Port of Cork SDP Review Report- Final

8/3/2019 Port of Cork SDP Review Report- Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/port-of-cork-sdp-review-report-final 1/83

FINAL May 2010

Port of Cork Company

Strategic Development Plan

Review 2010

May 2010



STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINAL May 2010

Contents

Glossary of Terms and Documents

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 The Emerging Policy Framework 10

3.0 Drivers, Objectives and Requirements 13

4.0 Stage 1 Site Assessment 22

5.0 Public Consultations 29

6.0 Stage 2 Site Assessment 34

7.0 Analysis and Conclusions 48

8.0 Recommendations and Implementation 66

Appendices

Appendix A: Conceptual Development Plans



STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

FINAL May 2010

Glossary of Terms

Accompanied Freight ‐ Freight loaded on road going transport which is accompanied by driver

during voyage.

Break Bulks – Shipments of goods packed in separable units

Bulk Solids – Cargoes which are generally shipped in volume where the transportation conveyance is

the only external container such as animal feed, ore, or grain.

Bulk Liquids – The commercial transportation of liquids in large volumes

Chart Datum (C.D.) – The level of water that charted depths displayed on a nautical chart aremeasured from.

COMAH – The Control of Major Accidents Hazards Regulation 1999 are the enforcing regulations

with respect to any establishment storing or otherwise handling large quantities of industrial

chemicals of a hazardous nature.

CPO – Compulsory Purchase Order.

Draft – The draft of a ship’s hull is the vertical distance between the waterline and the bottom of the

hull (keel), with the thickness of the hull included. Draft determines the minimum depth of water a

ship or boat can safely navigate.

EIA – An Environmental Impact Assessment is a detailed study to determine the type and level of

effects an existing facility is having, or a proposed project would have, on its natural environment.

EIS ‐ An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a document which details the results of an

Environmental Impact Assessment

FTE – Full‐time equivalent is a way to measure a worker’s involvement in a project. An FTE value of

1.0 means that the person is equivalent to a full‐time worker.

Harbour Mobile Crane ‐ Rubber tyred mobile crane used for various lifting and transportation

operations including loading and unloading of containers, bulk, general and project cargoes

Lee CFRAMS ‐ Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management. Study

Lo Lo (Lift‐On Lift Off) – Loading/unloading of unitised cargo (containers), generally by shore ship

based cranes.

LPG – Liquefied Petroleum Gas is a flammable mixture of hydrocarbon gases used as a fuel in heating

appliances and vehicles.

Mafi ‐ Low loaded flat bed rolling cargo trailer system.




FINAL May 2010

NHA – National Heritage Area ‐ an area considered important for the habitats present or which holds

species of plants and plants whose habitat needs protection. A proposed NHA (pNHA) is one which is

published on a non‐statutory basis.

Quarter Ramp ‐ Angled & folding stern ramp which acts as a weathertight door of the vessel when

raised. The quarter ramp will often allow the vessel to berth alongside the quay without the need for

dedicated harbour facilities.

Ramsar ‐ ‐An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands, which

came into force on December 21, 1975. The Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance

includes approximately 2000 sites (known as Ramsar Sites)

RMG – Rail Mounted Gantry cranes are specialised yard container handling machines. An RMG

travels on rails to lift and stack containers within the stacking areas of a container terminal.

Ro‐Ro (Roll‐On Roll‐Off) – Loading/unloading by the vessel’s doors/ramps by a wheeled means of

conveyance.

RPG – Regional Planning Guidelines aim to give regional effect to the National Spatial Strategy and to

guide the development plans for each county.

RTG – A Rubber Tyred Gantry crane is a mobile gantry crane used for stacking intermodal containers

within the stacking areas of a container terminal.

SAC – Special Area of Conservation ‐ a strictly protected site designated under the EC Habitats

Directive. A candidate SAC (cSAC) is one which is currently under the review by the European

Community.

Ship to Shore Gantry Crane (SSG) ‐ Rigid steel gantry structures used for loading and unloading of

containers from berthed vessels, usually rail mounted.

Short Sea Shipping – The movement of freight mainly on sea while remaining in the same continent

without crossing an ocean.

SPA – Special Protection Area ‐ a site classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive.

These are classified for rare and vulnerable birds and for regularly occurring migratory species.

Stern Ramp ‐ Ramp from the stern of a vessel which facilitates loading and unloading operations

when the stern doors are open.

TEU – The twenty‐foot equivalent unit is a unit of cargo capacity often used to describe the capacity

of container ships and container terminals.

Unaccompanied Freight ‐ The freight trailer unit is transported onboard the vessel unaccompanied

by the driver or tractor unit.

Unitised Cargo ‐ Grouped cargo carried aboard a ship in pallets, containers, wheeled vehicles, andbarges or lighters.




FINAL May 2010

Glossary of Documents Referred To

Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future ‐ A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 ‐ 2020

Cork County Development Plan 2009 ‐ 2015

South West Regional Authority: Draft Regional Planning Guidelines, 2010 – 2022, 2nd March 2010

South West Regional Authority: Regional Planning Guidelines, May 2004

Cork Area Strategic Plan 2001 – 2020

Cork Area Strategic Plan – Strategy for Additional Economic and Population Growth ‐ An Update, 01

July 2008

COMAH – The Control of Major Accidents Hazards Regulations, 1999

Port of Cork Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2002

Port of Cork Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2002, Non Technical Summary, Feb 2002

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006

Foreshore Act, 1933, amended 1992

National Spatial Strategy 2002‐2020

National Development Plan 2007‐2013

National Competitiveness Council “Our Cities: Drivers of National Competiveness, Forfas, April 2009

Assessment of Port Service Issues for Enterprise, Forfas, January 2009

Stakeholder Consultation Issues Report, RPS Communications, March 2010

Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Plan Review Outline Strategy 2010‐2020, January 2010

Midleton Electoral Area Local Plan Review Outline Strategy 2010‐2020, January 2010

Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management. Study (Lee CFRAMS)



STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | CHAPTER 1

FINAL 1 May2010

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

1.1 This review of the Port of Cork’s Strategic Development Plan (SDP) has been undertak en in the light

of changing planning and transportation policies at National, Regional and Local level and follows

the refusal by An Bord Pleanala, in 2008, of a port facility development at Ringaskiddy. The Review

examines the future development of the cargo handling capacity of the Port of Cork in the context

of achieving a sustainable balance between the economic, social and environmental aspects of Port

operations while achieving an acceptable return on investments.

The Port of Cork Strategic Development Plan was originally published in 2002.

The review was carried out for Port of Cork by RPS and McCutcheon Mulcahy. Assessment of rail

issues was undertaken by Booz & Co.

Review Methodology

1.2 The basic steps of the review process are as listed below:‐

1. Review of Port Development Context,

2. Review of Port Objectives, Drivers and Influencing Factors

3. Review of Site Selection process

4. Stage 1 Assessment ‐ Short listing of feasible sites

5. Consultations with Stakeholders

6. Stage 2 Assessment ‐ Detailed assessment of shortlisted sites

7. Way Forward

This review has made reference to the various studies that were undertaken during the drafting of

the original Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2002. However where the results of such studies

cannot be considered to be relevant in the light of changed circumstances since 2002, new

corresponding studies were undertaken.




FINAL 2 May2010

Introduction to the Port of Cork

Role of Port of Cork

1.3.1 The Mission Statement of the Port of Cork Company is:‐

To Promote and Develop Cork's Natural Harbour as a World Class Port facilitating the Efficient

Movement of Goods and People to and from the Marketplace

This will enable the Port:‐

To Deliver to Future Generations a thriving Port Business with Modern and Efficient Systems and

Facilities

Port of Cork Company

1.3.2 Government Policy is to ensure that infrastructure and port services are provided in the maritime

and port sector to meet changing market demands in an effective, competitive and cost‐efficient

manner.

The objectives of the Port of Cork reflect fully the maritime policy and strategies of the Government.

Regionally the Port of Cork is a promoter of and catalyst for economic activity and is a key strategic

component in developing the overall competitiveness of the Cork Gateway and its hinterland.

As part of its remit the Port of Cork is obliged to fund all of its infrastructure and operational

requirements from its own resources and through partnerships with the private sector. Furthermore

as a commercial state company it is obliged, in seeking to expand its facilities, to follow all statutory

procedures under the Planning and Development and Foreshore Acts.

Port of Cork Facilities

1.3.3 The Port of Cork operates from a number of different locations and facilities within the Greater Cork

Harbour Area. There are four distinct public port facilities situated at the City Quays, the Tivoli

Industrial and Dock Estate, the Ringaskiddy, Deepwater and Ferry Terminals and the Cobh Cruise

Terminal. Locations are illustrated in Figure 1.1.




FINAL 3 May2010

Figure 1.1 ‐ Port Facilities in Cork Harbour

City Quays

1.3.3.1 For centuries the City Quays have handled

most of the trade of the port and, while

much of that traffic has now moved

downriver, this area continues to account

for a significant amount of its total cargo

ranging from cereals, animal feedstuffs,

fertilisers and coal to timber, magnesite

and salt. In addition, a small number of

medium size cruise ships, naval and

research vessels continue to call to the CityQuays.

The Port of Cork facilities at the City Quays

comprise a large number of individual

berthing facilities with a total length of

1276m, a navigational approach draft of

5.2 m and berth drafts up to 8.8m below

C.D.




FINAL 4 May2010

Tivoli

1.3.3.2 The Port's Lift‐on Lift‐off container

traffic ‐ door‐to‐door and feeder ‐ ishandled at the Tivoli Container Terminal

from where at least ten sailings per

week are operated to European and UK

ports. Some trade vehicles are handled

at this location as is the entire output of

zinc and lead concentrates from the

Lisheen Mine situated in Co. Tipperary.

Other traffic handled at Tivoli includes

chemicals, LPG, salt and olivine. The

navigational approach draft is 6.5 m andthe berth drafts range from 5.0 to 8.8m

below C.D.

Ringaskiddy

1.3.3.3

With a minimum depth alongside of

13.4 metres at low water, the

Ringaskiddy Deepwater Terminal, with a

total berth length of 485m, handles fully

laden Panamax size vessels (60,000 tons

deadweight). Most of the Port's

considerable trade in animal feedstuffs

is discharged here where there are

large‐scale private sector specialist

facilities.

It is here also that Grimaldi Euro‐Med Line's weekly roll‐on roll‐off service to and from the,

Mediterranean and Northern Europe is handled as well as regular calls by the Grimaldi West Africa

service. In addition, the Deepwater Terminal handles other bulk cargoes, such as molasses, cement,steel scrap, timber and p roject cargos.

Trade vehicles are discharged at both the Deepwater Terminal and the adjoining Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal where Brittany Ferries' service to Roscoff and the Fastnetline service to Swansea is

accommodated.

The facilities at Ringaskiddy are supported by a substantial and largely IDA owned land bank.




FINAL 5 May2010

Cobh

1.3.3.4 The Cobh Cruise Terminal is the only

dedicated cruise terminal in Ireland.Situated within a few hundred metres of

the centre of the picturesque town of

Cobh, it is capable of accommodating

cruise ships up to 340 metres in overall

length.

Other Privately Owned Port Facilities

1.3.3.5 There are in addition a number of other privately owned port facilities within Cork Harbour;

Whitegate ‐ The Whitegate facility comprises an oil delivery jetty serving Ireland’s only Oil Refinery.

The delivery jetty comprises two berths with lengths of 365.8m and 106.7m.

Passage West – This is a privately owned berth with a length of 274.3m located in Passage West.

Hawlbowline Island – Haulbowline Island houses the headquarters of the Irish Navy and comprises

a habour basin and jetty.

Rushbrooke – This location is operated by Cork Dockyard Ltd as a ship and boat repair facility.

Marino Point – This location was formerly an IFI fertilizer plant and has an existing jetty with a

length of 237m and a draft of 10m. The site has considerable back‐up land available. It is a working

assumption for this review that this site could be acquired by Port of Cork.

Port Of Cork Economic and Commercial Context.

1.3.4 The Port of Cork is one of two major national multi‐modal ports and is the second largest port in the

Republic in turnover terms; Turnover in 2007 was approximately €25 million with approximately ten

and half million tonnes of freight passing through the Port. There has been a decline in turnover

and throughput in 2008 and 2009 because of the economic downturn.

