Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
— village November - December 2009
–
A proposed new port for Dublin, in Drogheda, poses issues of propriety,
archaeology, wildlife and the national piecemeal approach
to environmental assessment.
r u a d h á n m a c e o i n
Planning – Shifting Dublin Port
The rocks on the beach are remains of neolithic tombs swept away by coastal erosion. The mounds on the horizon are smaller-
scale passage graves like Newgrange’s.
A view of the future? Photomontage of the new Bremore
village_oct_09.indd 64 27/10/2009 15:39:38
provides for the
€ million development of a colossal new
deepwater port at Bremore, by the Drogheda
Port Company. The apparent intention for the
port at Bremore is to cream-off high-earning
container imports from Dublin port. This is
to be a joint venture between Drogheda Port
Company (DPC) at % and Castle Market
Holdings at %. Castle Market is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Real Estate Opportunities,
of which Treasury Holdings is the major-
ity shareholder. The Drogheda Port bound-
ary extension of the harbour limits would
give effect to a new corridor extending from
Drogheda into the Irish Sea and reaching back
to land at Bremore in north County Dublin,
and Gormanston in south County Meath.
Effectively this is an entirely new port, km
south of the existing Drogheda harbour.
On July th , a small notice
appeared in the Drogheda Independent,
indicating a request by the Drogheda Port
Company to Minister for Transport, Noel
Dempsey, to extend the harbour limits. The
file – the DPC’s proposed plan of the bound-
ary extension - was to be made available for
public inspection at Drogheda Garda station.
This is highly irregular. In the normal course
of events, proposed land (which accounts for
a huge part of the extension) development
files are available in a local planning office
and online either at the local authority or An
Bord Pleanála websites. This lack of trans-
parency would have made it difficult for res-
idents from Dublin and Meath (whatever
about Louth) to have a fair opportunity to
examine the extent of the proposed area for
new development. Several trips by Village
to the Garda station to view the request,
evoked little or no knowledge of its existence.
However, the Drogheda Gardaí maintain the
file was always available for inspection. A
case then of now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t.
Responding to Dáil questions since raised,
Noel Dempsey said, “A public consultation
in respect of such orders is not a statutory
requirement”. The Minister did admit that
he has received a number of submissions
regarding the development from the public,
but unlike normal planning processes, there
is no procedure under which people can view
these submissions.
The Harbours Act contains surprisingly
sweeping new powers. Section enables An
Bord Pleanála to facilitate this and potentially
other harbour developments with Compulsory
Purchase Orders (CPOs). It states, “the func-
tions of the Minister for Transport… in rela-
tion to the compulsory acquisition of land…
are transferred to, and vested in, the Board”.
In July , almost exactly two years before
the introduction of the Harbours Act, An Bord
Pleanála engaged in a pre-application consul-
tation with Drogheda Port Company. The
purpose of such consultations is to identify
and eliminate loose ends that may otherwise
emerge as problems during the planning pro-
cess. The fact that pre-application consulta-
tions were in train means the plans were well
advanced. So… if and when a planning appli-
cation is made by the Drogheda Port Company
to develop a port at Bremore, will An Bord
Pleanála already have indicated that it is posi-
tively disposed to such a scheme? A spokesman
for the Bord told Village, “at no stage would a
developer be led to believe that a successful
pre-application process means that the formal
application would [also] be successful”. The
spokesman cited two cases (at Ringaskiddy
and Behan’s quarry incinerator at Rathcoole)
where pre-application consultations took place,
yet ultimately the applications were unsuccess-
ful. He said that simply because the Transport
minister might approve the new port bound-
ary, this does not mean that An Bord Pleanála
will automatically approve compulsory acqui-
sition of the affected lands.
A key issue with compulsory acquisition
is that where a CPO is put on a property, the
owner is primarily paid according to its
current use value (or income generated)
at the time of purchase - as opposed to its
potential development value. This means that
landowners can be paid the current market
value for agricultural land which is c.€,
per acre, although estimates of the development
value of the land at Bremore are way in excess
of that figure. Treasury Holdings has a history
of advantageous dealings with State bodies
including the Spencer Dock development in
Dublin’s Docklands, with CIE. Separately
in Dublin’s O’Connell
Street, in the course of
planning hearings into
Paul Clinton’s ‘Millennium
mall’ scheme, it emerged
that proposed compulsory
acquisitions by Dublin
City Council were based
on a map provided by
Treasury Holdings. It
then transpired that CPO
notices served on landowners were signed by
then City Manager, John Fitzgerald – except in
the case of Treasury Holdings. Treasury was
served with an invalid order signed by former
Assistant City Manager, Sean Carey.
Apart from concerns about the process,
there are other pressing issues with this
development. On a map, the selection of
Bremore-Gormanston might seem ideal – a
deep-water area located near major rail and
road facilities within close proximity to Dublin
- arguably the ideal place to build a harbour.
