained in a

report in Appendix 1 attached to this report, all of the submissions are on file for the Board’s

attention. I have given full consideration to all of those observer submissions.

A number of observers considered the 6 week timeframe within which a submission had to

be made to the Board to be inadequate and many observers requested that an Oral Hearing

be held into the RO application. The 6 week timeframe is as laid down in the Transport

(Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic

Infrastructure) Act 2006 and it is my interpretation that the 6 week timeframe, with

reference to the legislation, is not discretionary i.e. it is not open to the Board to extend that

timeframe. In any event, the Board did accede to the requests for an Oral Hearing.

The public Oral Hearing commenced on the 22/11/10 and ended on the 08/04/11, it sat for

62 days in total. The transcripts of the Hearing are on file for the Board’s attention as are all

of the submissions made at the Hearing. I have prepared a report on the Hearing and it is

contained in Appendix 2 attached to this report for the Board’s attention. I have considered

all of the submissions made to the Hearing.

Some observers who attended the Hearing held that given the submissions by the applicant

at the Hearing that further public notification was required and that the Hearing should be

adjourned.

The clarifications submitted by the applicant to the Hearing were in response to the

following: Note 1 attached to the Order of Proceedings, the Order of Proceedings was

issued to all parties prior to the commencement of the Hearing; questions put to the

applicant from the Inspectorate; questions put to the applicant from the observers; and,

responses to the submissions received in August 2010 and at the Hearing itself. All

information submitted by the applicant to the Hearing was put on public file and made

available to the public at the Hearing. The applicant also distributed copies of the

submissions to those attending the Hearing and uploaded the information onto a publically

accessible website. Only for the opening week of the Hearing and for the week immediately



after the Christmas adjournment did the Hearing sit for a full 5 day week, on all other

occasions, the Hearing sat for 4 days or less, this was to allow all those attending to have

time to consider information being submitted to the Hearing. There was also a 3 week

adjournment over the Christmas period to allow those attending time to consider

information being submitted. The clarifications submitted by the applicant do not change

the development description of the proposal, the alignment is unchanged, locations and

descriptions of shafts, stations, substations, ancillary buildings etc. are unaltered from the

development description in the public notice and in the RO application of June 2010. As all

clarifications were submitted in a public forum which forms part of the EIA process and

made available to the public, and as no material changes came about to the scheme on foot

of those clarifications, I do not consider that a new public notice is required.

While some observers held that the Hearing should be adjourned to facilitate further public

notification, others held that the Hearing was too long. I would concur that it was a lengthy

process, possibly the longest Oral Hearing conducted by the Board, however, this was

unavoidable given the scale and nature of the proposal and the very large number of

observers wishing to participate in the process and, inter alia, question the applicant, which

is their right.

6.4 Identification and description of the likely effects

6.4.1 Human Health

Dust generated at construction phase could give rise to adverse human health

effects such as respiratory problems.

Groundborne and airborne noise at construction phase could give rise to sleep

deprivation and associated medical problems, possibility, in extreme situation of

damage to hearing.

Groundborne noise at operational phase as per preceding bullet point.

Vibrations at construction and operational stages could adversely impact on human

health.

Asbestos removal arising from demolition works required to facilitate the

construction of the DU could pose a health hazard.

Contaminated soil removal from surface sites and tunnel construction could pose a

health hazard.

A flood occurrence resulting in water inundation in the underground network could

pose a safety threat to commuters and employees. Indirect effect could arise if flood

waters are displaced by mitigation measures to adjacent occupied properties.



Emissions from shafts serving the underground could pose a threat to human health

Electromagnetic emissions from DU installations such as the two ESB sub-stations

could pose a health risk

Excessive ground movement brought about by construction activities could result in

failure of existing occupied structures resulting in injury or death to occupants.

6.4.2 Flora & Fauna

Flora: loss of trees and other vegetation

Fauna: removal of habitat e.g. loss of trees

Fauna: potential for indirect impact on habitats e.g. contamination of habitats

6.4.3 Soil

The proposal will give rise to significant excavation and removal of soil and rock at

the surface sites for the shafts, stations and ancillary structures and for the tunnels.

An estimated 1.5 million m3 of excavated material will be generated during

construction of the project

6.4.4 Water

Hydrogeology: limestone bedrock within the Dublin Urban Water Groundwater Body

is classified as a locally important aquifer which is productive in local zones. The

overburden in places may also provide useful supplies of groundwater. DU

structures located in the more permeable overburden deposits and in the bedrock

have the potential to impact on groundwater flow patterns. Potential impacts to the

hydrogeology also arise from lowering of the water table and possible

contamination. Indirect impacts could include settlement/ground movement

brought about by direct impacts on the hydrological regime.

Hydrology: DU works proposed in close proximity to the Liffey, including tunnelling

under the Liffey between Sir John Rodgerson’s Quay and North Wall Quay. DU

works proposed in North Wall Yard which is to the east of the Royal Canal, DU works

proposed in Coady’s Yard, East Wall, which is to the south of the Tolka. Works

directly proposed to the C19th culvert carrying the Camac under Heuston Station

concourse before it outfalls to the Liffey on the northern side of the station.

Tunnelling will also take place beneath the Poddle in Dublin 8. Potential impacts are

contamination, increase run-off at operational stage, dewatering and flood risk.



6.4.5 Air and Climate

Air quality potential impacts arise from dust and pollutants generated, also

possibility of odours from impacts of moulds such as aspergillus and waste. Also

carbon dioxide emissions from the building services at operational stage.

6.4.6 Landscape

Trees to be removed in Inchicore CIE Works, woodland to be removed in the south-

east corner of War Memorial Gardens, Islandbridge to facilitate shaft construction,

some trees to be removed at Cook Street site to facilitate construction of shaft in the

grounds of the church, existing hard and soft landscaping to be removed at Civic

Offices amphitheatre to facilitate construction of the Christchurch Station, mature

trees, park railings, paving etc. to be removed at St. Stephen’s Green North to

facilitate the construction of the eastern shaft serving the DU station (extensive tree

and landscaping removal previously granted under the Metro North RO at St.

Stephen’s Green north-west end), and existing grass area at Spencer Dock to be

removed to facilitate construction of the Docklands Station.

6.4.7 Material Assets

Potential impact on utilities during construction phase at surface sites across the

city.

Impact on economic activities and development potential at a number of sites:

existing retail units at Heuston Station will be forced to close for the construction

period; extant permission for mixed use development at Island Street will be

impacted upon; Bass Place site would benefit from redevelopment, it is currently

underutilised and underdeveloped, redevelopment could be restricted for a medium

term if RO granted; development of brownfield site at Spencer Dock could be

restricted for a medium term; and, redevelopment of Coady’s Yard, East Wall, where

development has been previously refused with reference to the DU proposal, could

be further restricted if the RO is granted.

6.4.8 Cultural Heritage

Direct impacts at a number of protected structures including: Heuston Station; St.

Stephen’s Green (railings, kerb stones and other elements are on the RPS); and, the

LMS building at North Wall Quay.