The concept of critical Gateway centres which are intended to provide access to the Irish economy,

is set out in the National Spatial Strategy The Port (along with the airport and the University) is one

of the three pillars supporting the concept of the Cork Gateway. Unless the Port can maintain its

international profile and market share the status of Cork as a Gateway and as a generator of

economic activity will suffer.

The contribution of port development to the drive for national competitiveness is highlighted in the

April 2009 report of the National Competitiveness Council “Our Cities: Drivers of National

Competiveness:

■ “in light of Ireland’s geographic location and our dependence on export markets, Ireland’s

commercial seaports and the services they provide are vital t o the country's prosperity”….




FINAL 6 May 2010

■ “in view of the long lead times for the delivery of air and sea port infrastructure and services, it

is critically important that we plan now to ensure that our cities are well positioned to meet the

longer term needs of business and citizens across the island” The Port of Cork commissioned the Centre for Policy Studies, University College Cork, to assess the

contribution made by the Port of Cork to the Irish economy in 2007. The authors, Dr Richard

Moloney and Dr. Aisling Ward, found that

■ The Total Contributions of all activities at the Port of Cork for 2007 include expenditure on

goods and services of €289.7 million and 1,796 FTE jobs.

The Direct Contributions of all activities related to the Port of Cork for 2007 include

expenditure on locally produced goods and services of €166.2 million and 674 FTE jobs.

■ 325,000 FTE jobs are related to trade through the Port.

■

In 2007 Goods Received by the Port was worth €6,645 million, while Goods Forwarded were

worth €17,763 million.

Port of Cork Customer Base

1.3.5 Port of Cork has undertaken extensive surveys in order to determine the geographic spread of its

main customer base. Surveys have been carried out at both Tivoli Container Terminal and

Ringaskiddy Deepwater Port.

■

94% of all trips from Tivoli are

within the Munster Region

■ 82% of all freight trips from

Ringaskiddy are within the

Munster Region

The origin and d estination of the Port’s

current Tivoli container customers is

illustrated in Figure 1.2.

In future it is expected that there

will be an intensification of trade

within the existing hinterland together

with some geographical spread. Figure 1.2 ‐ Tivoli Customers




FINAL 7 May 2010

Port of Cork ‐ Corporate and Social Responsibility

1.3.6 In addition to its primary commercial and economic remit, the Port Company has developed a

Marine Leisure and Recreational Strategy. The Port works both independently and with other bodies

in advancing various initiatives to develop and promote th e amenity value of Cork Ha rbour.

The Port is also endeavouring to foster more positive relationships with harbour communities

impacted by Port activities and to mitigate these by improved technology and operational

performance.

The Port has strengthened its commitment to the overall concept of sustainability, not just in

economic terms, but through the development of Environmental Management Systems, Climate

Change Initiatives and Carbon Footprint manag ement.

Because of its vibrant economic hinterland, its facilities and its geographical location on the south

coast, opportunities have been identified whereby more sustainable transport networks and

services can be facilitated through the Port of Cork. Such services could include additional direct

short sea services to mainland Europe and more coastal shipping services which could make a

significant contribution to ov erall national and European transport emission reduction targets.

Review Context

Strategic Development Plan 2002

1.4.1 The Port of Cork’s Strategic Development Plan 2002 established a number of objectives for how the

port’s infrastructure should develop in the medium term to suit the demands of the market. Its

major conclusions were:‐

i. Tivoli container terminal would reach its annual capacity of 180,000 TEU between 2005 and

2010. A new container terminal was recommended which could accept larger vessels than at

present. It was recommended that the Oyster Bank location should be the preferred location

for the container terminal however the Curlane Bank should still be retained as an option toprovide flexibility for future changes in the market.

ii. An additional facility would need to be provided in order to cater for City Quays traffic which

would have to be transferred if and when the City Docklands area was redeveloped. Some

intensification at the existing Deepwater Terminal at Ringaskiddy was envisaged in the short

term to accommodate any initial relocation. Relocated traffic could be accommodated at a

new facility at the ADM Jetty area plus there was a possibility of relocation of some cargo to

Tivoli post relocation of container operations.

iii. In the event that the Deepwater Terminal had insufficient capacity to cater for quarter ramp

vessels and associated storage an additional facility within the basin was identified.

A non‐technical summary of the plan was published in February 2002.




FINAL 8 May 2010

Changed Policy Context

1.4.2 This review is also undertaken in the context of changed circumstances since the preparation of theStrategic Development Plan in 2002.

i. There have been a considerable number of changes in planning and transportation policy at

National, Regional and Local level which must now b e taken into consideration

ii. Whilst the intervening years between the publication of the SDP 2002 and 2008 saw a strong

growth in throughput and turnover in the port, the volume of trade and revenue projections

from 2009 will need to be reviewed regularly in the context of the recent global economic

downturn

Bord Pleanala Planning Decision 2008

1.4.3 In November 2007 an application was made to An Bord Pleanála as required under the Strategic

Infrastructure Act for the development of a container terminal and multi‐purpose Ro‐Ro berth at

Ringaskiddy Deep‐water port and ferry t erminal.

This application was refused by the Board in June 2008 for two reasons:

i. That it would result in much of the port related traffic traversing the city road network, which

would adversely impact on the carrying capacity of the strategic road network;

ii. It would be unable to make use of rail freight carrying facilities in the future and would

therefore represent a retrograde step in terms of sustainable transport planning.

1.4.4 The planning inspector did acknowledge the need for the Port of Cork to relocate operations from

the existing facilities at Tivoli:‐,

“I fully acknowledge that there is economic and commercial need to move port‐related activities

from the Tivoli area, principally due to depth restrictions imposed by the construction of the Jack

Lynch Tunnel and width restrictions within the river. The Port of Cork must expand and must be

allowed expand and accommodate larger vessels if it is to remain internationally competitive, and to

continue to support economic development in the south west”,

and therefore this review must address the drivers for relocation whilst having due regard for the

issues which were raised at the previous oral hearing and in the subsequent inspector’s report.

1.4.5 An Bord Pleanála in their decision did accept the suitability of the Ringaskiddy location for port

related development with respect to key issues such as;

i. Noise – “In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s second recommended reason for refusal the

Board in relation to noise had particular regard to the pattern of industrial and port

development in the vicinity and having regard to the mitigation measures proposed

considered that a refusal for reasons of noise disturbance was not j ustified”.

ii.

Impact on Boating and Leisure Activities ‐ “the Board had particular regard to the

multipurpose use of Cork Harbour ranging from commercial shipping and industrial to small




FINAL 9 May 2010

craft sailing and local angling and considered that the development of port facilities at this

area would be acceptable provided other planning considerations were met and satisfactory

mitigatory measures for the leisure and boating activities were put in place.”

Review of Planning Application

1.4.6 Following the decision by An Bord Pleanála to refuse the application,, the Port of Cork undertook

comprehensive review of the application process and outcome. The aim of this review was to

comprehensively consider all of the issues pertaining to the current and future development of the

Port of Cork in the context of the An Bord Pleanála decision and to ensure that future Port of Cork

development proposals were the most appropriate in relation to the key planning, infrastructure;

economic; environmental, and social contexts.

1.4.7 A key outcome from the review was that POC should undertake a comprehensive review of the

Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2002, particularly in respect of the Port’s needs and objectives,

site selection and engagement with Stakeholders.




FINAL 10 May 2010

Chapter 2

The Changed Policy Context2.1 The policy context for port development has changed since An Bord Pleanala’s decision in 2008.

Current economic policy is to promote international competitiveness as a national priority by

pursuing economic as well as environmental sustainability. There is also a new transportation

policy (Smarter Travel1), which seeks to manage demand rather than continually increase road

capacity. The Smarter Travel policy also seeks to make to road freight transport more sustainable.

Regional and local planning, development and transportation policies are being revised to take

account of the new national priorities. The County Development Plan2

and the draft Regional

Planning Guidelines3 now give more explicit support for Ringaskiddy as the preferred location of

new port facilities to be a Ringaskiddy and also provide for strategic freight transport growth to be

accommodated through the targeted upgrade and improved management of the national road

network.

National Economic Policy

The new national economic policy is reflected in recent reports by Forfás and the National

Competitiveness Council (NCC) which have focused on the need to improve the competitiveness of

our main exporting sectors4. The NCC has identified the sectoral opportunities that can drive export

growth; the key competitiveness factors affecting them; and the sector‐specific actions which are

required to improve their competitiv eness. In the case of the marine sector, good internationa l sea

access coupled with effective internal connectivity is seen as a key factor in mitigating the impact of

Ireland’s peripheral location. Forfás and the NCC state that:

“In view of the long lead times for the delivery of air and sea port infrastructure and services, it is

critically important that we plan now to ensure that our cities are well positioned to meet the longer

term needs of business and citizens across the island.” (Our Cities..., page 9)

In terms of providing for a longer term framework to underpin national prosperity, Forfás5

states

that:

1 Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future ‐ A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 ‐ 2020

2Cork County Development Plan 2009 ‐ 2015

3South West Regional Authority: Draft Regional Planning Guidelines, 2010 – 2022, published 2nd March 2010

4 Driving Export Growth: Statement on Sectoral Competitiveness, December 2009, Forfás and NCC;

Our Cities: Drivers of National Competitiveness, April 2009, Forfás and NCC

5Sharing our Future: Ireland 2020 – Strategic Policy Requirements for Enterprise Development, Forfás July 2009




FINAL 11 May 2010

“Ireland needs to consider better sea links to the main markets, including those of the future in Asia

and South America, and to plan the necessary infrastructure for example, deep sea port facilities…”

(Sharing our Future..., page 117)

In addition Forfás6

states on page 3

“Provision of deeper water facilities: The increasing international shipping trend toward larger

vessels has clear potential to impact on the ability of Irish ports to continue to offer the current range

and frequency of services unless adequate deeper water facilities are provided. If deeper water

facilities are not provided in the medium term, this will lead to a reduction in the number of routes

and services to and from ports on the island of Ireland, and an increase in costs because of the

reduced capacity. A number of Irish ports, including Dublin, do have the potential to provide deeper water services. The proposed development by the Port of Cork at Ringaskiddy has the type of deeper

water levels that will be required to accommodate larger ships.”

The proposed development referred to above was the previous scheme developed for the Oyster

Bank.

Regional Planning Policy

2.3 The draft 2010 ‐ 2022 Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs) strongly support the development

objectives for the Port of Cork. Sustainable expansion of the Port of Cork is promoted in line with

the targeted economic growth of the region.

The RPG’s indicate that the issue of the transport facilities required to serve the port in the future is

to be addressed by the Port Company and the planning authorities. Once that has been resolved,

the most suitable locations for future port development should be designated in the development

and local area plans. Unlike the 2004 RPG there is no specific recommendation to promote the

expansion of rail freight to port facilities.

Sub‐Regional/Local Planning Policy

2.4 There is a change of emphasis in the 2008 Update7

of the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP). An Bord

Pleanala’s concerns regarding the impact of port traffic on the national routes and the lack of

potential for the future transport of freight by rail in the Ringaskiddy area are noted. However the

CASP no longer recommends specific policies to promote enhanced rail freight and concentrates rail

policy on the development of options for commuter traffic.

The CASP Update acknowledges that the maintenance of modern port facilities ‐ and the need to

release port related land in the Docklands and at Tivoli for mixed‐use development ‐ are “both

critical to the overall strategy for the sustainable development of the CASP area and to theachievement of the target populations for the City.” It recommends that the transportation issues




FINAL 12 May 2010

raised by the Board’s decision be considered carefully by the Planning Authorities, in conjunction

with the Port Company.

The County Development Plan has already been reviewed and a revised plan was adopted in 20095.

While acknowledging that there were issues to be addressed in relation to the traffic impact of port

relocation, the new County Plan includes the following specific objective:

INF 4‐1 It is an objective to support the relocation of port activities and other industry away from the

upper harbour on the eastern approaches to the city. Ringaskiddy remains the preferred location for

the relocation of these activities. The Council is committed to engage with the Port of Cork and other

relevant stakeholders in order to address the issues in relation to Ringaskiddy and, if necessary, give

consideration to possible alternative locations.

Policy objective INF 4‐1 indicates that the primary location for new port facilities will be Ringaskiddy.