But there are substantial archaeological and
environmental concerns that have not yet been
adequately broached by the developers in the
public domain. The proposed extension of the
predominantly maritime area of control by the
Drogheda Port Company includes a stretch of
coastal land including the legally-protected
Bremore Passage Tomb Cemetery, elements
of the area of the Gormanston Passage Tomb
Cemetery, the unclassified monument in
the intermediary townland of Knocknagin,
and the mid-th century Newhaven (in the
townland of Bremore). As with Tara, it is likely
the landscape is rich in other less visible sites
also. According to archaeologist Mark Clinton
of An Taisce’s Antiquities Committee, there is a
cemetery of five tombs on the Dublin side of the
site, with the sites of four others on the Meath
side and, “the likelihood is that the builders
of these tombs were the near ancestors of
those who built the nearby world-acclaimed
tombs of Brú na Bóinne”, one of the largest
and most important prehistoric megalithic
sites in Europe.
Dr Clinton told Village that, “the two
cemetery complexes must be considered
within the greater context of other passage
tombs nearby at Knowth, Dowth, and
Newgrange”, and also that, “it would be
more appropriate that the World Heritage
Site of Brú na Bóinne be extended to include
the Bremore-Gormanston complexes, rather
than Drogheda Port extended to include
“In terms of archaeological
importance, Bremore is
comparable with Tara”
village_oct_09.indd 65 27/10/2009 15:39:38
— village November - December 2009
Planning
them. In terms of archaeological importance,
Bremore is comparable with Tara: Tara
started with a passage tomb [known as]
The Mound of the Hostages, and developed
over different periods; likewise the Bremore
tombs would appear to be the start of the Brú
Na Bóinne. The parallel is clear - no Mound
of the Hostages, no Tara; no Bremore, no
Newgrange”. Dr Clinton’s concerns have been
endorsed by other archaeologists. According
to Professor Gabriel Cooney of UCD, “there
is agreement across the archaeological
community that if they were bulldozed it
would be a national loss, given the number
of sites we know, the potential significance of
them, and the fact there’s a complex of them”.
Cooney’s concerns are backed by Ireland’s
leading expert on the Neolithic period,
archaeologist Professor George Eogan of UCD,
who has said that the “Megalithic cemetery
dates from , BC and has been written
about for well over
years”. Professor Eogan
also notes the mounds
in the site are legally
protected under the
National Monuments Act
o f .
As well as heritage
concerns, there are sig-
nificant wildlife issues.
A large part of the pro-
posed site is designated
a Special Protection Area
(SPA) for certain species of birds that nest and
feed there such as the Oystercatcher, Ringed
Plover, Golden Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Black-
headed Gull, and Herring Gull. According
to Ian Lumley of An Taisce, the River Delvin,
which runs through the middle of the site, also
provides, “a habitat to Salmon and Seatrout
and the area also provides a home to the Helix
Pisana – a rare white snail”. And he raises con-
cerns about the simple loss of amenity for visi-
tors of this attractive beach area. According
to Mr Lumley, the scheme requires environ-
mental assessments that have not yet been
done. He told Village, “An Taisce condemns
that yet again the Irish government authori-
ties are failing to comply with European law
requirements”.
Unlike Tara, which Green Party Leader John
Gormley accepted as a ‘done deal’ when enter-
ing coalition government, Bremore is clearly
on his watch. Moreover, rumour has it that he
has voiced his concerns privately to a number of
people – and given that he was notified by both
Dr Clinton and Professor Eogan, Mr Gormley
should be on top of the matter – yet this does
not appear to be the case. Dr Clinton said that,
“Gormley’s Department should have and should
still make it very clear that development at this
area is not desired, this is a black and white issue”.
The main opportunity for Minister Gormley to
speak out and act on this matter in keeping with
his Party’s mandate, would have been when the
boundary extension was proposed at the end of
July under the Act passed during Mr Gormley’s
time in office. However, despite the centrality of
Bremore to Mr Gormley’s office, there has been
no official comment to date from the Department
for Environment regarding the boundary
extension. No submission was made to the
Department of Transport by the Department
of the Environment, and an enquiry by Village
to the Environment Department regarding
their handling of Bremore, and the additional
query as to whether there had been inter-de-
partmental consultation, led to the following
comment; “there is not a requirement under the
legislation to consult with the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government
at this time”.
It was also stated by the Department of
the Environment that “the developers are in
pre-application consultation with An Bord
Pleanála as this is a Strategic Infrastructure
Development”. A press spokesperson from
the Department went on to confirm that, “The
department has had pre-application discus-
sions with the Drogheda Port Company and
their partners in the new port development, on
the archaeological implications of developing a
new port at Bremore/Gormanston”. According
to the same source, “an Environmental Impact
Statement is in preparation. It would be point-
less to say more until the EIS is complete”.
However, Dr Clinton disputes this appraisal
by the Department of the Environment, “They
are totally missing the point”, he said, “the
Strategic Environmental Assessment direc-
tive (SEA) makes it explicitly clear that a plan
or a programme that is likely to have a sig-
nificant effect on the environment requires a
full assessment, prepared and placed before
the public, prior to the advancement of [any
planning] proposal”. The planning procedure
continues to raise questions about the piece-
meal approach to planning in this country and
leaves questions as to whether Mr Gormley has
learnt the lessons of Tara.
Now: The rocks on the beach are remains of neolithic tombs swept away by coastal ero-
sion. The mounds on the horizon are smaller-scale passage graves like Newgrange’s.
“Dr Clinton disputes this
appraisal by the Department
of the Environment, “They are
totally missing the point”,
he said”
village_oct_09.indd 66 27/10/2009 15:39:39