Indirect impacts possible arising from tunnelling beneath, or deep excavations

adjacent, structures on the RPS.



Impact on industrial heritage from works proposed at Inchicore, Heuston, Pearse and

North Wall Yard.

Potential Impact on archaeological heritage from excavations required at several

sites across the DU alignment. No impacts envisaged from tunnelling as they will be

well below possible archaeological finds.

Works proposed adjacent National Monuments (i.e. the City Wall and St. Stephen’s

Green).

6.4.9 Interactions

All of the environmental factors are inter-related to some extent.

6.5 Assessment

6.5.1 Human Health

Dust generated: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.5 and 5.1.9 of this report,

Chapters 10 and 23 of the applicant’s EIS, ‘Brief of Evidence – Air Quality and

Climate’ submitted to the Hearing on the 12/01/11 and ‘Brief of Evidence – Human

Health’ submitted to the Hearing on the 13/01/11 and the HSE ‘Consultant in Public

Health Medicine’ report of August 2010 and also having regard to the information

submitted by the observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied

that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and the

compliance with the recommended conditions at the end of this report, there will

not be adverse effects on human health arising from dust generated.

Groundborne and airborne noise at construction stage: Having regard to, inter alia, s.

5.1.2 and s. 5.1.6 of this report, the reports contained in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4

attached to this report, the contents of the EIS on these matters, the submissions by

the applicant to the Oral Hearing relating to these issues and the HSE ‘Consultant in

Public Health Medicine’ report of August 2010 and also having regard to the

information submitted by the observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am

satisfied that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and the

compliance with the recommended conditions at the end of this report, there will

not be adverse effects on human health arising from groundborne and airborne

noise at construction stage.

Groundborne noise at operational stage: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.2 of this

report and the report contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report, the contents

of the EIS on this matter, the submissions by the applicant to the Oral Hearing

relating to this issue and the HSE ‘Consultant in Public Health Medicine’ report of

August 2010 and also having regard to the information submitted by the observers in



August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to compliance with

the mitigation measures proposed and the compliance with the recommended

conditions at the end of this report, there will not be adverse effects on human

health arising from groundborne noise at operational stage.

Vibrations at construction and operational stages: Having regard to s. 5.1.2 of this

report and the report contained in Appendix 3 attached to this report, the contents

of the EIS on this matter, the submissions by the applicant to the Oral Hearing

relating to this issue and also having regard to the information submitted by the

observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to

compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and the compliance with the

recommended conditions at the end of this report, there will not be adverse effects

on human health arising from vibrations at construction and operational stage.

Asbestos removal: Having regard to s. 5.2.1.4.11 of this report, Chapter 21 of the

applicant’s EIS, the clarifications given to the Hearing by the applicant and also

having regard to the observer submissions to the Board of August 2010 and at the

Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to the applicant’s proposed mitigation

measures, and also noting the need to comply with other legal codes regarding the

disposal of asbestos, there will not be an adverse impact on human health from

asbestos removal required to facilitate the development.

Contaminated soil: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.2.1.4.12 of this report, the

contents of the EIS on this matter, the submissions by the applicant to the Oral

Hearing relating to this issue and the HSE ‘Consultant in Public Health Medicine’

report of August 2010 and also having regard to the information submitted by the

observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that, subject to

compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and also noting the need to

comply with other legal codes on the matter, there will not be adverse effects on

human health arising from the removal of contaminated soil at construction stage.

Flood impacts: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.22 and s. 5.2.6A.4.16 of this report,

the contents of the EIS on the matter, the submissions by the applicant to the Oral

Hearing relating to the issue and the HSE ‘Consultant in Public Health Medicine’

report of August 2010 and also having regard to the information submitted by the

observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that, subject to

compliance with the mitigation measures proposed, there should not be an adverse

impact on human health.

Shaft emissions at operational stage: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.5 and s.

5.2.5.4.11 of this report, Chapter 10 of the applicant’s EIS, the applicant’s

submissions to the Hearing on the matter and the HSE ‘Consultant in Public Health



Medicine’ report of August 2010 and also having regard to the information

submitted by the observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied

that, subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed, there should

not be an adverse impact on human health from emissions from the shafts at

operational stage.

Electromagnetic emissions: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.2.1.4.8 and s. 5.2.6A.4.14

of this report, the contents of the EIS on the matter, the applicant’s clarifications on

the matter at the Hearing and also having regard to the information submitted by

the observers in August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that, subject to

compliance with the mitigation measures proposed, there should not be an adverse

impact on human health from electromagnetic emissions from the DU at operational

stage.

Ground movement/settlement: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.2, s. 5.2.1.4.1, s.

5.2.2.4.4, s. 5.2.3.4.2, s. 5.2.3.4.6, s. 5.2.4.4.1, s. 5.2.5.4.3, s. 5.2.6A.4.18 and s.

5.2.6B.4.8 of this report and the report contained in Appendix 3 attached to this

report, and also having regard to the contents of the EIS, the applicant’s submissions

at the Oral Hearing and the observer submissions of August 2010 and at the Oral

Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures

proposed and compliance with the recommended conditions at the end of this

report, there should not be an adverse impact on human health arising from ground

movement or settlement from the proposed development.

The long term human health impacts will be overwhelmingly positive, the DU will

result in an increase in physical activity, decrease in transit time for users and an

improvement in air quality

6.5.2 Flora & Fauna

Having considered, inter alia, Chapters 7 and 12 of the EIS and the clarifications

submitted at the Hearing by the applicant, including ‘Flora and Fauna’ submitted on

the 17/12/10 and ‘Brief of Evidence – Landscape & Visual Impact’ submitted on the

11/01/11, also having considered the NPWS content of the August 2010 DoEHLG

submission, the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and CIE,

the July 2010 submission from Inland Fisheries Ireland in addition to the observer

submissions in writing and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that the principal

negative significant impacts are those identified in the EIS and that the mitigation

measures set out in the EIS and clarified at the Hearing are appropriate and should

ensure that no adverse environmental effects occur.



6.5.3 Soil

Impacts from excavation of soil and rock, mitigation by avoidance not possible given

the nature of the development, the impact will be permanent. Mitigation required

by reduction and remedy. Some reuse possible but disposal will be required off-site.

Impacts from contaminated soil (see ‘Contaminated Soil’ under ‘Human Health’

above). Soil and rock removal could result in ground movement (see under ‘Ground

movement/settlement’ under ‘Human Health’ above). Contamination of soil from

accidental leakages or spillages of construction related material. Having regard to,

inter alia, s. 5.1.2 of this report and the report contained in Appendix 3 to this report

and also having regard to Chapters 13 and 21 of the EIS and the applicant’s

submissions to the Hearing including ‘Brief of Evidence – Geotechnics, Soils and

Geology’ submitted on the 01/12/10 and ‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’

submitted on the 17/12/10, also having considered the observer submissions of

August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with

the mitigation measures proposed and compliance with the recommended

conditions attached to the end of this report, there should not be an adverse impact

on the soils and geology in the area arising from the proposed scheme.