The zoning, traffic and infrastructural implications will be addressed in the new Local Area Plans.

Transportation Policy

2.5 “Smarter Travel1, published in February 2009 sets out the new national transportation policy. As

part of this new policy the Department of Transport has established an All Island Freight Forum “to

consider issues relating to promoting sustainability and enhanced competitiveness in the freight

sector throughout the island”.

The policy framework will promote better management of the capacity of the national routes by

giving priority to strategic freight traffic and encouraging car commuters to use public transport. The

policy introduces a range of initiatives to enhance the sustainability of road based freight and does

not assume that a shift from road to rail is a p re‐requisite to improving the sustainability of freight.

Policy Assumptions

2.6 These recent changes in the policy context in relation to port development support the following

conclusions:

■

Good international sea access and effective internal freight connectivity are key factors inimproving national competitiveness and economic sustainability;

■ The draft Regional Planning Guidelines strongly support the relocation of facilities from the

inner harbour and make no specific recommendation to p romote rail freight;

■ The CASP Update report recognises that the release of port related land at the Docklands and

Tivoli is critical to the overall sustainable development strategy for the C ASP area;

■ The Cork County Development Plan 2009 identifies Ringaskiddy as the preferred location for

enhanced port activities;

9




FINAL 13 May 2010

■ The emerging “smarter” transport policies at national and local level will give priority to

freight traffic on the strategic road network and focus on demand management rather than

on preserving and/or increasing road capacity;

■ The investment programme for national roads will give priority to the upgrade N28 as it

serves a strategic employment area as well as the established car ferry and deep water

terminals at Ringaskiddy

■ Although the R624 is currently a regional rather than a national route it will be prioritised for

upgrade because it serves the metropolitan town of Cobh

■ The policies which will emerge from the All Island Freight Forum are likely to focus on

improving the sustainability of road based freight transport rather than promoting an

expensive and uncompetitive shift from road based transport to rail based freight movement.

■

The issue of rail connectivity for port development should be addressed by acknowledgingthat, while rail freight may be appropriate for specific trades, it will not be feasible or

competitive for the majority of port traffic




FINAL 14 May 2010

Chapter 3

Drivers, Objectives and Requirements

Drivers and Influencing Factors

Key Drivers

3.1.1 A summary of the key drivers influencing the provision of additional cargo handling facilities at the

Port of Cork are:‐

1.

The existing physical constraints in currently handling some of the larger vessels

simultaneously at the existing Tivoli Container Terminal and the critical operational

difficulties associated with the projected further increase in container vessel size and cargo

throughput.

2. The projected increase in trade volumes because of the significance of the Port to the Cork

Gateway, serving a large population base, with many significant customers and its

anticipated contribution to an expected national economic recovery and long term

competitive and sustainable economy.

3. National and Regional spatial and economic strategy to develop Cork as a Gateway and the

importance of releasing Port lands at City Quays and Tivoli; to facilitate the provision of high

density, mixed used development, ensuring that the projected population growth for Cork

could be delivered in a sustainable manner.

4. Changes in the trends of Port activities, which dictate a different nature of land banks to

support activities, including:

5. A trend to po rt centred logistics, requiring land banks adjacent to port fa cilities; and

6. Changing trends in car importation business with less likely requirements in future for as

extensive port based storage as heretofore.

These key drivers are placed in the context of:‐

■ The changed economic circumstances relating to competitiveness and funding provision that

now prevail and the significant challenges arising.

■ Difficulties in securing statutory approval for a new container terminal.

■ The key role of the Tivoli Industrial and Dock Estate in contributing to both the funding,

through it’s sale for mixed use development and the timing, of the delivery of new container

terminal facilities downstream, given the current state of the property market.

■

The emerging policy and planning framework at National, Regional and Local levels and thereduced role which rail freight may play as an element of overall sustainable transport policy.




FINAL 15 May 2010

■ Progress on planned national primary road upgrades which will reduce travel time between

the urban centres particularly Cork/Dublin.

■ The long lead time for the completion of construction and commissioning of Port facilities

having regard to the timeframe of the statutory planning approval process and the time

required for design and construction of th e facility

Anticipated Increase in Vessel Size

3.1.2 There is an increasing trend towards larger vessels both in the bulks and container fleets. For

example the proportion of gross tonnage vessels arriving into Ireland that was carried by larger

vessels (i.e. vessels sizes of 40,000 tonnes and over) has grown from 1.4 per cent to 12 per cent over

the period 1999 to 2008. The equivalent shares for the Port of Cork are 3.1 per cent and 8.5 per cent

respectively.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

P e r C e n t S h a r e

0 - 7,999 GT 8,000 - 39,999 GT 40,000+ GT

Figure 3.1: Proportion of Gross Tonnage by Vessel Size in All Irish Ports 1999 ‐ 2008

(Source: CSO)

The tonnage capacity of containerships, in particular, has grown the fastest of all vessel types, and is

expected to continue growing faster than other vessel types. Figure 3.2 illustrates the trend

towards larger container vessels visiting Irish Ports and Cork in particular over the period 1999 to

2008.




FINAL 16 May 2010

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

A v e r a g e G r o s s T o n n a g e ( , 0 0 0 T )

All Irish ports

Cork

Figure 3.2: Average Size of Container Vessel calling at Irish Ports 1999 – 2008 (Source: CSO)

The more significant trend from a commercial and development perspective is in vessels up to 8,000

tonnes gross tonnage. This illustrates the trend in the increase of Lo‐Lo vessel size serving Cork and

other Irish ports resulting in less ships but more cargo per ship.

Current Physical Constraints at Tivoli Container Terminal

3.1.3 There are a number of factors affecting the ability of the Tivoli Container Terminal to meet thedemands of the container trade in the future. These limitations primarily relate to the physical

constraints on vessel size due to the location of the terminal and are key factors in the need for the

development of new container handling facilities.

■ The overall maximum combined length of container vessels that can be handled effectively at

one time is 240 metres and this can be significantly less in some circumstances. While the

mix of vessels currently serving the terminal fall within this dimension, there has been a

number of occasions when this has been exceeded and delays have been experienced to one

or both vessels.

■

The maintained depth in the approach channel to Tivoli is 6.5 metres which means that onlyvessels with a draft of less than 6 metres can navigate without restriction. Generally, vessels

with a draft greater than 7 metres will be subject to delays. Depth can never be increased

due to the presence of the Jack Lynch tunnel.

■ Depth alongside at Tivoli is 6.9m CD in the eastern berth and 8.8m CD in the western berth.

Depending on the height of tide at low water, drafts at the eastern berth can be limited to

approximately 6.3 metres. The trend is towards vessels with a draft in excess of 7 metres and

a vessel at this draft could not lie afloat at all stages of the tide in the eastern berth.

■ The turning circle at Tivoli is 160 metres in diameter which allows vessels of up to 154 metres

to turn. The turning circle cannot be increased as it is bounded on the north side by the




FINAL 17 May 2010

quayside and on the south side by the Marina. A further limitation is that vessels greater than

135 metres in length cannot turn while there are other vessels on the berth.

Feeder container vessels with dimensions that are affected by the above constraints are currently in

service in the Irish trade and some negative effects are already being experienced. This significant

operational constraint rules out any expansion of navigational facilities at Tivoli.

Objectives

Overall Objectives

3.2.1 The overall goals of the Port of Cork in the context of the review of the Strategic Development Plan

are:‐

■ To ensure that the required multi‐modal Port capacity is in place in good time so as to

accommodate the short, m edium and long term needs of the Port’s customers.

■ To ensure that the facilities outlined in the review to the Strategic Development Plan are

sustainable, modern, efficient and flexible.

■ To ensure that the Port of Cork Company fulfils its role as a key player in the promotion and

development of economic activities in the region and in assisting the Cork Gateway fulfil its

full potential as outlined in the National Spatial Strategy.

■ To ensure that the Port of Cork Company remains a vibrant commercially successful

enterprise while fulfilling the Shareholder’s mandate.

■ To have due regard to the views of stakeholders and to keep them advised on the

development needs of the Port of Cork.

Review Brief

3.2.2 The following key points underpinned the brief which was developed for the review of the Strategic

Development Plan.

1. Containers ‐ Load On Load Off: To provide a dedicated container terminal in Cork Harbour

capable of ultimately accommodating up to three vessels up to minimum of 2,000 TEU

capacity. Such a facility must be independent of tidal considerations and be linked directly to

the main freight corridors. Pending the availability of such a facility in the longer term, short,

medium and interim solutions to the Port's needs should be developed.

2. Bulk Solids: To provide at either a single or multiple locations the appropriate facilities to

meet the needs of Port customers. This is an imperative, in any event, to facilitate Docklands

redevelopment.

3. Bulk Liquids: To work with customers, regulatory and planning authorities and other bodies

in devising a strategy to facilitate the relocation over time of Comah (Seveso) and other bulk

liquid trades in order to facilitate the redevelopment of Tivoli and Docklands.




FINAL 18 May 2010

4. General Cargo: To ensure that adequate lay down facilities are provided adjacent to berthing

facilities.

5. Docklands: To allow the port to play a leading role in promoting docklands redevelopment

while protecting the Port's key interests and assets and ensuring that alternative facilities to

those likely to be lost at City Quays are provided.

6. Marino Point: On the basis that the Port has an objective to secure the Marino Point site

alone or in partnership with others for port related activities the review proceeded on the

working assumption that the site would be available for consideration as a potential new

port facility.

7. Logistics: To afford the Port the opportunity to explore the development of a maritime

cluster on a land bank adjacent to port facilities which would offer wholesalers and retailers,

both maritime focussed or otherwise, the ability to locate distribution activities close to the

port site thus maximising portcentric benefits.

8. New Services: To exploit the Port's facilities, in the context of the Cork Gateways strengths,

needs and objectives and the Port's location, in the development of new and sustainable

shipping services out of Cork.

9. Future Proofing: To ensure that the revised Strategic Development Plan has sufficient

flexibility to adapt to changes in market requirements or technologies during the lifetime of

the plan

The brief excluded consideration of how the Port might meet its objectives in relation to the

development of the Cruise Liner sector.

Specific Requirements

3.3 With reference to the aforementioned drivers and objectives the following specific requirements of

the Port of Cork have been identified.

Anticipated Volume of Trade

3.3.1 The Ports updated Strategic Development Plan for the future will need to ensure that adequate

facilities are put in place in good time to meet the anticipated needs of the Port in relation to the

volume of trade to be handled by port facilities.

Port of Cork expects future increases in the traffic volumes associated with the Lo‐Lo, Liquid bulk,

Passengers and Ro‐Ro sectors while acknowledging that a dip in trade volumes has occurred in the

period 2008 – 2010.






FINAL 20 May 2010

Flexibility and Future Proofing

3.3.5 Any Strategic Development plan by its nature will be based on projections and assumptions with

respect to what may occur over the lifetime of the plan. As such the plan must be sufficiently

flexible to be able to be adapted to unforeseen changes which will inevitably occur. Such changes

could be related to various aspects of the Ports business including economic circumstances,

marketplace and customer requirements, port operating practices, advancements in technologies,

statutory requirements and the policy environment.

The choice of preferred site(s) for development will therefore be influenced by how flexible the site

might be in terms of how it may be developed for a variety of different trades, vessel sizes and

associated requirements.

Although projections have been developed up to 2030 the consideration of the provision of

infrastructure must also take into account that such facilities will most likely be required to be in

operation for a much longer life span possibly up to a 40 to 50 year horizon. As such when

identifying the most suitable development strategy due consideration must be given to the pot ential

for further future extension of facilities.

COMAH (Seveso) ‐Type Products

3.3.6 It is recognised that facilities to handle Seveso type liquid bulk products will need to be provided at

alternative locations in Cork Harbour if Tivoli and City Docklands are to be redevelop ed. Such

activities have particular requirements which are important in the selection of appropriate sites.

Competitive Operational Requirements

3.3.7 Future infrastructure developments must facilitate core port services which are efficient and cost‐

effective. It is an essential requirement that optimal port operations are capable of being carried out

albeit within the context of the constraints at particular sites.

Although fundability and affordability are outside the scope of this review such issues will largely

determine how and when individual plan elements will be implemented. Accordingly plans should

be flexible to accommodate adaption to future changes in requirements and in the context of the

degree of funding available.

