Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I raise a matter specific to my constituency of Dublin South-East but which has relevance to all constituencies as it pertains to the operation of a semi-State company, Dublin Port Company. Dublin port is a very important national asset and it is key to our economic recovery. If we as a nation are to do well, then it must also do well. It plays a very generous role in its community, financially and through other means. I have been to the port company and I have met the management. It is a very impressive operation with more than 4,000 people employed there. A total of 42% of the country's GDP goes through the port every year with 15 sailings every day between Ireland and the UK. The port is a vital strategic asset for this State and yet for nearly a decade it has ignored its obligations under the planning laws and has acted with something close to contempt in its dealings with local residents.

I will briefly outline the facts as I understand them. In 2002, three 30 metre high gantry cranes were erected in Dublin port on the south quay of the Liffey where Marine Terminal Limited operates. No planning permission was sought at the time for the erection or the operation of these cranes. The cranes are located in close proximity to a number of homes on Pigeon House Road. The cranes produce considerable noise pollution, often through the night, given the irregular operation of the port due to tidal considerations. The level of noise pollution has been shown to be in excess of both the World Health Organisation and Dublin City Council's noise pollution limits. This has had an impact on residents' lives. Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council have been made aware of this serious disruption on a number of occasions, beginning in 2004. More recent protests have come to nothing and it has come to my attention that the head of Marine Terminal Limited at the time the cranes were constructed is now the head of Dublin Port Company, the landlord for Dublin port. Dublin Port Company has so far failed to engage appropriately with the residents, taking the position that the cranes do not require planning permission and offering minimal gestures regarding mitigating the noise caused by the operation of the cranes. This year, residents gained confirmation through the section 5 planning process that the cranes are not exempt development and that they required planning permission for their initial erection. This now raises a number of issues regarding the operation of the cranes, one being the question of insurance. Still nothing has been done and the cranes continue to operate through the night and every day. Given the continued operation of the cranes, residents now feel compelled to take the matter to the courts.

This is not a question of a group of people moving close to a busy industrial estate and then complaining about the noise or the activities emanating from that site; this is about the expansion of a business, a semi-state company, without proper observation of the laws of the land and in a manner that has shown wilful disrespect for its long-established neighbours. It is not right that people can be treated in this way by any company, let alone a semi-state one. It is not right that the residents of the Coastguard Cottages now feel that their only form of redress is through the courts, through a lengthy and expensive process for which they may well lack the finances and at this stage, the will, to take on. Dublin port and its tenants have to do business and they have to do it as best they can if we are to prosper as a nation but they cannot do it by their own rules and oblivious to the lives of those around them. It is this kind of attitude at a national level and on the part of the previous Government that has brought us to the precarious financial situation in which we find ourselves today. Surely we can do better and we must if we are to honour the commitments and the pledges we made in the recent campaign and if we are to live up to the commitments stated so clearly in the programme for Government. We must meet the people's expectations of what politics is meant to be about and their expectations of what public representation is all about. They lack a voice and we are elected to give it to them. I urge the Minister to investigate this matter immediately as a priority and to use his good offices to help find a resolution for all involved to address the legitimate problems residents face on a daily basis near Dublin port and to put Dublin Port Company back in good standing in relation to the law and in its dealings with local residents. This is a semi-state company and therefore it is our responsibility.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for raising this matter and I will give him information regarding the issues he has raised. My Department has made inquiries of Dublin City Council on this matter and I am informed that the Marine Terminal Limited site on Pigeon House Road has a long established port-related industrial use dating back to 1975 or thereabouts.

Dublin City Council received a complaint in October 2010 that an alleged intensification of use had occurred at this site and that additional gantries had been erected some time in the past. I understand that this was the first planning complaint made about activities on the site. A section 5 planning referral under the Planning and Development Act 2000 was submitted to Dublin City Council on 10 February 2011 to establish whether the construction of three gantries erected in 2002 to the south of the site and the alleged intensification of use of the site constituted exempted development under the Planning Acts. The council concluded that the gantries referred to do not constitute exempted development and this was reflected in a decision taken on the matter by the city council on 9 March 2011.

I understand that the city council has formed the view that given the passage of time since the commencement of the development, it is statutorily barred under section 157 (4)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 from taking any enforcement action to secure the removal of the gantries.

Insofar as the intensification issue is concerned, this matter was considered in the section 5 referral by the city council but its decision of 9 March concluded that there was insufficient information submitted with the application to determine at that time whether intensification had occurred. The council was not in a position to take action in respect of the gantries on the basis of the evidence presented. While the file remains open, I understand it is not anticipated that any further planning enforcement action will be possible in respect of the current use of the site unless new information or evidence comes to light. However, there are existing specific legislative provisions for residents experiencing noise pollution. Section 107 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 provides local authorities with powers to require measures to be taken to prevent or limit noise from any premises, processes or works. The environment section of Dublin City Council is the appropriate contact point for reporting a noise nuisance of this kind. I understand that a recently introduced pilot scheme makes it possible to log an environmental complaint with Dublin City Council, on a 24 hours seven days basis, by phoning 1850 365 121. I also understand the council carried out an investigation in February 2011 on foot of noise-related complaints in relation to the site in question, during which noise levels of nine decibels above background were recorded. It is a matter for the council to consider what follow-up action is required in this regard.

It should also be noted that under section 108 of the EPA Act, it is open to any person or group of persons, including a local authority, to seek an order in the District Court to have abated any noise giving reasonable cause for annoyance. The procedures involved have been simplified to allow action to be taken without legal representation.