6.5.4 Water

Hydrogeology: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.2 of this report and the report

contained within Appendix 3 attached to this report, and also having regard to the

contents of the EIS, the applicant’s submissions at the Oral Hearing and the observer

submissions of August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing on this topic, I am satisfied that

subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and compliance with

the recommended conditions at the end of this report, there should not be an

adverse impact on the hydrogeology of the receiving environment.

Hydrology: Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.22 and s. 5.2.6A.4.16 of this report and

to, inter alia, Chapter 15 of the EIS and to the submissions by the applicant at the

Hearing including the ‘Brief of Evidence – Hydrology’ submitted on the 08/12/10 and

the ‘Brief of Evidence – Flood Risk Assessment’ submitted on the 08/12/10, and also

having considered the submission from Waterways Ireland in August 2010, Inland

Fisheries Ireland of July 2010 and the NPWS section of the DoEHLG submission of

August 2010 and the contents on the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and

CIE, with due consideration to the observer submissions of August 2010 and at the

Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures

proposed and compliance with the recommended conditions attached to the end of

this report, the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the

hydrology of the receiving environment.



6.5.5 Air and Climate

Having regard to, inter alia, s. 5.1.5 of this report, Chapters 10 and 21 of the EIS, the

applicant’s submissions to the Hearing including ‘Brief of Evidence - Air Quality and

Climate’ submitted on the 12/01/11, ‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’

submitted on the 17/12/10, the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document

between DCC and CIE, the HSE ‘Consultant in Public Health Medicine’ report of

August 2010, the HSE ‘Environmental Health Officer’ report of August 2010 and the

follow up HSE submission to the Hearing on the 21/01/11, and also having

considered the observer submissions of August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am

satisfied that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed and

compliance with the recommended conditions at the end of this report, the impacts

on air and climate arising from the DU can be suitably mitigated. There will be long

term positive effects on air quality and climate due to reduction in private vehicular

traffic and associated emissions.

6.5.6 Landscape

Having regard to, inter alia: Chapter 7 and Chapter 12 of the EIS; the applicant’s

submissions to the Hearing including ‘Brief of Evidence – Landscape and Visual

Assessment’; the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and CIE,

specifically conditions 89-100 therein; the August 2010 DoEHLG submission and

DoEHLG Oral Hearing submission; and, the contents of the Observer submissions of

August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that subject to the compliance

with the mitigation measures proposed there will not be an adverse impact on the

landscape at: Inchicore CIE Works; the War Memorial Garden; the Cook Street site;

the Civic Offices amphitheatre; or, at the Spencer Dock site.

However, as indicated in s. 2.4.4.5 of this report, I consider that the removal of a

number of mature deciduous trees at St. Stephen’s Green North to facilitate the

construction of the shaft will result in a significant negative impact on the landscape

character and that given the time required before the proposed landscaping will

start to properly mitigate this impact, it will be a significant negative impact for a

medium term.

6.5.7 Material Assets

Having regard to, inter alia: Chapter 17 of the EIS; ‘Brief of Evidence – Drainage and

Utilities’ submitted to the Hearing on the 10/12/10; the contents of the ‘Agreed

Position’ document and, specifically, conditions 70-88 therein; and, also having

regard to the observer submissions of August 2010 and at the Hearing, I am satisfied

that subject to compliance with the mitigation measures proposed, there should not



be an adverse impact on existing utilities during the construction and operational

stage of the DU.

There will be a significant negative impact on the retail units in Heuston Station that

will be forced to close for the construction period, retail floorspace will be

reintroduced at operational stage, there will be an increase in the footfall through

the station at that stage. I therefore consider that there will be a significant negative

impact for a medium term period on the outlets that will have to close, but there will

be a long term positive impact for retailing at operational stage in Heuston. Should

the RO be granted but not executed, there should be no significant negative impact

on the units in Heuston.

There will be site specific development restrictions on certain brownfield sites that

would benefit from redevelopment. Should the RO be granted but not executed,

there would be a moderate, negative, medium term impact at the following sites in

my opinion: Island Street shaft site; Bass Place site; Docklands Station site; and,

Coady’s Yard, East Wall.

6.5.8 Cultural Heritage

Having regard to, inter alia: s. 5.1.2, s. 5.1.14, s. 5.1.19, s. 5.1.20, s. 5.2.1.4.7, s.

5.2.2.4.1, s. 5.2.3.4.2, s. 5.2.4.4.1, s. 5.2.5.4.2 and s. 5.2.6B.4.3 of this report;

Chapters 7, 19 and 20 of the EIS; the applicant’s submissions at the Hearing including

‘Brief of Evidence – Archaeological & Cultural Heritage’ submitted on the 16/12/10,

‘Brief of Evidence – Station Design / Architectural Design / Urban Integration’

submitted on the 10/01/11, ‘Brief of Evidence – Architectural Heritage’ submitted on

the 11/01/11 and ‘Brief of Evidence – Industrial Heritage’ submitted on the

12/01/11; the contents of the ‘Agreed Position’ document between DCC and CIE

and, in particular, conditions 1-30 therein; the An Taisce submission of August 2010

and at the Oral Hearing; the DDDA submission of August 2010; the DoEHLG

submission of August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing; and, the observer submissions of

August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I am satisfied that there will not be a significant

negative impact on the cultural heritage of the city arising from DU with one

exception outlined below.

The large number of industrial rail-related structures to be demolished at CIE Works

Inchicore to facilitate the DU constitutes a significant negative permanent impact

notwithstanding the mitigation-by-record proposed. However, having regard to

alternatives considered, the impact is unavoidable.



6.5.9 Interactions

Having regard to, inter alia: s. 24.6 of Vol. 2, Book 4 of the EIS; the applicant’s

submissions at the Hearing including ‘Brief of Evidence – Overview of EIS, Cumulative

Impacts & Interactions’ submitted on the 23/11/10, ‘Brief of Evidence – Cumulative

Impacts & Interactions: Mitigation Measures & Residual Impacts’ submitted on the

19/01/11; and, the observer submissions of August 2010 and at the Oral Hearing, I

am satisfied that the principal potential impact interactions are as identified and that

the effects on the environment arising should not be adverse.

7 Compulsory Acquisition of Land

7.1 Proposed Acquisitions and Possessions

The applicant is proposing to compulsorily acquire land, including sub-stratum land, and

rights in, over and under lands and roads to facilitate the construction, operation,

improvement and maintenance of the Dart Underground. Some of the acquisitions and

possessions will be of a temporary nature and some will be permanent.

I refer the Board to Part III ‘Acquisition and Possession of Land and Rights’ of the draft

Railway Order and to the associated Book of Reference that accompanied the application

and to the A0 book of drawings ‘Railway Works Drawings’ for a description of the lands

affected (see ‘Railway Works – Property Details’ for an understanding of the area of lands in

plan and ‘Railway Works – Alignment Details – Longitudinal Sections’ for an understanding

of the impacted lands in section for the sub-stratum aspect).