In the provision port facilities and services the following key operational parameters must be

considered

■ Safe and Guaranteed Navigational Access

■ Minimum Constraints on Vessel Size

■

Flexibility to offer 24 hour Services, 7 days per week where required.

■ Proximity of Storage / Lay Down areas to Vessel Berths.




FINAL 21 May 2010

■ Modern Plant and Efficient Services to facilitate High Throughput and Speedy Vessel

Turnaround.

■ Integrated, Efficient and Sustainable Port Services.

■ Direct Access to a Quality Road Network to minimise Travel Time and Distance for

Customers.

■ Back up Land Banks, adjacent to port facilities, to accommodate Port Services, Logistics

Operators and Distribution / Warehousing activities.

■ Flexibility to accommodate Conventional and Specialist cargos.




FINAL 22 May 2010

Chapter 4

Stage 1 Site Assessment

Site Selection

Criteria for Site Selection

4.1.1 Sites to be considered in the review of the strategic development plan were identified by studying

the geography and coastline within the greater Cork Harbour area in conjunction with a number of

key criteria which were identified by reference to the main objectives of the Port of Cork. The keycriteria used were:‐

■ The site must provide access to deep water and have the potential to be deepened to at least

‐11m CD

■ The site must be adequately sheltered from sea and weather conditions

■ The site must be geographically within reasonable distance of existing port locations to

ensure effective communications and efficient operations

■ The site must be geographically suited to continuing to service effectively the main areas

associated with the Port of Corks current and existing customer base.

■ The site must be able to be linked to main transportation networks

■ The site must not represent a fundamental conflict with planning policy or environmentally

sensitive designated areas

Site Locations

4.1.2 Consideration was given to a number of scenarios for the identification of sites for consideration.

■

Existing port locations and Greenfield sites within Cork Harbour

■ Use of existing port facilities elsewhere

■ A Greenfield site on the coastline in the vicinity of Cork but outside the greater Cork Harbour

area

Based on an initial assessment of the criteria listed the following sites were identified as worthy of

further consideration. These locations are illustrated in Figure 4.1.

1. Marino Point / Foaty Channel

2. Marino Point Jetty and former IFI site

3. Cork Dockyard




FINAL 23 May 2010

4. ADM Jetty

5. Lands adjacent Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal

6.

East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin

7. Adjacent Haulbowline Island

8. Cuskinny Bay

9. Whitegate / East Channel

10. Curlane Bank

11. Dogsnose Bank

12. Aghada / East Channel

A Do Nothing scenario would have undermined the industrial and economic fabric of the Cork

Gateway. A site outside of Cork Harbour was not deemed viable from an operational, safety,

logistical or funding perspective.

The locations identified are generally

similar to those identified by the

previous SDP. This is to be expected as

selection criteria are fundamentally

similar to those that would have been

applied when the previous SDP was

prepared.

The previous SDP identified Dunkettle as

a site for consideration in the

development of land based port

activities. The Dunkettle location has

not been included in this review of the

SDP due to the significant constraint in

relation to navigable depth over the

Jack Lynch Tunnel. In addition, it is

probable that the adjoining Tivoli Estate

may need to be redeveloped in order to

fund future port developments.

Figure 4.1: Potential Site Locations




FINAL 24 May 2010

Preliminary Site Assessment and Shortlisting

General Approach

4.2.1 The sites selected in the previous section were assessed to allow a short listing of those most likely

to be capable of meeting the needs of Port of Cork. Each site was assessed for its capability to cater

for the anticipated ultimate throughput of displaced or relocated trade for the period up to 2030

and beyond for containers (Lo‐Lo and Ro‐Ro), Bulk Solids / General Cargo, and Bulk Liquids.

In order to aid in the completion of assessments, fundamental assumptions were made for each

trade as listed below.

Container Bulk/General Cargo Bulk Liquids Ro‐Ro

Vessel Length 200 m min 160 m 150 m 200 m

Water Depth 11m CD 11m CD 11m CD 11m CD

Turning Area Min 300 m dia Min 300 m dia Min 300 m Min 300 m

No Berths 3 4 1 1

Quay Length 600 m 700 m 170 m 250 m

Other

Requirements

Landside area

required will be

approx 600m x 400

m (240,000m2).

Stacking containers

up to 5 high

Landside area required

will be approx 700m long

by 200 deep to

accommodate future

associated activities

Requirement for

approx 11 acres for

bulk liquid storage

Access Ramp and

adjacent parking

areas

Quayside cranes ‐

SSG

Harbour mobile cranes

Possibility of bulk flat

stores and/or silos in thefuture

Table 4.1 ‐ Fundamental Assumptions for Site Shortlisting

Assessment Criteria

4.2.2 The identified sites were assessed and scored with reference to a range of criteria which could

influence any future development of port facilities. The main assessment categories used were;

■

Physical Suitability

■ Navigational Suitability

■ Port Operations

■ Road Transport

■ Rail Transport

■ Terrestrial and Marine Ecology

■ Environmental Impacts

■ Planning Issues

■ Cost




FINAL 25 May 2010

Review of Sites

4.2.3 The suitability of each site was considered under each of the assessment criteria and the sites wereawarded an appropriate score based on their overall suitability. This was a high level desk top

review using available information sources. At this preliminary stage assessments were generally

subjective in nature, evaluations being made on the judgement and experience of the review team

using existing information sources only.

Each site was assessed and ranked in order of suitability to contribute to the accommodation of the

various modes of trade. Results of the assessment process, identifying those sites which would be

taken forward for further consideration are illustrated in Table 4.2.

Containers Bulk Solids Bulk Liquids

Marino Point B ADM

East Side Ringaskiddy

basin

Adj’ Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal


Terminal Marino Point B


basin Marino Point B


Terminal

Dogsnose Bank


basin ADM

ADM Dogsnose Bank Dogsnose Bank

Whitegate Whitegate Cork Dockyard

Haulbowline Cork Dockyard Marino Point A

Cork Dockyard Haulbowlin e WhitegateCurlane Curlane Haulbowline

Marino Point A Marino Point A Curlane

Cuskinny Cuskinny Cuskinny

Aghada Aghada Aghada

Table 4.2 ‐ Summary Results of Site Assessments




FINAL 26 May 2010

Containers

4.2.4 The five sites most likely to be suitable to for the accommodation of container trade were identified

as;

Marino Point B

Adjacent Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal

East Side Ringaskiddy Basin

Dogsnose Bank

ADM

The site adjacent to the East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin is the third ranked site, however it is

acknowledged that although this site is very suitable under a number of criteria it is fundamentally

unsuitable for the accommodation of the ultimate envisaged container traffic due to the very

limited extent of quay that could be provided. This site is not therefore considered further in terms

of the provision of facilities for the ultimate projected container trade. The site is however very

suitable to contribute to the phased relocation of container trade and should be considered as such

in the development of plans for the relocation of port activities from the City Quays and Tivoli.

The ADM site is ranked 5th

for containers, however like the site to the East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin

this location also has a constraint that will effectively preclude it from accommodating the planned

scale of container trade. Unlike the East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin site the full required length of quay can be provided at ADM. However the backup hinterland area which could be used for

container handling is limited by the extent of the designated area in Monkstown Creek. For this

reason the ADM site is deemed not to be suitable for ultimate container operations however like

the East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin site it could potentially play a part in the phased relocation of

container activities.

Bulk Solids/General Cargo

4.2.5 The five most suitable sites for accommodation of bulk s/general cargo were;

ADM


Marino Point B


Dogsnose Bank




FINAL 27 May 2010

As per the consideration of containers it is acknowledged that the site adjacent to the East Side of

Ringaskiddy Basin would not be able to provide the full extent of required quay length for the

accommodation of bulks/general cargo trade. However the site could be very appropriate for the

accommodation of part of the displaced bulks/general cargo trade due to its location adjacent to

available port lands and close proximity to other bulks operations at the Ringaskiddy Deep Water

Berth.

It is also noted that the full 700 m of required quay could not be provided at ADM on a single

berthing face due to limitations on how far the facility can extend into the main navigation channel.

This is not considered to be a particular constraint, as any provision of bulks facilities would sensibly

start with an extension to the existing deepwater berth (DWB) where approx 180 m would be

possible before reaching the ADM site. In fact, the ADM site has a distinct advantage in respect of

the accommodation of bulks as this type of activity is already extensively carried out at the adjacent

DWB site. The extension of the deep water berth would facilitate efficient integration of displaced

activities and overall flexibility of bulk handling operations.

Bulk Liquids

4.2.6 The five most suitable sites for accommodation of bulk liquids trade are;


Marino Point B


ADM

Dogsnose Bank

Generally the infrastructural requirements for liquid bulks are less extensive than for Bulk solids /

General Cargo and containers and a number of other sites could also adequately accommodate this

cargo if required.

Of these five sites Dogsnose bank scores lowest in terms of the likely cost of development, primarily

due to the distance from the shore to deep water and the proposal to reclaim an area of the

foreshore for storage of bulk liquids. It is noted however that this site is very close to the existing

Whitegate terminal and considerable cost savings could be made if this existing facility could be

utilised to some degree for the accommodation of bulk liquids. At the moment this jetty is operated

by Conoco‐Philips but the possibility of joint use of the jetty should be investigated and kept under

review. There are also understood to be development lands in the vicinity of Whitegate which could

potentially be d eveloped for bulk liquids storage which might also have cost benefits.




FINAL 28 May 2010

Shortlisted Sites

4.2.7 It is clear from the foregoin g that there are a number of sites that would be appropriate for morethan one mode of trade. This is due to the fact that many considerations in the assessment process

are common to the requirements for each particular mode of trade. For example the vessel

characteristics for each mode are similar and thus requirements in terms of navigation will be

common across all sites. Furthermore, the impacts of containers and bulks on ecology and the

environment will in many cases be similar particularly in respect of the extent of dredging and

reclamation required and again in this case the same sites will feature highly in the assessment for

each mode of trade.

The following sites are considered suitable for further detailed consideration.

Marino Point B

ADM/DWB


Dogsnose Bank

East Side of Ringaskiddy Basin

In order to assist in the further consideration and assessment of these sites a number of conceptual

layouts were prepared to illustrate possible schemes for the accommodation of the various trades.

These are included in Appendix A. These are not intended to reflect any particular plans for the

sites but are to provide some indication of the potential nature and scale of development whichmay occur in the future in order to allow a suitable assessment to be made. In some cases more

than one site has been combined in order to meet the needs.




FINAL 29 May 2010

Chapter 5

Public ConsultationsSection 5.1 below comprises of extracts from the Executive Summary of “Stakeholder Consultation Issues

Report”, prepared by RPS Communications following Stakeholder Engagement process during the months of

December 2009 – March 2010.

In this section the principal issues identified by RPS Communications which emerged from the Stakeholder

Engagement Process are highlighted. In Section 5.2 the manner in which these issues have been addressed in

the finalization of the Strategic Review is indicated.

Extracts from the Executive Summary ‐ Stakeholder

Consultation Issues Report

5.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy involved several elements:

1. A Public Open Week, which was held from the 1st

to the 5th

of February in the Customs

House. Public displays were organised and people were asked to fill in comment forms. This

Open Week was very well attended.

2.

Attendance at stakeholder/community group meetings. In the run up to the open week and

in the weeks that followed the Port of Cork staff attended 16 public meetings with various

community, business, Town Coun cils, amenity, leisure and environment groups.

3. A councillor and TD briefing session in the Custom House, to inform them of the review of the

SDP and the stakeholder engagement strategy moving forward.

4. A Public Open Day in Cobh, as requested by the community groups in the area so as to allow

more people access to information.

5. One‐to‐one meetings with stakeholders as requested

6.

Phone calls with stakeholders, giving them information and answering any questions

7. Staff briefings and ‘Drop in ‘ sessions

The events were advertised in local and regional papers, on the Port of Cork website, in the Port of

Cork Newsletter “In‐Depth” and also by contacting relevant harbour groups and organisations and

individual stakeholders who had shown interest previously.

