Port told it must seek planning permission

The Dublin Port Company must seek planning permission for its controversial plan to reclaim 52 acres of the north bay, according to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

The advice, which follows legal opinion on the interpretation of the Planning and Development Act 2000, reverses the position that obtaining the Minister's consent was all that was required.

It has been greeted as a major step forward by the Dublin Bay Watch, a voluntary group formed to protect what remains of the bay.

The Dublin Port Company controls 888 acres of land but maintains it needs an additional 52 to cope with expanding traffic.

The company's plan follows the withdrawal of a 1999 application after the then minister for the marine, Mr Fahey, made it clear he would not consider it because the accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS) was seriously flawed.

The plan was reactivated, with a revised EIS, on the basis that even the present throughput of the port, at 21 million tonnes a year, is well ahead of projected levels and way beyond what it can manage.

However, Dublin Bay Watch claims the proposed extension of the port would destroy a water amenity and wildlife habitat.

It points out that while Dublin Port handles nearly half the throughput of 43 million tonnes nationally, a KPMG study found that 38 per cent of its ro-ro (roll-on, roll-off) traffic in imports and 54 per cent of ro-ro exports are destined for or originate in the Dublin area.

Dublin Bay Watch also claims the infill would overshadow the Clontarf seafront, Bull Wall, Dollymount beach and the Royal Dublin golf course which, apart from Howth, constitute the only seafront amenity in the north-east of the city.

It maintains further that a major expansion of the port would run counter to policy of spreading development to other parts of the State.

The Department's advice to the Dublin Port Company has been welcomed by Mr Gerry Breen, chairman of Dublin Bay Watch, who said those who wish to protect the bay as a habitat and an amenity will be able to oppose the company's plans. "Although the fight to protect Dublin Bay is not by any means over, at least the future of one of the city's most valuable public resources will now be decided in the open and by the public."

The legal advice was sent from the Department to the port company on August 26th "in the interests of clarity and certainty". The letter points out that the relevant section of the Act came into operation on March 11th and as "the proposed reclamation had not commenced before then, planning permission must, by virtue of Section 225, be obtained".

The Department also advises that the Port Company must still get the consent of the Minister, Mr Ahern, before the project can go ahead.

This is bad news for the Port Company, which must now decide if it wishes to go through what is likely to be a hotly-contested Bord Pleanála hearing, that is likely to be an expensive and lengthy undertaking.

An alternative proposal, already mooted, involves a reorganisation of existing space on the port site, which could, it is argued, release up to 40 acres immediately. Further plans to relocate the oil storage facility to a site on the Dublin ring road could free another 100 acres, it has been suggested.