There was some 4336 owners/reputed owners/occupiers/reputed occupiers listed in the

Book of Reference originally submitted with the RO application. During the course of the

Hearing the applicant submitted a schedule of proposed amendments to the Book of

Reference, the applicant informed the Inspector that those listed on the amended Book of

Reference were notified of the Hearing.

7.2 Oral Hearing

As well as hearing matters relating to the proper planning and sustainable development of

the area and the likely impacts on the environment from the proposed works, the Hearing

also heard objections to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land.

7.3 Objections to Acquisitions and Possessions

The objections to temporary possession of lands include, inter alia: objections to the

applicant’s proposed temporary possession and realignment of West Road/Ossory Road in

East Wall; the applicant’s proposed temporary closing of a lane on the West Road to

facilitate the construction of the new West Road Rail Bridge; the applicant’s proposed



temporary possession of the public road at Malachi Place and Blythe Avenue in East Wall;

temporary possession of part of the public road at the western end of 1-6 Mayor Street in

the Docklands; objection relating to the impact of proposed temporary possession of Park

Lane and Mayor Street on the development of Spencer Dock and businesses in the area;

objection to the temporary possession of unoccupied dwellings at Bass Place; objection to

the temporary possession of public lands adjacent the side entrance to No. 35 Upper Erne

Street; objection to the temporary possession of the Wheaton Court car park in Inchicore

Railway Estate; objection to temporary possession of lands to the south of St. Georges

Villas, Railway Estate, Inchicore; and, objection to temporary possession of lands at

Sherlings Group (Steelworks) on Kylemore Way, Inchicore.

Right across the entire route there have been several objections to the applicant’s proposed

permanent acquisition of sub-stratum lands. These include, inter alia: objections relating to

impact on possible future development potential of lands over the sub-stratum to be

acquired; implications for future basement construction; nil value on sub-stratum land;

increased cost on home insurance; impact on value of homes above tunnels; and, ability to

install geothermal heating systems at some stage in the future.

Objections to permanent acquisitions include: an objection to the acquisition at Coady’s

Yard (Rory O’Meara), East Wall; the acquisition of lands in Spencer Dock and North Wall

Yard (Spencer Dock Development Company Ltd.); the acquisition of lands at Bass Place shaft

site and the Pearse DU site (O’Callaghan Hotels & Associated Companies); the acquisition of

lands in St. Stephen’s Green; the acquisition of lands at the proposed Island Street shaft site

(Flancrest Enterprises Ltd.); and, the acquisition of lands at Sherlings Group (Steelworks) on

Kylemore Way, Inchicore.

The acquisition of lands at Coady’s Yard in East Wall is required to facilitate the

realignment of the West Road/Ossory Road, the relocation of the West Road Rail

Bridge and the construction of the OCC building.

The acquisition of lands at Spencer Dock is required for the construction of the

Docklands Station at this location. The acquisition of lands in the North Wall Yard

(also referred to as North Spencer Dock by the objector) is required for the

construction of the TBM launch chamber, tunnel portals, tunnels’ approach cut and

cover element, an intervention shaft, the Maintenance Facility Building and ESB sub-

station.

The acquisition of property at Bass Place is required for the construction of the

intervention/ventilation west shaft serving the Pearse DU station.

The acquisition of lands at St. Stephen’s Green is required for infrastructure

facilitating the underground station at this location.



The acquisition of property at the Island Street/Bridgefoot Street is required for the

construction of an intervention shaft at this location.

Lands being acquired at Sherlings Steelworks are required to construct the access

road into the proposed Inchicore Station, it will entail the demolition of the eastern

end of the Sherling premises.

I have considered all objections made in relation to the proposed acquisitions of lands and

rights in, over or under roads specified in the draft order.

7.4 Assessment of Proposed Acquisitions and Possessions

7.4.1 Purpose of the Acquisitions

The applicant is acquiring the lands to construct, operate, improve and maintain the Dart

Underground which is an underground electrified heavy railway from CIE Inchicore Railway

Works to tie into the Northern mainline south of East Wall Road, north of Docklands area. I

am satisfied that CIE are acquiring the lands for the purpose of delivering the Dart

Underground and for no other purpose, I am also satisfied that the delivery of this rail

infrastructure is a statutory function of CIE with reference to Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act 2001 (as amended and substituted by the Railway Safety Act 2005, the

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, the Local Government (Roads

Transport Act) 2007, the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 and the Public Transport

Regulation Act 2009).

7.4.2 Community Need

The proposed Dart Underground, if constructed, will be a realisation of adopted National,

Regional and Local planning and transportation policies. It is referred to in several policy

documents relating to planning and transportation policy for the Dublin area as outlined in

Section 2 ‘Policy Context’ of this report. Its delivery is fully supported by Dublin City Council

and complies with the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-

2017. It has been, in my opinion, accurately described as the ‘missing link’ in the rail

infrastructure serving the city and the Greater Dublin Area. Its delivery will have substantial

benefits locally, regionally and indeed nationally. I am in no doubt that there is considerable

community gain in the delivery of this much needed strategic piece of infrastructure.

Acquisition of the lands as proposed by the applicant is required to deliver this

infrastructure in my opinion. The common good is served by the proposal.

7.4.3 Proportionality, Suitability of the lands and alternatives considered

The applicant did consider several route options over the course of developing the scheme

that is now before the Board, not only were alternative routes considered but so too were



alternative sites considered for such parts of the DU as the station boxes, shafts,

substations, traction stations, access routes and ancillary structures such as the OCC

building and the Maintenance building required for the operation of the DU.

The lands the applicant seeks to acquire are suitable for the intended purpose of delivering

the DU. The quantum of land been acquired is not excessive and is proportional to

construction requirements, in my opinion. The area of the sites are kept to a minimum, the

use of the ‘top-down’ construction approach where possible is demonstrative of that, as is

the limits being imposed on the maximum working area as contained within Article 6 of the

draft RO.

As indicated previously in this report allowance has been made for possible future

development over DU structures such as the tunnels, stations (e.g. Docklands and Pearse)

and shafts (e.g. Docklands North shaft, Bass Place and Island Street). The elements that

make up the DU across the city are necessary e.g. the shafts are required for

ventilation/access/egress purposes, the number and location of shafts are dictated by, inter

alia, fire safety requirements. No occupied dwelling is being demolished to facilitate the

scheme.

7.4.4 Sub-stratum acquisition

In relation to the concerns raised about the nil value being place on sub-stratum below 10

metres I would note that this is as contained in s.38 of the Planning & Development

(Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and, in any event, compensation is not a matter for the

Board (I would note that s.38 does not mean that all land below 10 m is valued at nil).

Acquisition of the sub-stratum does not automatically mean that property owners above

cannot develop their lands to include such installations as basements or geothermal heating

systems, although there may well be greater demands put on engineering design solutions

where such developments are being proposed. Notwithstanding concerns relating to

possible impact on home insurance costs, property value etc. there is a considerable

community need and common good being delivered by the DU proposal.