A number of key issues emerged from the discussion and will need to be considered as the SDP

Review moves closer to finalisation. The main conclusions include:

• Economic: Most stakeholders acknowledged the economic importance of the Port of Cork to

the City, County and Region, and stated clearly that while they were not against development




FINAL 30 May 2010

that brought economic gain to the area, they would have difficulty if this development were

to affect their residential area and their area of interest within the harbour.

• Need: Many stakeholders understood the need for the Port to develop but felt that this

should be appropriate and considered. The need to accommodate larger container vessels

was also generally understood but not by all as was the implications for the Port of potential

Docklands development in the future,

• Tourism, Culture and Heritage: Most stakeholders felt that any port development must

coexist in harmony with the development of the Tourism industry, which was also felt to be

an important industry that warranted further investment and that had significant potential.

• Environment: It is clear that all stakeholders value the environmental and ecological

importance of the area, and hold the scenery and landscape in high esteem and want to

maintain these for amenity and tourism.

• Industrial Sites: While not held by all participants, there was a feeling amongst many

stakeholders that it would be better for future developments to take place in already‐

industrialised zones, rather than on v irgin sites.

• Harbour Management: Throughout the engagement process stakeholders mentioned the

need for a more integrated and holistic approach to harbour development and management

that involved all stakeholders, and that the development of the harbour for industry could

coexist with residential and a menity development.

• Infrastructure and Traffic: All stakeholders agreed that the road network and traffic

infrastructure at any of the sites suggested was not satisfactory and would need upgrading.The fear from stakeholders was that any development would increase the congestion on

existing routes, and the Jack Lynch Tunnel, and if a site was in the Aghada/ Dognose area it

would mean increased traffic through road networks that would be unable to cope. It was

suggested that the road infrastructure near many of the sites under consideration is under

pressure at the moment, and that port development should only take place in the context of

planned road upgrades.

• Rail: The issue of rail was important in the minds of many stakeholders, who wanted more

information on it. There was a general consensus that rail could be a good option if

economically viable as it would reduce traffic on the roads. However, it was also noted by

some participants that it may not be practical. There was also recognition of the need for

road upgrades to facilitate whatever solution emerges.

• Leisure and Amenity: Those living on the Cork harbour and its surrounds hold the access that

they have to leisure activities and amenities, such as rowing, sailing etc very dear. It is

something that brings entire communities together, and during events such as the Ocean to

City Race involves people from all over the country and attracts visitors from all over the

world. Consequently these activities are of paramount importance to many stakeholders who

are fearful of them being damaged or constrained by new port developments. The extent of

any required reclamation should be minimised. However, stakeholders do generally

acknowledge the Port of Cork’s contribution to these amenity and leisure activities.




FINAL 31 May 2010

• Phasing: While some stakeholders welcomed a phased approach in the provision of new port

infrastructure others saw it as the “thin end of the wedge” and that the ultimate

development scenario is what should be assessed.

• Fishing: The importance of various fishing grounds throughout the harbour were highlighted

and potential impacts on them should be minimised.

• Stakeholder Engagement Process and Relationships: There was a lack of trust in the Port of

Cork Company in the case of a few stakeholders. Some people were sceptical of the

engagement process entered into by the Port and felt that the outcome of the Strategic

Development Plan Review was already predetermined. Most Stakeholders would welcome

further engagement as the ports p lans were clarified.

Consideration of Issues

5.2 The following responses indicate briefly the manner in which the issues which were raised during

the Public Consultation Process have been considered in the review of the Strategic Development

Plan.

Economic

The Port of Cork is obliged to ensure that appropriate facilities will be available to meet the needs of

its customers and to facilitate the economic and development requirements of the region. This

inevitably means that new port facilities will need to be provided downstream of Tivoli at the

optimal locations following balanced consideration of a ll potential impacts.

Despite encouragement from some Stakeholders to consider continuing to operate at existing

locations this is not a viable option for the Port as a new container terminal capable of handling

larger and deeper drafted vessels is required, City Quays trade will need to be relocated to new

facilities to accommodate Docklands regeneration facilitating the long term sustainable economic

growth of Cork City and the Region. Further, in accordance with Government policy, value will need

to be realised from th e Tivoli Estate to contribute to the funding of new facilities.

Needs and Objectives of the Port of Cork

In the context of the feedback received during the Stakeholder Engagement Process the needs and

objectives set out by the Port have been reassessed. However, while funding and timing issues are

likely to remain uncertain, no significant amendments can be justified at this time.

Tourism, Culture and Heritage

The tourism, culture and heritage considerations highlighted by Stakeholders, particularly the

unique attractions and characteristics of Cork Harbour, were of particular benefit to the site

evaluation process.

Every effort will be made to avoid compromising expectations and the potential of Cork Harbour in

this sector. In determining the final outcome, every effort will be made to ensure that as much as

possible local concerns will be addressed. However it is recognised that there are many competingpriorities and any future plans will have to strike a balance between them all.




FINAL 32 May 2010

Environment

The environmental and ecological importance of the harbour is appreciated widely. In particular any

impacts on environmental designations, scenic routes, landscape character; amenity, and no ise and

air quality will be carefully assessed at each location.

In identifying sites for potential port development and allocating particular operations to those sites

these issues will be carefully considered.

Every effort will be made, having regard to all considerations, to minimise overall impacts and

appropriate mitigation measures will b e put in place as necessary.

Industrial Sites

The sites under consideration with current port/industrial uses are Ringaskiddy, Marino Point and

Whitegate/Aghada. In the Cork County Development Plan and the Outline Local Area Plan Strategy

Documents (January 2010), these sites are suggested as being suitable for port, industrial,

employment or energy hub uses. Potential port activities at these locations would therefore

appear, at this stage, to have a more supportive planning framework than the other sites under

consideration.

From a financial and infrastructure perspective the existing facilities and investments already

undertaken could p ossibly make investments at these locations more cost effective.

Harbour Management

While largely outside the remit of the Port Company itself, it should be noted that the company has

been engaged in joint initiatives with other Stakeholders in Cork Harbour including Cork County

Council, Coastal Marine Resources Centre (CMRC), the Cork Harbour Forum and the Harbour

Management Focus Group with a view to developing a shared understanding in relation to uses,

future developments and management of the harbour and it’s immediate hinterland.

Independently the Port has developed a Marine Leisure and Recreation Strategy which is now being

implemented.

The Port, in the context of its statutory remit, its corporate social responsibilities and its operational

and development requirements, will continue to encourage and participate in initiatives to advance

a more integrated approach to th e development and management of Cork Harbour.

Infrastructure and Traffic

Existing and planned infrastructure and road networks will be significant influencing factors in the

site selection process and in the implementation and sequencing of any Strategic Development Plan

projects.

Rail

The issue of road upgrades, highlighted under this heading, has been addressed in the

“Infrastructure and Traffic” section above.

The Port Company commissioned a study from Booz & Company, a firm of consultants who have a

particular knowledge of the rail industry nationally and internationally. The study attempted to

identify how the Port of Cork Company could embrace the concept of rail freight. The outcome to




FINAL 33 May 2010

this study and the feedback obtained from stakeholders will be used in the comparative evaluation

of sites.

Leisure and Amenity

The attractiveness of the Harbour for other uses and activities is well recognised by the Port

Company and will be safeguarded to the greatest extent possible in the site selection process and

the development of options.

A phased approach to the provision of facilities together with efforts to reduce the extent of

reclamation should also assist in minimising impacts.

Phasing

Any short or medium term initiatives will not be assessed in isolation from an ultimate potential

development scenario.

There are likely to be significant time intervals however between development phases and the

overall strategy will be reviewed, in any event, at regular intervals.

Fishing

All site assessments undertaken will have due regard to the particular points put forward by those

with a practical knowledge of the extent of fishing activities in Cork Harbour. Independent expert

technical advice will, of course, be considered as we ll.

Stakeholder Engagement Process and Relationships

The purpose of the stakeholder engagement process was to inform stakeholders about the Port, its

needs and the site selection process. It provided stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on

the needs and objectives, the site selection process and to raise any issues and concerns they might

have which could inform the outcome to the Review.

The Port will strengthen existing relationships through its ongoing initiatives and its willingness for

ongoing engagement with all stakeholders.



STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | CHAPTER 6 – V03

FINAL 34 May 2010

Chapter 6

Stage 2 AssessmentAssessment of the sites has been carried out in order to understand the key aspects and to allow a

comparison to be made between the sites. The assessments are preliminary in nature and further

more detailed assessment will be required at detailed design stage and to rigorously test any

development proposals. General assumptions have been made in respect of likely operational

scenarios and provision of port equipment.

Key Features of Existing Trades6.1 Fundamental to the consideration and assessment of likely development sites and operational

concept layouts is an understanding of the requirements associated with the various trades which

will be accommodated.

The key aspects of the various main trades through the Port of Cork are summarised below.

Cereals and Animal Feed

6.1.1

■ It is anticipated this trade, likely

to be displaced from the City

Quays would most logically be

accommodated at Ringaskiddy

due to synergy with similar

activities ongoing there.

■ Facilities to accommodate this

trade will be limited probably to

additional storage with a

minimum additional land area

requirement in excess of 2 acres.




FINAL 35 May 2010

Fertiliser

6.1.2

■ It is anticipated that accommodation of this trade at a new site may include the construction

of a blending facility. Such a facility would most likely be subject to Seveso Regulations.

■ An area of approx 20 acres may be required.

Smaller Volume Bulk Solids

6.1.3

■ Smaller volumes of bulk solids trade ar e primarily associated with coal and salt.

■ A total storage and handling area of approx 3 acres might be required to accommodate these

activities.

Bulk Liquids/LPG

6.1.4

■ Oil trade through the Topaz facility in the City quays is currently in decline and will not need to

be accommodated at any future port development.

■ Other Bulk Liquids primarily comprise crude chemicals, chemical compounds and LPG which

are currently handled at both City Quays and Tivoli.

■ A site of approx 8 acres may be required to accommodate displaced bulk liquids and LPG

trade.

■ A further site of approx 3 acres may be required at a future development site to accommodate

anticipated future trade in alternative fuels.

■ Bulk liquids are also currently handled at Marino Point servicing the Dynea site – an activity

which is likely to continue.

Break Bulk/General Cargo

6.1.5

■ An area of approx 12 acres open storage is estimated to be required to accommodate break

bulk and general cargo. This type of activity ideally requires an area of open storage directly

behind the quay for temporary storage and handling.

■ Break bulk could be accommodated at separate facilities although there are advantages in

consolidating all such activities at a single location.




FINAL 36 May 2010

Containers

6.1.6

■ Ultimately all container trade should be accommodated at a dedicated terminal.

■ Due to the various constraints at Tivoli it is expected that displacement of container trade will

take place in a phased manner possibly over an extended period of time.

■ The type of terminal operation and

container handling equipment cannot

be defined at this stage. There is need

to maintain flexibility for future

operations and the assessment of sites

should assume a range of handling

equipment from electric RMGs to

Diesel RTGs for the ultimate phase.

Interim phases may involve the use of

reach stackers or straddle carriers.

Container stacking will likely be up to 5

high in the ultimate phase.

Ferry Services/Ro‐Ro

6.1.7

■ The Cork Swansea freight and passenger Ferry Service, which was suspended in 2006,

recommenced in March 2010.

■ Brittany Ferries service will continue to operate from April to November.

■ It is anticipated that there may be opportunities for a new mainland Europe service which

might include a combination of passengers, containers and the use of Mafi trailers as

unaccompanied Ro‐Ro freight. Should this happen there will be a need to provide a new RO‐

RO berth.

There is a trend, in certain markets, to

combined Ro‐Ro and Lo‐Lo vessels in

what are known as Con‐Ro vessels.

These have particular berthing and

landside requirements and any new

facilities should be able to cater for

such vessels and to cater for either

stern or quarter ramp vessels.




FINAL 37 May 2010

Trade Vehicles

6.1.8

■ Trade vehicle activities will most likely be accommodated at Ringaskiddy in the future due to

the existing RO‐RO facilities and extensive land bank available and the current level of trade

car activity.

■ Over the coming years the nature of the car business is likely to change significantly with most

vehicles being delivered with a relatively short delivery period from the factory but to specific

customer order. This will most likely mean that land requirements for car storage in the future

will be less than at present. The provision of common user facilities may also be a possibility

which would assist in reducing the amount of land required.

