Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 559: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding Dublin Bay and the proposed 52 acre infill. [24627/05]

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 560: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will make public details given by the Dublin Port Company for consideration by him in relation to the ownership of the foreshore in Dublin Port; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24631/05]

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 561: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will reject the application made by the Dublin Port Company in March 2002 to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay under sections 10 and 13 of the Foreshore Act 1933 on the grounds that ownership of the foreshore cannot be established by the company and that three and a half years have elapsed since the application was made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24632/05]

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 562: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if the environmental impact statement submitted by the Dublin Port Company in connection with its application to infill 52 acres of Dublin Bay is satisfactory; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24633/05]

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 559, 560, 561 and 562 together.

Dublin Port Company applied in March 2002 for approval, under section 10 of the Foreshore Act 1933, for the proposed reclamation of an area of some 21 hectares in Dublin Bay. The port company made the application under section 10 on the basis that it owns the foreshore in question. Issues arose concerning the company's title to the area in question and these have been addressed in detail in correspondence between the State's legal services and the company's legal advisers. I understand that it is anticipated that the matter will be brought to a conclusion in the near future. If it transpires that the port company owns the foreshore in question, section 10 will be the appropriate basis for dealing with the application. Otherwise, the application would fall to be dealt with as an application for a foreshore lease.

An environmental impact statement, EIS, was submitted with the company's application and has undergone an initial evaluation by consultants engaged by the Department. It will be examined further when the legal issues concerning the foreshore in question have been resolved. Full consideration of the port company's application would also involve a process of public consultation comprising the making available of the EIS and other information concerning the application, and an opportunity for interested persons or bodies to make submissions or observations on the proposal.

The proposed development will also require planning permission, and Dublin Port Company has been advised that it is more appropriate that the necessary consent under the planning process be obtained before the foreshore application is dealt with. This is in accordance with normal practice where a substantial development wholly or partly on the foreshore requires planning permission. Dublin City Council, which is the appropriate planning authority for the area, has been advised that there is no objection to the making of a planning application for the proposed development. It was, however, made clear that there was no commitment to grant the foreshore consents for the development and that the application would have to be fully considered in the normal way.