7.4.5 Access to homes and businesses

In relation to concerns about temporary possession of roads and footpaths and implications

for access to homes and properties, I note that the applicant has indicated that access to

homes and properties will be facilitated during the construction period (ref: s. 17.13 of

Book3, Vol. 2 of the EIS). Alternative arrangements will be provided where private car parks

are being temporarily acquired.

I would note that, although compensation is not a matter for the Board, compensation is

payable, where appropriate, in respect of such things as severance, injurious affection and

disturbance.



7.4.6 Notice to Treat

Article 16 of the draft RO reads as follows:

“Period within which the Railway Undertaking may Compulsorily Acquire Land and Interests in Land 1. The powers conferred by this Order to acquire compulsorily land or rights in relation to land and to enter upon and take up temporary possession of land shall cease at the end of the period of ten (10) years beginning on the day upon which this Order comes into force

2. The power to acquire compulsorily land or rights in relation to land shall, for the purpose of this Article, be deemed to have been exercised where Notice to Treat has been served in respect of such land or rights before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article.

3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, the Railway Undertaking shall be entitled to remain in temporary possession and occupation of land pursuant to Article 12 of this Order after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article where possession of such land was taken before the end of such period.”

The 10 year Notice to Treat period as contained in Article 16 of the draft RO gave rise to

much discussion and legal debate in the Oral Hearing.

It was held by those opposing the 10 year Notice to Treat period that there is no legal basis

or framework to impose such a 10 year period. They held that the period must not exceed

18 months having regard to s.217(6) of the Planning & Development Acts. They held that

the imposition of a 10 year Notice to Treat would be contrary to the constitutional

protection given to property rights, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights

and contrary to the European Charter on Fundamental Rights. It was held by some

opposing the 10 year period that it was a gross interference with property rights, that it was

disproportionate and that it would be ultra vires the powers of the Board to impose such a

Notice to Treat period. To support the arguments against the 10 year Notice to Treat period

reference was made to both Irish and European case law. A critical concern for many of

those directly impacted by draft Article 16 was that even after the 10 year period was up,

there was no guarantee that compensation would be paid as the RO might not have been

enacted. The objectors are concerned that given the current economic climate and, inter

alia, the Government’s Four Year Plan statement issued in 24th November 2010, that, as one

objector put it, a ‘sword of Damocles’ could hang over the affected properties for 10 years,

effectively prohibiting the owners from either developing or selling the property, and then

at the end of the 10 year period no Notice to Treat is initiated and hence no compensation

payable.



The applicant held that the 10 year Notice to Treat is allowed for in the Transport (Railway

Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended.

I understand that previous Railway Orders in relation to various Luas lines, and subsequent

extensions, allowed for Notice to Treat periods of 5 and 6 years. I note that the Board

confirmed a 10 year Notice to Treat period in relation to the Metro North RO. I also

understand that CIE were granted Railway Orders previously that allowed for Notice to

Treat periods greatly in excess of 18 months.

As the precedent already exists for Railway Orders with associated Notice to Treat periods in

excess of 18 months, and as I am not aware of any court decision finding such Notice to

Treat periods to be legally unsound, I therefore do not recommend that the Board alter

draft Article 16. However, I would accept that the 10 year Notice to Treat period could be

considered a significant imposition on affected property owners if no compensation is paid

at the end of the period, in that regard, I would recommend that the Board give

consideration to seeking its own legal opinion or direction on the matter before issuing a

decision.

Should the Board reduce the period to 18 months they would also need to consider the

implications this would have for the Railway Order i.e. it could effectively render it useless

having regard to the Government’s Four Year Plan statement issued in 24th November 2010,

the RO would have to be enacted within 18 months. Furthermore, an 18 month period

could result in lands been acquired that may not be required for the scheme as this can only

be determined in some cases at the detailed design stage or even at on-site construction

stage e.g. exact location for ground anchors or grouting is not known at Reference Design

stage. Imposing an 18 month period on infrastructural projects of this scale would be

problematic and possibly unrealistic, in my opinion.

Ultimately this disagreement on the 10 year Notice to Treat is, in my opinion, a dispute on a

matter of law.

7.5 Recommendation on Proposed Acquisitions and Possessions

I recommend that should the Board grant the RO it should also confirm the compulsory

acquisition of land as sought by the applicant but I also recommend that the Board give

consideration to seeking its own legal opinion or direction specifically on the 10 year Notice

to Treat period being sought under draft Article 16.

8 Conclusion and Recommendation

Given the scale, nature and location of the Dart Underground proposal, it is inevitable that

there will be impacts, especially during the construction phase for those properties adjacent



the surface sites and above the proposed tunnels. However, the impacts have been

identified and assessed and appropriate mitigation measures proposed. Subject to

compliance with those mitigation measures and subject to compliance with the conditions

recommended hereunder, the impacts can be kept within acceptable levels. However,

there will be residual impacts, in my opinion.

There will be a significant negative permanent impact on the cultural heritage of the city by

reason of the loss of a number of historic rail-related structures in the CIE Inchicore Works.

There will be negative impacts on those retail and restaurant outlets that will have to close

to facilitate the construction of the Dart Underground station within the existing Heuston

Station. There will be localised site-specific ‘planning blight’ at the following sites should the

Railway Order be granted but not acted upon: the Island Street shaft site; the Bass Place

shaft site; the Docklands Station site; and, Coady’s Yard in East Wall. There will be a

medium term negative impact on the character of St. Stephen’s Green North given the

proposals to clear a number of mature deciduous trees to facilitate the shaft at that

location.

Nevertheless, considering the benefits accruing the city, region and country, from the

proposed Dart Underground, these negative impacts are far out-weighed by the positives.

There will be long term positive impacts arising from the delivery of this strategic

infrastructure.

The Dart Underground has been long recognised as the missing link in the existing heavy rail

infrastructure in the city. This deficit was first identified as far back as 1971 in the Dublin

Transportation Study and the delivery of a rail interconnector through the centre of the city

has been advocated and supported in a number of studies, strategies, plans and polices

since then (as outlined in s. 2 and s. 5.1.1 of this report). The proposal before the Board

complies with a number of current national, regional and local statutory plans and

strategies. A key yield from the Dart Underground will be the greatly improved utilisation of

an existing infrastructure as it will connect up the existing disconnected rail lines that

radiate from the city.

The Dart Underground is already overdue by some 40 years. I recommend the Board grant

the Railway Order subject to the conditions attached hereunder. I recommend that the

‘Agreed Position’ document between Dublin City Council and CIE be attached to the

Eleventh Schedule of the Order.