6.1.9 The precise requirements for the accommodation of various trades will only be known at the time

when relocation occurs and will be heavily influenced by customer requirements and the disposition

and capacity of existing port facilities at that time.

.




FINAL 38 May 2010

Conceptual Plans

6.2 Conceptual scenarios for potential developments at the short listed sites have been prepared in

order to inform the assessment process. These are not intended to reflect any particular plans for

the sites but are to provide some indication of the potential nature and scale of development which

may occur in the future in order to allow a suitable assessment to be made. In some cases more

than one site has been combined in order to meet the needs for trade..

The following scenarios have been d eveloped for consideration.

IBM0253 – 100E Marino Point ‐ Bulks with limited Container Operations

IBM0253 – 101C Marino Point ‐ Bulks/General cargo

IBM0253 – 105E Marino Point ‐ Containers

IBM0253 – 110D ADM and Multi‐purpose Berth – Bulks/General cargo

IBM0253 – 115D Lands adjacent Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal ‐ Containers

IBM0253 – 120C Lands adjacent Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal – Bulks/General cargo

IBM0253 – 130B Dogsnose Bank – Bulks/General cargo

IBM0253 – 135B Dogsnose Bank ‐ Containers

Plans illustrating these scenarios are included in Appendix A. These plans were also used to inform

stakeholders during the public consultations discussed in Section 5.

Assessment of Short Listed Sites

6.3 The key aspects of the assessments of the various sites for each of the identified assessment criteria

are summarized in the following tables.




FINAL 39 May 2010

Physical Suitability

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank

Significant available existing

lands that would meet the

needs of all modes under

consideration

The extent of the site is

constrained by the presence of

a designated area in

Monkstown Creek to the north

and the Ringaskiddy deepwater

basin to the south

Site is in close proximity to the

shore and with reclamation will

be contiguous with existing

Port lands

Site would be created by land

reclamation in the shallow water

adjacent to the deep water

channel

The site includes an existing

jetty which could potentially be

used for some bulks/container

operations or in a phased

development scenario

Area of land available would

not be sufficient to meet all of

the Port of Corks bulk and

general cargo needs

There are no significant

infrastructural constraints to

development

Extensive area is available for

reclamation and as such sufficient

area could be made available for

all stated needs

Access to the site from the jetty is currently restricted to a

single access viaduct

Ground conditions comprise asignificant depth of soft

alluvium deposits and

significant consolidation could

be expected although this

could be managed within the

construction process by

implementation of ground

improvement works

The existing lands have beenreclaimed for some

considerable period of time and

will be suitable for

development of the types

envisaged

Site has good potential for futureexpansion

Any future access may be

restricted by the presence of

the rock escarpment along the

western (shore side) edge of

the site

The site is adjacent to the

existing Ringaskiddy basin and

would provide for ready access

to the main navigation channel

via the entrance to the

deepwater basin

The ground conditions on the

existing foreshore generally

comprise considerable depths

of soft alluvium deposits.

Reclamation can be expected to

have some effect on local

currents but is unlikely to

significantly affect the overall

tidal regime in the harbour

Potential for reclamation of land between the existing jetty

and the escarpment.

Some dredging will be requiredbut would not be a significant

constraint

Consolidation can be expectedunder reclamation and

operational loads and due to

the varying depth of sediment

there could be significant

differential settlement across

the site

There may be some effect on thesedimentation regime and this

would need to be studied should

this option be considered

Considerable number of

buildings and other structures

on the site are to be cleared

The site is very sheltered. The site is well sheltered and

there is direct access to the

main channel

Easy access to the main

navigation channel

Some residual contamination

may be present from previous

activities which if present

would need to be removed

and/or remediated

Reclamation within the limits of

the existing training wall would

have little or no impact on the

existing hydraulic regime

It is not anticipated there will

be significant sedimentation

issues associated with the site

and impacts on the existing

hydraulic regime will not be

significant

Dredging would be required to

ensure adequate water depth

Development would have no

significant affect on the main

channel tidal flow

Any extension of berthing

quays beyond the training wall

could have the potential to

impact on flows and this would

need to be considered in detail

Any development at this site

which includes reclamation

would most likely result in the

loss of Ringaskiddy pier

ultimately.

Site is more exposed to wave

action from the mouth of the

harbour than other sites under

consideration and could be

subject to some negative effects

on harbour operations and ships

at berth during storm events

Some dredging will be

necessary at the quay line and

also towards the western side

of the channel to provide

adequate depth for a turning

basin

A submarine electricity power

cable is planned to be laid from

Glangow to Rafeen and the route

passes through the proposed site.

Such infrastructure could severely

constrain the development of the

site




FINAL 40 May 2010

Port Operations


This site is generally good in

terms of port operations with

no particular constraints but

not as flexible in the longer

term as other potential sites.

Access to the deepwater basin

will be improved by removal of

the existing ADM jetty structure

There are no significant

constraints to navigation at this

location and there will be no

significant impact on other

commercial vessels

Navigation to and from this site

would be relatively

straightforward with no

significant constraints

The depth of the main

approach navigation channel is

adequate. However there will

be a requirement for some

dredging in front of the jetty

and for a turning basin.

Tug assistance may be required

for the largest vessels as per

normal operating parameters.

There should be very little

requirement for tug assistance

The main channel is wide and

suitably deep at this point to

facilitate manoeuvring of

vessels and there should be no

particular requirements for tug

assistance

There should be limited need

for tug assistance .

As vessels frequently access the

deepwater basin at the

moment the proposed

development would not

significantly impact on other

vessels

This site could provide the

required length of quay for all

modes of trade under

consideration

Limited impact on other

shipping movements

The existing rock escarpment

could prove a constraint for

access to and from the jetty

and the distance from the jetty

to the main site could limit

operational effectiveness

particularly in the case of

containers

This site is adjacent to the

existing deep‐water berth with

established bulk solids and

general cargo handling

operations and development at

this location would contribute

significantly to consolidation of

the port’s bulks trade

Potential for future extension if

required

There could be some impact on

ship loading/unloading during

storm events.

The land area available would

be sufficient to cater for

anticipated container trade butis unlikely to be adequate to

meet the needs for all bulks

/general cargo trades

The site is unlikely to be

suitable for the provision of the

full length of bulks quayenvisaged without a return on

the end of the jetty which

would not be desirable from a

port operations perspective.

Hence developments at a

further supplementary location

may be required

Adjacent lands would not be

sufficient to support all of the

bulks facilities envisaged by thePort of Cork and as such a

further location would be

required to meet all bulk trade

requirements. As such there

will be a requirement to

provide additional berthing

elsewhere

The site is in a location used by

leisure craft and any

development would result in aloss of sailing grounds

However if cereals and animal

feed were to be located at

Ringaskiddy / ADM then the

site could potentially meet

most of the other Port of Corks

bulks/general cargo

requirements

There is a significant constraint

on the back‐up land available at

the ADM site and there would

be insufficient space to

accommodate all bulk and

general cargo activities

envisaged.

Development at this site would

provide consolidation of Port

activities and offers flexibility

advantages.

No constraint on length of quay

or size of site (subject to

sufficient reclamation)

There is unlikely to besignificant conflict with other

harbour users

As the proposed developmentis unlikely to extend much

beyond the limits of the

existing jetty there is unlikely to

be any significant additional

impact on leisure or other craft

in the vicinity

This site has good potential forthe phasing of developments

Site is very remote from allother existing port locations

and would not contribute to

consolidation of port activities

There is currently no Port of

Cork activity at the site and so

development at this location

would not contribute to a

consolidation of port

operations

Vehicle access to this site would

need to be through the existing

deepwater berth hinterland

area

This site allows for ease of

egress to the main roads

network without impacting

significantly on existing port

operations

The draft in the berth is limited

to 10m

More Flexible site in terms of

future proofing port

requirements.

Reclamation and construction

of quays would likely have

some impact on leisure craftsailing grounds






FINAL 42 May 2010

Ecology


G e n e r a l

This site is situated directly

south of the Great Island

Channel cSAC, pNHA and a

section of the Cork Harbour

SPA

The Monkstown Creek

section of Cork Harbour SPA

and Monkstown Creek pNHA

are situated immediately

adjacent to the west of the

ADM site

The nearest section of Cork

Harbour SPA is Monkstown

Creek (also a pNHA) situated

approximately 600m to the

west of the site

The Whitegate Bay section of

Cork Harbour SPA and

Whitegate Bay pNHA lie

approximately 500m to the

east of the site. The

equivalent section of Cork

Harbour RAMSAR site is

approximately 500m from the

site

Disturbance to birds in the

adjacent section of Cork

Harbour SPA is likely to be

the key (non‐marine)

ecological impact





ecological impact





ecological impact

Disturbance to birds and

direct loss of feeding habitat

for birds outside the SPA are

likely to be the two key (non‐

marine) ecological impacts

Containers produce the

highest overall levels of noise

and the highest levels of

'impulsive' noise compared to

bulk or bulk liquids and as a

result disturbance to birds is

more likely from container

operations than for other

trades

Potential for disturbance of

birds within Cork Harbour

SPA is considered high. The

extent of development may

be limited and as such the full

potential of the site may not

be achieved

Containers produce the

highest overall levels of noise

and the highest levels of

'impulsive' noise compared to

bulk or bulk liquids. Container

operations at this site would

be some distance away from

the SPA (600m) but with a

direct unbroken line of sight

across water which will allow

noise to travel

Disturbance (whilst a

possibility) is not considered

highly likely

Disturbance to birds is less

likely with bulks operations,

but is still a possibility



SPA is considered low to

moderate

Loss of feeding habitat for

(sea) birds may also be an

issue

Most of the birds using this

part of the SPA are migratory,

hence there will be little

opportunity for them to

habituate to noise


part of the SPA are migratory

and hence there will be little


habituate to noise


part of the SPA are migratory

and hence there will be little


habituate to noise

T e r r e s t r i a l E c o l o g y

Overall for this site the

potential for disturbance of


SPA is considered low to

moderate

Dredging works will be

required at this site which

might result in the

degradation of some habitatwhich could possibly take

several years to recover

Most of the reclamation

associated with this site is on

intertidal areas which are less

productive for fisheries thanreclamation areas associated

with other sites

The marine habitat in areas

of potential reclamation and

dredging is moderate to high

quality fish nursery and fishfeeding ground and is a good

potting and netting area for

commercial fishing

This location has a high

quality fisheries habitat. It is

a flat‐fish nursery and adult

and juvenile feeding area fora range of species and is also

important for shrimp, crab

and lobster potting

Dredging which would be

required at this site will

straddle the main migratory

channel for fisheries which

will make timing of dredging

activities critical

This is already an active

shipping area and as such

impacts on fishing will be

minimal

Possible developments could

ultimately entail up to 9 ‐ 12

ha loss of grounds.

Any development involving

reclamation is likely to result

in a loss of significant areas of

the seabed habitat

M a r i n e E c o l o g y

There would be limited scope

for mitigation in designing

fish‐friendly features into the

rock‐armour surrounds of the

reclaimed areas

Reclamation and the

construction of an access

causeway could possibly

constitute a barrier to local

fish movement and migration




FINAL 43 May 2010

Environmental

Noise


There are potentially a large

number of properties that

may be negatively impacted

by noise emissions from the

site

The existing port activities in

the area at the deep‐water

berth establish a port related

noise character for the area

There is limited scope to

reduce potential noise

emissions to sensitive

receptors to the north in

Blackpoint and Whitepoint

The site is relatively isolated

and well removed from noise

sensitive receptors. There is a

much lower density of

residential properties located

in proximity to the site,

compared with the other sites


screen from potential noise

emissions to the west and

south due to the open nature

of the area crossing the river

The site is less constrained

with regard to proximity to

sensitive receptors than

Marino Point as it is slightly

more removed from sensitive

receptors

There may be potential to

screen noise from sources on‐

site to the sensitive receptors

to the south in Ringaskiddy

The existing land use in

surrounding area comprises

largely of industrial facilities

(Oil Terminal and Oil

Refinery). Shipping

operations associated with

the Oil Terminal adds to

industrial noise character.

There is a potential at this

location for negative noise

impacts if container handling

operations are required to be

undertaken during night‐

time, Particularly due to

potentially impulsive noise

associated with container

handling operations


reduce potential noise

emissions to areas to the

north of the site but there

would be greater potential to

screen noise emission from

the site towards Ringaskiddy

The existing port activities in

the area at the deep‐water

berth establish a port related

noise character to the area.