Reason and Considerations

Having regard to:

(a) the application for a Railway Order made on the 30th day of June 2010 by Coras

Iompair Eireann;



(b) the Draft Railway Order and documents submitted with the application, including

the content of the Environmental Impact Statement;

(c) the submissions made to the Board in writing under s. 40(3) of the Transport

(Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended;

(d) the submissions made to the Board in writing by the authorities and persons

referred to in s. 40(1)(c) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as

amended;

(e) national policy as contained in the provisions of Transport 21 which contains a main

objective to construct the Suburban Rail Interconnector providing a tunnelled link

between Heuston Station and the Docklands, via St. Stephen’s Green and linking

with the Northern line and the provisions of the National Development Plan 2007-

2013 which contains an objective to commence the Heuston Docklands

Interconnector;

(f) regional policy contained in the provisions of ‘A Platform for Change – Dublin

Transportation Office Strategy 2000-2016’ and the Regional Planning Guidelines for

the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022;

(g) the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, the Dublin Docklands

Area Master Plan 2008, the Docklands North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002 and the

Liberties Local Area Plan 2009;

(h) the written and oral submissions made by the observers and the responses by the

applicant (an oral hearing having been held into the Railway Order application which

commenced on the 22nd day of November 2010 and concluded on the 8th day of April

2011)

(i) the agreement between the applicant and Dublin City Council;

(j) the Construction Traffic management Plan which aims to minimise traffic disruption

for road users during the scheme construction, in co-operation with the road

authority (Dublin City Council), An Garda Siochana and other stakeholders; and,

(k) the likely consequences for proper planning and sustainable development in the

area in which it is proposed to carry out the Dart Underground works and for the

environment of the works,

and having considered the reports of the Board’s Inspector and the specialist advisors, it

is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the

development of the Dart Underground from Inchicore to East Wall via the city centre:



would provide adequate interconnection with existing and future transportation

systems enabling more sustainable travel patterns,

would not have unacceptable impacts on the environment from construction or

operation,

would not have an unacceptable impact on traffic safety or congestion, and

would not adversely affect the character or setting of any protected structure or

National Monument, and

would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of

the area.

Conditions (for the Twelfth Schedule)

Environmental Mitigation

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with all mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Impact Statement and as submitted by the applicant to the Oral Hearing into the Railway Order application except in accordance with the requirements of the conditions set out below. The limiting value or threshold of any particular criterion relating to Environmental Impacts, for both constructional and operation phases, shall be as stated in the conditions set out below or as submitted in evidence by the applicant to the Oral Hearing or as stated in the EIS (in that hierarchical order). These limiting values or thresholds shall be strictly adhered to and not “in so far as is reasonably practicable” as stated in the EIS.

Reason: To limit the environmental impact of the development, to avoid ambiguity when applying and monitoring limiting values and in the interest of clarity.

Environmental Risk Management

2. Coras Iompair Eireann shall retain responsibility for overseeing, updating and enforcing the environmental risk management programme throughout the development of the scheme.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development, and to achieve a high standard of construction, to provide a clear responsibility for the management of risk, and to ensure mitigation measures are fully implemented.

3. Environmental Risk Management, incorporating Instrumentation, Monitoring

Strategy, Monitoring Methods, Monitoring Framework and Actions/Responses to Observations, for the Dart Underground, for both constructional and operational stages, shall be as indicated by the applicant in the ‘Brief of Evidence – Risk



Management Concept’ submitted to the Oral Hearing into the Railway Order application on the 1st day of December 2010, ‘Brief of Evidence – Monitoring’ submitted to the Oral Hearing on the 14th day of January 2011 and ‘Oral Hearing Closing Statement’ submitted to the Oral Hearing on the 8th day of April 2011.

Reason: In the interests of clarity and to ensure that rigorous risk management shall be applied during construction and operation of the DART Underground.

4. The Observational method as outlined in EN 1997 (Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design)

shall be applied in the Detailed Design and mitigation measures implemented

without delay should unforeseen conditions be encountered.

Reason: In the interests of clarity, to ensure that rigorous risk management shall be applied during construction and operation of the DART Underground.

5. Monitoring of buildings, structures and installations shall be carried out on a regular

basis, results shall be viewed by experts with competence to evaluate and interpret the type of measurement. These interpreted results shall be made available to the public on a weekly basis.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development, to minimise structural damage to properties and to maintain good communication between property owners and the contractor.

6. Annual compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the operational stage.

Reason: To ensure that limiting values or thresholds of any particular criterion relating to Environmental Impacts for the operational stage are been adhered to.

Building Damage Classification

7. Condition surveys shall be carried out for buildings within the risk zone of settlement and vibration (subject to consent of the property owner), these surveys shall be carried out prior to, during and after completion of the Dart Underground.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and to minimise structural damage to properties.

8. Trigger levels of the monitoring scheme for building damage shall be set not to

exceed Category 1 for buildings/structures on the Record of Protected Structures and Category 2 for all other buildings. Should building damage corresponding to Category 1 for buildings/structures on the Record of Protected Structures or Category 2 for all other buildings occur an interim survey shall be carried out without delay. The contractor shall be required to modify or adjust the construction process to avoid any further damage. Changes to the working method shall be agreed with applicant and/or the Independent Environmental & Archaeological Monitor.



Reason: In the interest of orderly development, to minimise structural damage to properties, and to ensure a timely and effective response to any building damage problems during construction.

9. The contractor shall be required to engage the services of suitably qualified persons

in the field of architectural heritage protection in relation to the carrying out of surveys, installation of monitoring instrumentation, interpreting monitoring data and determining appropriate repairs of any damage caused for buildings/structures on the Record of Protected Structures. The Independent Environmental & Archaeological Monitor shall also include persons suitably qualified in architectural heritage protection.

Reason: In the interest of architectural heritage protection.

Property Protection Scheme

10. The structure and content of the Property Protection Scheme shall be as indicated in ‘Property Protection Scheme – DART Underground Oral Hearing’ submitted by the applicant to the Oral Hearing on the 19th day of January 2011. The applicant shall retain overall responsibility for the implementation and operation of the Property Protection Scheme throughout the lifetime of the DART Underground (construction and operation).

Reason: In the interest of clarity, orderly development and to minimise structural damage to properties.

11. The limit of €30,000 as stated in the above mentioned document in Condition 10

shall correspond to construction costs excluding VAT and shall be adjusted annually to reflect cost in the construction industry.

Reason: To clarify limit relates to cost of damaged caused and to take account of the 10 year period referred to in Article 4(2) of this Order.

Construction Aspects

12. Prior to the appointment of the selected contractor for the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) works, the contractor shall have demonstrated to the applicant sufficient experience in TBM work in ground conditions similar to those expected to be encountered in the construction of the DART Underground tunnels (i.e. mixed face, boulder clay). The required experience shall be verified by the applicant prior to the contractor’s appointment.

Reason: Having regard to the complicated nature of the tunnel boring works involved and the mixed face ground conditions in the area, it is considered reasonable to apply such previous experience so as to ensure utmost care in the



execution of the works in the interests of public safety, property protection, environmental protection and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

13. A final determination on the construction method to be employed in the construction of the Docklands Station (i.e. secant pile walls or diaphragm walls) shall be made based on further ground investigations and monitoring required for the Detailed Design stage, the construction method chosen shall provide for the optimal level of water-tightness.

Reason: To provide for the protection of the groundwater in the area and the protection of existing properties in the vicinity of the Docklands Station and to ensure a proper standard of development in the construction of the station at this location.

14. All sub-surface construction works shall be planned, carried out and monitored in

compliance with Eurocodes Execution Standards: ‘Execution of Special Geotechnical Works’

Reason: In the interests of clarity and to ensure a proper standard of development.

Soils and Geology

15. The Detailed Design stage, to be carried out in compliance with EN 1997 (Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design), shall include, inter alia, the following: (i) a detailed assessment of the geotechnical and geological conditions within

tunnel sections and at locations of deep excavations (ii) investigations to determine occurrences of faults, zones of weakness and

weathering in rock, in particular, for areas where deep excavations are proposed and for mixed face tunnelling conditions

(iii) investigations to determine the rockhead level and rockhead conditions along and perpendicular to the Dart Underground alignment.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of development utilising the optimum construction methods that take full account of the geotechnical and geological conditions where tunnelling and deep excavations are proposed and to limit the environmental impact of the development.

16. The extent of contaminated ground shall be determined by detailed investigations of

all areas where excavations are proposed, these investigations shall be conducted prior to the commencement of excavation works as indicated by the applicant in ‘Brief of Evidence – Waste Management’ submitted to the Oral Hearing into the Railway Order application on the 17th day of December, 2010.

Reason: To limit the potential impact from contaminated soil and in the interests of clarity.



17. Potential obstructions and hazards including, inter alia, foundations, services, river

walls, historic brewery-related industrial tunnels in the Dublin 8 area and ordnances

relating to the North Strand WWII bombing event shall be identified and addressed

in the Detailed Design stage.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and in the interest of public safety.

Hydrogeology

18. The Detailed Design stage, to be carried out in compliance with EN 1997 (Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design), shall include, inter alia, the following: (i) A determination of permissible limits (threshold and limiting values) for

permanent or temporary groundwater level drawdown (ii) Identification of areas and depths of potential contamination of groundwater

and soil deposits (iii) A high degree of quality control during deep excavations relating to water-

tightness of walls/structures (iv) Mitigation proposals to protect groundwater quality and the hydrogeological

regime in the event of a flooding occurrence during the construction phase

Reason: To limit the impact from soil erosion and/or consolidated settlement caused by groundwater drawdown, to achieve a high standard of construction, to protect the existing geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area of the proposed excavations and to minimise structural damage to properties.

Geotechnical Impact

19. The Detailed Design stage, to be carried out in compliance with EN 1997 (Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design) shall include, inter alia, the following: (i) The inclusion of the following geotechnical and geological hazards in the

geotechnical risk assessment and management scheme: - variable and unexpected ground conditions (made ground and fill) - presence of soft, instable and compressive glacio-marine deposits - sand veins (interbedded as sandy laminations in boulder clay) causing dewatering

problems - gravel bed resulting in problematic groundwater inflows into excavation - contamination of ground and groundwater - high levels of methane - artesian or sub-artesian water pressure within glacial gravels - instability of shallow excavations in loose and soft ground (especially silty soils) - settlement of structures and installations in the ground (e.g. utilities) due to

tunnel construction



- settlement of structures and installations in the ground due to permanent lowering of groundwater

- ground movements (vertical and horizontal) of structures due to construction of deep excavations

- instability of excavations in soil due to fissuring and/or shearing of glacial clays - instability of excavations in rock due to discontinuities, fissuring rock and

weathered rock - variability of rockhead level or unexpected deviations from design assumptions - bedded limestone with interbedded shale resulting in stability problems - dip of limestone bedding - voids in rock formation (potential of karstic features) - high groundwater pressure at tunnel level - running sands in boulder clay - difficulties during tunnel boring in mixed face conditions - settlement of loose, granular soil layers induced by blasting vibrations - obstructions to excavations (made ground, boulders etc.) - inflow of water into excavations due to granular horizons - unexpected ground conditions - unexploded ordnance within soft or loose superficial deposits - consequences of archeological excavations - contamination of groundwater (ii) Consideration of the following construction-related hazards: - Construction of water-tight wall elements due to construction deviations and/or

obstructions - Seating of wall elements on blocks or fractured rock layers - Instability of excavations in rock due to unfavourable bedding planes - Leakage of groundwater in soil and fractured rock into deep excavations - TBM work in weathered rock and rock formations with potential faults - TBM work in mixed face conditions (soil-rock interface) - TBM work in deposits with layers and lenses of water-bearing sands - Wear on equipment (tunneling and excavation) due to presence of abrasive

ground - Obstructions in made ground encountered during wall construction (affecting

verticality of piles/panels and influencing water tightness) - Chiseling required to penetrate boulders and other obstructions - Draw-down of groundwater adjacent to excavation, due excessive pumping in

excavations (leakage through or below secant pile or diaphragm wall) - Difficulties with installation and/or retraction of ground anchors in hard rock - Implementation of ground treatment adjacent to tunnels and/or excavations (iii) Geotechnical investigations to include:

- Rotary open hole and core investigations - Cone penetration testing (CPT) and in very soft soils with pore

water pressure measurements (CPTU) - Laboratory testing to determine strength and stiffness of soil

layers - Piezometer installation



- Down-hole geophysical testing including MASW and/or seismic refraction method logging

- Contamination screening

Reason: To ensure that full account is taken of all geotechnical, geological and

construction-related hazards in the Detailed Design stage and to provide for more

detailed and factual information at the Detailed Design stage.

Vibration and Groundborne Noise

General

20. Limiting values stated for vibration and groundborne noise shall be based - without modification - on relevant British Standards, where applicable. The application of “change base criteria” shall not apply.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and to apply verifiable and accepted standards in order to minimise environmental impacts.

21. As part of the Noise and Vibration Monitoring (NVM) program, the contractor shall

be required to work out specific method statements for construction work which can give rise to significant ground vibrations. Field trials and tests shall be carried out by the contractor in advance of critical activities. Vibration levels shall be predicted and compared with measured values.

Reason: To provide for a comprehensive system of noise and vibration monitoring throughout the construction works phase.

22. Vibration measurements shall be carried out below and at ground level inside the

following vibration-sensitive buildings where access to these buildings is facilitated by the property owner: the Grand Canal Theatre (Grand Canal Docks), Trinity Biosciences Building (Pearse Street), Marconi House (Digges Lane) and Gaiety Theatre (South King Street). A detailed field measurement program shall be worked out by experienced specialists. All tests shall be carried out in cooperation with, or under supervisions by, the engineering team of the applicant and independent experts.

Reason: To verify the accuracy of vibration predictions and to ensure compliance with limiting values relating to environmental impacts.

Impact Criteria – Construction Phase

23. Vibration impact on humans is based on BS 6472-1:2008 Table 1. VDV levels proposed in the EIS are acceptable in principle as upper limits for the construction phase. During night-time, VDV levels shall not exceed: < 0.2 m.s-1.75 having low



probability of adverse comment. (This can be accomplished in many cases by field trials and modification of working methods with potential of causing disturbance.) Higher VDV values shall be accepted only for a short duration (less than 10 minutes) when unexpectedly difficult ground conditions are encountered.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and to ensure the scheme complies with international best practice.