The Cork‐Swansea Ferry

Service recommenced service

during March 2010 at the

adjacent Ferry Berth, which

further adds to the Port noise

character of the area

The site would appear to be

the least constrained with

regard to proximity to noise

sensitive receptors and would

also appear to have the

lowest density of noise

sensitive receptors in the

surrounding area

Dependent on the type of

cargo being handled, it is likelythat noise emission

characteristics of bulk solids

operations would be less

intrusive than for container

operations.

There may be potential for

negative noise impacts if bulkcargo handling operations are

required to be undertaken

extensively during night‐time

There may be a potential for

negative noise impacts at thislocation if container handling

operations are required to be

undertaken during night‐time

Bulk liquids operations would

be expected to generate the

least level of activity with

regard to noise emissions

sources and would be

expected to be capable of

accommodating the greatest

level of flexibility with regard

to attenuation of noise at

source.

Any potentially impulsive

noise associated with bulk

cargo handling operations

may negatively impact upon

properties in surrounding

areas

Impulsive noise associated

with container handling

operations may be likely to

negatively impact properties

in surrounding areas

N o i s e

Retention of the escarpment

will provide some screening

between the main site and

Passage West

Less constrained with regard

to proximity to sensitive

receptors than Marino Point




FINAL 44 May 2010

Landscape and Visual


The main site is reasonably

well screened by theescarpment and there is

limited potential for visual

impact on scenic routes

The presence of existing

adjacent industrial buildingsand infrastructure at this site

will provide a backdrop to any

proposed developments when

viewed from the north,

northeast and northwest. This

surrounding infrastructure

provides a precedent in the

landscape for development of

an industrial nature

Land must be reclaimed from

the sea to facilitate theultimate development at this

location. This alone will alter

the coastline, and impact on

the existing visual resource

especially at locations across

the harbour to the north and

west

This site is proposed within

the open harbour and is notwithin a designated scenic

landscape. The immediate

coastal landscape to the

southeast is however

classified as scenic

The presence of cranes on the

quayside could have a high

visual impact. Ship to Shore

Gantry cranes are likely to

have a greater visual impact

than Harbour mobile cranesfor the handling of general

cargo

However new cranes will

constitute prominent vertical

elements in the landscape

Surrounding infrastructure

including the existing ferry

terminal and large industrial

buildings to the west and

southwest provides a

precedent in the landscape fordevelopment of an

industrial/port and

commercial nature

Any development involving

the reclamation of lands from

the sea will constitute a highly

visible development from

surrounding coastal

landscapes regardless of proposed mitigation measures

There will be a high potential

for visual impacts on

properties on higher slopes at

Passage West regardless of

the type of development

undertaken

Views from the surrounding

Scenic Routes will be sporadic,

being offset occasionally by

existing landscape features

and presence of similar

facilities to those proposed


Scenic Routes will be sporadic.

Those from the R630 will be

offset entirely by the

separation distance between

the road and the site

Existing development in the

area does however include an

Oil Refinery and Power Plant,

creating a precedent for

industrial operations in the

landscape

Within the main site the

density of stacked containers

will potentially have a

consolidated and cumulative

impact when viewed from

Passage West.

Development at this location

will include reclamation which

will alter the coastline,

however the visual impact is

limited given the presence of

an existing jetty

Within the village of

Ringaskiddy and northwest at

Monkstown and at Cobh, the

topography of the landscape

rises steadily. Accordingly

there is high potential forvisual impacts on dwellings

occupying higher slopes


Scenic Routes will be sporadic

For bulks activities the more

sporadic nature of the

structures/storage on site will

potentially soften the overall

impact, especially from the

west

For container development at

this site the proposed density

of containers will potentially

have a consolidated and

cumulative impact when

viewed sporadically from

Ringaskiddy to the south, and

from coastal locations to the

north and west especially

The proposed density of

containers on the site will

potentially have a

consolidated and cumulative

impact when viewed from

Ringaskiddy and Crosshaven,

and from coastal locations to

the north and west especially

The Site is highly suitable for

liquid bulk type development

Large quayside container

cranes will constitute new,

prominent vertical elements

in the landscape

Large cranes associated with

loading and unloading

containers will constitute new,

prominent vertical elementsin the landscape

L a n d s c a p e a n d V i s u a l

For a bulks development the

more sporadic nature of the

structures on site will

potentially soften the overall

impact from surrounding

vantage points

The more sporadic nature of

the structures and storage

associated with bulks trade

could potentially soften the

overall impact from

surrounding vantage points




FINAL 45 May 2010

Air Quality & COMAH(Seveso) Activities


Air quality is unlikely to be a

significant issue at this sitegiven the relatively large

distance (800m) to sensitive

receptors



distance to receptors



distance to receptors. Good

practice in port operations will

assist in minimizing impacts



distance to receptors. Good

practice in port operations will

assist in minimising impacts

A i r Q u a l i t y

For the Bulk cargo option,

inadequate handling and/or

unsuitable wind conditions

can generate and deposit

dust at local receptors and

cause nuisance. The

Containers option will not

generate significant dust

Good practice in port

operations will assist in

minimizing impacts

This site is likely to be suitable

for Seveso activities with

good separation topopulation centres. This site

has good potential to

accommodate the relocation

of several Seveso activities;

however the risk of domino

effects will need to be

considered

At this site the proximity to

the N28 could potentially

result in Seveso activities notmeeting the HSA’s guidelines

depending on the final

location of any such activities

and detailed design

considerations

There could be potential

problems with

accommodating Sevesoactivities at this location

based on assessment of

Individual Risk and given the

proximity of the Ferry

Terminal and N28 roadway.

This location is relatively

remote and relatively few

people would be exposed torisk from any potential Seveso

activities

S e v e s o A c t i v i t i e s

Based on their guidance

document it is likely that HSA

would advise against Seveso

development

The risk presented by Seveso

activity should be acceptable

although domino effects with

the existing refinery would

need to be considered




FINAL 46 May 2010

Planning

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose

Development at this site is

consistent with broad planning

policy objectives


broadly consistent with

regional planning policy.



regional planning policy.



planning policy objectives,

particularly in relation to bulk

liquids. The Midleton Outline

Strategy identifies the potential

of the area for the energy

industry

Marino House and the

perimeter escarpment of

Marino Point would have to be

protected. Land reclamation

on the foreshore adjoining the

curtilage of Marino House

would have impacts on this

protected structure

Development would also be

consistent with CDP and local

planning policy objectives


consistent with CDP and local

planning policy objectives

Possible impact on the triangle

formed by the historic harbour

forts, Spike, Camden and

Carlisle which are of significant

conservation value

Site is upstream of a potential

tidal barrier identified as a

long term possibility in Lee

CFRAM Study

The Carrigaline Outline Strategy

states that the Council is

“committed to the relocation of

port facilities to Ringaskiddy”

and identifies the upgrade of

N28 as critical particularly to

increase capacity “for freight

vehicles making journeys to and

from the port.”

The Carrigaline Outline Strategy

states that the Council is

“committed to the relocation of

port facilities to Ringaskiddy”

and identifies the upgrade of

N28 as critical particularly to

increase capacity “for freight

vehicles making journeys to and

from the port.”

Potential impacts on sailing and

other leisure activities

A port facility at this location

may have less impact on

tourism and recreation than a

similar development at the

eastern side of Ringaskiddy

Basin as it would not be as

visible from Cobh and would

not interfere with existing

racing marks

There is potential for impact on

recreational sailing at this

location as a result of the loss

of some sailing marks.

Development may also result in

the loss of the use of

Ringaskiddy Pier

This site would offer good

degree of flexibility in terms of

layout and phasing which

would allow development

proposals to respond to the

potential fluctuations in

economic growth of the Region




FINAL 47 May 2010

Cost

Preliminary budget cost estimates for the conceptual developments have been calculated on the basis

that Port of Cork would fund the construction of quay infrastructure, and the preparation and

surfacing of container and general bulks storage areas. It is assumed that all other developments

associated with individual trades will be funded by th ird parties.

The estimated costs of the conceptual plans are summarized below.

Estimated Costs (€)

Infrastructure Plant and

Equipment

Total

IBM0253 – 100EMarino Point ‐ Bulks with limited

Container operations71.4M

35.3M 76.7M

IBM0253 – 101C Marino Point ‐ Bulks/General

Cargo56.6M

3‐ 56.6M

IBM0253 – 105E Marino Point ‐ Containers 63.1M3

32.3M 95.4M

IBM0253 – 110D ADM and Multi‐purpose Berth –

Bulks/General Cargo1

69.5M 15.9M 85.4M

Phase 1 27.4M 13.4M2

40.8M

Phase 2 13.3M 5.0M 18.3M

Phase 3 21.9M 8.6M 30.5M

IBM0253 – 115D Lands adjacent Ringaskiddy ferry

terminal ‐ Containers

Phase 4 40.4M 9.6M 50.0M

IBM0253 – 120C Lands adjacent Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal – Bulks/General Cargo78.3M 11.9M 90.2M

IBM0253 – 130B Dogsnose Bank – Bulks/General

Cargo83.6M 9.1M 92.7M

IBM0253 – 135B Dogsnose Bank ‐ containers 136.0M 29.9M 165.9M

1Includes multipurpose berth (including access ramp)

2Includes access ramp

3Costs do not include for rail connection. Rail connection costs approx €11M




FINAL 48 May 2010

Chapter 7

Analysis and Conclusions

Introduction

7.1 This chapter considers the results of the assessments of the short listed sites and draws conclusions

as to the most appropriate way in which the Port of Cork might develop infrastructure to meet its

stated needs and objectives.

Consideration is given to the achievement of the goals of Port of Cork to meet anticipated long term

trade forecasts and also to how development may be phased in the short to medium term in a

logical and cost effective manner. Future p roofing and flexibility are also significant considerations.

Risks associated with future development are also identified and recommendations made as to how

these might be approached in the implementation phase.

Long Term Plans

Containers

7.2.1 A fundamental requirement in terms of the long term accommodation of container traffic is that all

container traffic is handled at a dedicated facility and that the terminal in so far as possible has the

facility to support 24 hour operations.

The key issues arising from the comparative technical assessments of the individual sites are set out

in Table 7.1.

Following an in depth consideration of the short listed sites it is concluded that port lands adjacent

to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal will be the most suitable location for the development of a container

terminal in the Port of Cork. The more advanced stage of roads schemes to this location are a

considerable advantage and will provide the best opportunity for movement of goods to and fromthe port with least impact on the greater roads network. The site also offers a good degree of

flexibility in terms of layout and phasing which would allow development proposals to respond to

potential fluctuations in economic growth.

Development at this site would be consistent with emerging Regional Planning policy; the objectives

of the CASP Update; Cork County Development Plan 2009 and Local Planning policy objectives.




FINAL 49 May 2010

Lands Adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal

Marino Point Dogsnose Bank

Existing roads are over capacity at peak

periodsHowever NRA proposals are well

advanced for a new N28 National Road to

this location.

Existing road infrastructure is not

capable of accommodating theanticipated level of vehicle traffic and

roads are over capacity. There are

proposals by Cork County Council to

upgrade the existing Regional route

R624, however these proposals begin at

Dogs Lodge and do not tie in with the

National Road Network and they do not

extend as far as the Marino Point site.

Plans for road improvements are not as

well advanced as those for the N28 to

Ringaskiddy.

Additional mileage of approx. 80 km per

round trip. Existing Regional route R630infrastructure is not capable of

accommodating the anticipated level of

vehicle traffic Current road improvement

proposals relate only to traffic management

and calming and are not appropriate for

accommodating additional significant port

traffic. Of the three locations considered

this is at the earliest stage of development

in terms of potential road improvements.

There is no rail connection at this location The existing rail connection to Marino

point could only be considered an

advantage to container operations in

very particular circumstances.

There is no rail connection at this location

Negative night time noise impact on some

sensitive receptors. The number of

receptors affected will be less than at

Marino Point but more than at Dogsnose

Bank. Limited scope to reduce noise

emissions to Black Point/Whitepoint .