24. When measured vibration levels from TBM works exceed 49 dB LAmax,S during night time, occupants of buildings shall be offered without delay alternative accommodation (or, if agreeable to the contractor and affected party, other form of mitigation). The threshold level of vibration monitoring during TBM operation night-time shall be 45 dB LAmax,S. When groundborne noise is predicted to exceed 45 dB LAmax,S during night time the contractor shall in cooperation with the Applicant work out an action plan to minimize ground vibrations. An attempt shall be made to modify the construction processes and phasing of work with the aim of reducing groundborne noise to values below 45 dB LAmax,S.


Impact Criteria – Operational Phase

25. Groundborne noise during night-time in residential areas shall not exceed 35 dBA.


26. Vibration levels shall not exceed VDV belonging to the category of low probability of

adverse comments: 0.2 to 0.4 m.s-1.75 (day-time) and 0.1 to 0.2 m.s -1.75 (night-time).


27. For Theatres and Marconi House: limits of vibrations and of groundborne noise

proposed in the EIS shall be modified according to the evidence given by the Applicant during the Oral Hearing. The EIS criterion of 25 dB LAmax,S shall be imposed as an absolute and upper limit according to the frequency distribution defined by the Applicant. The 25 dB LAmax,S criterion applies to 100% of trains. Field trials shall be carried out after construction of the tunnels to verify vibration propagation to sensitive receptors. An effort should be made by the Contractor to design the railway track to achieve a lower value than 25 dB LAmax,S.



Reason: In the interest of clarity, to protect identified sensitive receptors, to ensure

the scheme complies with international best practice and to apply rigorous,

verifiable and accepted standards in order to minimise impacts.

Airborne Noise

Construction Phase

28. Construction Noise Criteria:

Noise Level Criteria (Construction Noise level alone) at any Façade of a Normal Residence Monday to Friday 75 LAeq1Hr (0700-1900 Hours)

65 LAeq1Hr(1900-2200 Hours) Monday to Thursday 40 LAeq5mins(2200-0700Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive. Fridays 40 LAeq5mins(2200-0800Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive Saturdays 70 LAeq1Hr (0800-1500Hours)

60 LAeq1Hr (1500-2200Hours) 40 LAeq5mins (2200-0800Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive

Sundays & Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5mins (0800-2200Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive. Sundays 40 LAeq5mins (2200-0800Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive. Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5mins (2200-0700Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive. Noise Criteria at any Façade of any School or Place of Worship Monday to Saturday 65 LAeq0700-1900Hours

60 LAeq1900-2200Hours (For Schools during class) Sundays & Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5min(0800-2200Hours) Noise Criteria at any Façade of any Theatre or Cinema

Monday to Friday 75 LAeq1Hr(0700-1900Hours) 60 LAeq1Hr (1900-2200Hours) (Venue working hours)

Saturdays 70 LAeq1Hr (0700-1400Hours) 60 LAeq1Hr (1400-2200Hours) To allow for Matinees

Sundays & Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5min(0800-2200Hours)

Noise Criteria at the Façade of any Hotel or Guesthouse

Monday to Friday 70 LAeq 1Hr (0700-0800 Hours) 75 LAeq1Hr (0800-1900 Hours)

65 LAeq 1Hr (1900-2200 Hours) 40 LAeq5min (2200-0700Hour) To be Non Tonal & Non Impulsive Saturdays 70 LAeq1Hr (0800-1500Hours)

60 LAeq1Hr (1500-2200Hours) 40 LAeq5miins (2200-0800Hours)To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive



Sundays & 40 LAeq5mins(0800-2200Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5mins (2200-0800Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive Bank Holidays 40 LAeq5mins (2200-0700Hours) To be Non Tonal and Non Impulsive

Construction Noise Criteria in the case of percussive tools:

There shall be no usage of percussive tools, which are audible at any noise sensitive receptor, for the following periods:

Mondays to Fridays from 2200 to 0700 hours (save for Hotels & Guesthouses where the period shall be from 2200 to 0800 hours)

Saturdays from 0000 to 0800 hours and from 1500 to 2400 hours (save for Theatres or Cinemas where the period shall be from 1400 to 2400)

Sundays and Bank Holidays – at any time.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties

Operational Phase

29. Operational Noise Criteria:

(a) During the operational phase, the façade Rating noise level from all combined permanent Trackside Equipment, or Station equipment, including electrical equipment and any normally running ventilation fans, which are on at night (2200-0700 hours) , at any sensitive receptor, should not exceed the lower of 35 LAeq5Mins. or the lowest recurring night time ambient noise level LA905Min. during the night in any location.

(b) Night noise should be Non-tonal and non-impulsive. (c) The LA905mins increase, due to all fixed Dart Underground plant, shall not exceed 3

dBA at any location.


30. The noise emissions from the Maintenance Facility in the North Wall Yard, when measured at any residence, shall be no greater than 40 LAeq5mins between the hours 2200 and 0700, and likewise on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and there shall be no tonal or impulsive content in any such noise emissions at these times. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit to and agree in writing with Dublin City Council detailed site-specific mitigation measures indicating compliance with these limiting values, or alternatively, a Railway Order Application shall be made for the relocation of the Maintenance Facility and associated rail sidings.




Traffic and Transportation

31. The traffic calming measures proposed at the junction of Abercorn Road/Church

Street East, Dublin 3 (as indicated in Plan Nos. DU-RO 106 A-B and DU-MC 106 A-B

11 submitted with the Railway Order application on the 30th day of June, 2010) to

deter access to/from the Maintenance Facility via Church Street East shall not be

permitted. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit

to, and agree in writing with, the Planning Authority alternative traffic calming

proposals (e.g. signage)to deter access to/from the Maintenance Facility entrance via

Church Street East.

Reason: It is considered that other viable methods of controlling the access route

to/from the Maintenance Facility are available that will lessen impacts on the

established residential developments along Abercorn Road and Church Street East.

St. Stephen’s Green

32. Prior to the commencement of development the final design and finishes of the

enclosures to all above ground structures within St. Stephen’s Green shall be agreed

in writing with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local

Government, the Office of Public Works and Dublin City Council.

Reason: To protect the architectural heritage and visual amenity of St. Stephen’s

Green, a National Monument.

33. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall obtain the written

agreement of the Rail Procurement Agency for the construction, maintenance and

operational interfaces between the Metro North and the DART Underground at St.

Stephen’s Green.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development, the proper planning and sustainable

development of the area and environmental risk management.

The Eleventh Schedule: Agreement titled “By reference to the letter submitted by

Dublin City Council dated 17th August 2010 to An Bord Pleanala, the following is the agreed

position of Dublin City Council and Iarnrod Eireann, following further discussions arising from

the issues raised”

_________________

Tom Rabbette Senior Planning Inspector

8th November 2011

NA0005 - Inspector's Report (Main)

Documents

Transcript of NA0005 - Inspector's Report (Main)