Greater potential to screen towards

Ringaskiddy

Negative night time noise impact at

Passage West. The number of sensitive

receptors likely to be impacted will be

greater than for the proposals at

Ringaskiddy. There is no opportunity for

screening of noise to Passage West.

There is unlikely to be significant noise

impact from container operations at this

location

Container storage would be immediately

adjacent and directly accessible from

quayside leading to efficient port

operations. Good potential for the

phasing of container operations

A container storage yard cannot be

located immediately adjacent to the

quay area leading to operational

inefficiency.

Container storage would be immediately

adjacent and directly accessible from

quayside leading to efficient port

operations.

There are potential synergies between

LoLo and RoRo operations at this location.

Limited impact on leisure and sailing A degree of prominence will be

unavoidable. Development will beextremely prominent with the cranes highly

visible over a wide area.

Loss of sailing grounds and racing marks.

Ringaskiddy pier would be lost in latter

stages of development.

Development at this site is consistent

with broad planning policy objectives.

Marino House and the perimeter

escarpment of Marino Point would have

to be protected

Location used by leisure craft and any

development would result in a loss of

sailing grounds.

Associated lands are currently in the

ownership of Port of Cork or are on state

owned foreshore

This site is in private ownership. Considerable reclamation on state owned

foreshore and associated impact on high

quality fisheries habitat.

Development at this site is broadly

consistent with regional planning policy .

Development would also be consistent

with CDP and local planning policy

objectives. The Carrigaline Outline

Strategy states that the Council is

“committed to the relocation of port

facilities to Ringaskiddy”

Physical constraints including planned

submarine electricity cable and degree of

exposure in storm conditions.

Development at this site would contribute

to consolidation of Port activities. There

is the possibility of further expansion in

the future and flexibility for phased

implementation and deeper drafted

vessels.

Development at this site is broadly

consistent with planning policy objectives.

Table 7.1: Key Issues Associated with Accommodation of Container trade




FINAL 50 May 2010

An additional benefit of the Ringaskiddy site is the availability of back up lands for industrial and

logistics activities and port services in th e surrounding industrial zones.

Whilst Ringaskiddy is considered the most appropriate of those under review it must be

acknowledged that there are still issues which need to be resolved in order that a container terminal

can be suitably accommodated at this location. The main issues are;

Development of the new N28 will be required to accommodate the full level of operations

envisaged

Suitable noise reduction measures should be undertaken where possible to minimise impact

on noise sensitive receptors. Consideration will need to be given as to the level of night time

activity possible on the site. There is limited scope to screen noise in White Point / Black

Point, however the number of receptors likely to be affected is less than at Marino Point.

Measures should be put in place to mitigate the loss of Ringaskiddy Pier and sailing grounds

Potential visual impact particularly from Black Point/White Point

Measures put in place to enhance the sustainability of road freight in line with

recommendations from the All Island Freight Forum, established by the Department of

Transport.

Figure 7.1 shows an indicative arrangement for a container facility at this location. A final

arrangement will be subject to detailed design and choice of container handling

philosophy/equipment. However the overall cost for development would likely be in the order of

€110M inclusive of op erating equipment.

Figure 7.1: Indicative container terminal adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal




FINAL 51 May 2010

Bulk/General cargo

7.2.2 The assessment and consideration of the individual sites for Bulk/General cargo is undertaken in thecontext that the lands adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal have been identified as most suitable

for the development of a container terminal. The key issues are set out in Table 7.2.

It is concluded that Bulk/General Cargo would best be located at the Deep Water Berth and ADM

location in Ringaskiddy. This site is already established as a Bulk/General cargo terminal and offers

the opportunity for consolidation of Bulk/General cargo activities. In addition the more advanced

roads schemes to this location will provide the best opportunity for movement of goods to and from

the port with least impact on the greater roads network.

Development at this site would be consistent with emerging regional planning policy; the objectives

of the CASP Update; Cork County Development Plan 2009 and local planning policy objectives.

Although the DWB/ADM location (in combination with a Multi‐Purpose Berth) may be capable of

providing the full length of Bulk/General cargo quay required (subject to any constraints at the SPA)

there will not be sufficient back‐up land available to accommodate all storage and associated

activities. An additional location will therefore be required in order to accommodate all

Bulk/General cargo requirements.

As such it is concluded that Marino Point should also be considered as a supplemental location for

the accommodation of selected bulks trades. This site has the advantage of an existing jetty which

would have advantages in any phased relocation of activities. There are however challenges at this

location in relation to provision of adequate roads infrastructure to cater for additional port related

traffic. The site has the potential for rail connectivity which is costly but which may be

advantageous for niche bulk cargoes.




FINAL 52 May 2010

Lands Adjacent to

Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal

Marino Point Dogsnose Bank ADM/DWB

Existing roads are over

capacity at peak periods

However proposals are well

advanced for a new N28

National Road to this location.

Existing road infrastructure is

not capable of accommodating

the anticipated level of vehicle

traffic although level of traffic

will be lower than for

containers. There are

proposals to upgrade the

existing R624. Plans for road

improvements are not as well

advanced as those for the N28

to Ringaskiddy.

Additional mileage of approx.

80 km per round trip. Existing

road infrastructure is not

capable of accommodating the

anticipated level of vehicle

traffic. Current road

improvement proposals are

not appropriate for

accommodating additional port

traffic. At the earliest stage of

development in terms of road

improvements

Existing road infrastructure is

not capable of

accommodating the

anticipated level of vehicle

traffic. However proposals

are well advanced for a new

N28 National Road to this

location. In the short term

additional traffic may be able

to be accommodated on the

existing road network

outside of the AM peak

period

There is no rail connection atthis location

Existing rail connection onlylikely to be an advantage for

particular niche cargoes.



Based on their guidance

document it is likely that HSA

would advise against Seveso

development.

Suitable for the

accommodation of Seveso

activities.

Suitable for the

accommodation of Seveso

activities.

The proximity of the N28 to

the ADM site could

potentially result in Seveso

activities not meeting the

HSA’s guidelines

Potential negative night time

noise impact at Ringaskiddy.

Potential to screen towards

Ringaskiddy

Significant bulk/general cargo

operations could have negative

night time noise impact at

Passage West. There is no

opportunity for screening of

noise to Passage West.

There is unlikely to be

significant noise impact from

container operations at this

location

Some potential negative

night time noise impact at

Pfizer and N28.

Significant impact on designated

sites unlikely with appropriate

mitigation measures

Significant impact on

designated sites unlikely with

appropriate mitigation

measures

Significant impact on

designated sites unlikely with

appropriate mitigation

measures

Immediately adjacent to

Cork Harbour SPA

(Monkstown Creek section)


which may limit the extent of

development possible.


broadly consistent with regional

planning policy. Development

would also be consistent with

CDP and local planning policy

objectives. T he Carrigaline

Outline Strategy states that the

Council is “committed to the

relocation of port facilities to

Ringaskiddy”. The site would

contribute to consolidation of

Port activities.


consistent with broad planning

policy objectives. Marino

House and the perimeter

escarpment of Marino Point

would have to be protected

Physical constraints including

planned submarine electricity

cable and degree of exposure

in storm conditions.



regional planning policy .


consistent with CDP and

local planning policy

objectives. The Carrigaline

Outline Strategy states that

the Council is “committed to

the relocation of port

facilities to Ringaskiddy”

This location has been identified

as the preferred location for

container activities.

Site in private ownership

currently

Considerable reclamation and

associated impact on high

quality fisheries habitat.

Established bulks operations

at this location. The site

would contribute to

consolidation of Port

activities.



planning policy objectives.

Existing ADM Jetty and

Foreshore in Port ownership

Table 7.2: Key Issues associated with accommodation of bulk/general cargo trade




FINAL 53 May 2010

An indicative arrangement for a Bulk/General cargo facility at the DWB/ADM is shown in Figure 7.2.

A final arrangement will be subject to the precise nature of activities to be undertaken and detailed

design. Costs are likely to be in the order of €50M ‐ €55M inclusive of operating equipment.

Figure 7.2: Indicative Bulk/General cargo Arrangement at DWB/ADM

Bulk Liquids

7.2.3 The accommodation of Bulk Liquids will be very much influenced by the type and quantity of

material to be handled and will generally need to be considered on a case by case basis. The key

issues are set out in Table 7.3.

Considering the above it is concluded that Bulk Liquids including LPG could best be accommodated

at either Marino Point or the Dogsnose/Whitegate area where similar facilities have been

developed. Both of these sites are unlikely to have significant issues in relation to the relocation of

Seveso activities, subject to detailed assessment.

Given the presence of an existing jetty, current Bulk Liquids handling activities and large land bank

available Marino Point would be the primary location for the accommodation of Bulks Liquids. Such

activities could be carried out in association with Bulk Solid / Break Bulk / General cargo trade

without significant issues arising.

Given the likely scale of development and associated costs required to provide a new liquids

delivery facility at the Dogsnose Bank location it is concluded that Port of Cork should keep the

situation at the Whitegate terminal under review. Opportunities may emerge for a shared use

agreement which would n egate considerable infrastructure development costs.




FINAL 54 May 2010

Ringaskiddy Area Marino Point Dogsnose Bank/Aghada

Bulk liquids are currently handled at the

Deep water berth in Ringaskiddy although

these do not include hazardous cargoes.

Existing bulk liquids operations delivering

products to the Dynea site which is likely to

be maintained.

The existing oil delivery and storage

activities in this general area mean there

would unlikely to be any major issues with

accommodation of bulk liquids.

Based on their guidance document it is

likely that HSA would advise against

Seveso development adjacent to the ferry

terminal. The proximity of the N28 to the

ADM site could potentially result in

Seveso activities not meeting the HSA’s

guidelines

Suitable for the accommodation of Seveso

activities.

Suitable for the accommodation of Seveso

activities.

Existing jetty could be used for handling

additional bulk liquids.

The existing oil delivery facilities at

Whitegate are privately owned and

operated. New jetty facilities would likely

to be required to accommodate bulk

liquids at this location.

No noise issues Bulk liquids activities are likely to have

much less noise impact at Passage West

than either container or bulks handling

operations.

No noise issues

Land available for bulk liquid storage

would be very limited if containers and

bulks trade were located at this site.

Sufficient land available New land would need to be by

reclamation but bulk liquids storage may

be provided from an existing land bank at

this location.

Traffic volumes associated with bulk

liquids will be much lower than those for

either containers or bulks.

The number of vehicle movements

associated with bulk liquids will be much

lower than those for either containers or

bulks.

Traffic volumes associated with bulk

liquids will be much lower than those for

either containers or bulks.

Table 7.3 Key Issues associated with accommodation of Bulk Liquids Trade




FINAL 55 May 2010

Phased Implementation

7.3 Whilst the preceding section has identified the most suitable locations for the ultimate

accommodation of various trades, consideration must also be given as to how the Port may move

towards these objectives in the short and medium term in a logical and cost effective manner. The

overall Strategic Development Plan has been prepared on the basis of planning for long term traffic

projections (2030) and beyond. However much can change in the intervenin g period and as such

the plan must provide for flexibility, future proofing and adaptability in the short to medium t erm.

The timing of the Port’s ongoing development is uncertain and as such this consideration of the

phased implementation of plans is based on an assessment of how the Port might react to key

milestones/events which might occur.

The consideration, assessment and choice of sites have been based on the likely scale of

development which might be anticipated in the long term. However as development will likely

occur in a phased manner, individual elements/phases will need to be further assessed at the time

of implementation for a range of issues such as;

Freight and Infrastructure requirements

Status of road up grades and traffic generation/management

Visual, noise and other environmental considerations

Cost and Funding

Prevailing Policy and Planning Framework.

New Ro‐Ro Service (Short Term)

7.3.1 Port of Cork anticipates opportunities for the accommodation of new services including from

mainland Europe. It is envisaged that such services could comprise a combination of passengers,

containers and unaccompanied freight vehicles. Such services would require the use of an access

ramp. A new berth would be required in order to avoid scheduling conflicts with existing passenger

ferry services.

There are significant synergies between this type of operation and the current Ferry Terminal

operations at Ringaskiddy and it is concluded that the most suitable location for a new Ro‐Ro/multi‐

purpose berth is at the east side of Ringaskiddy basin, close to the existing ferry terminal. This

location has significant back‐up lands available and would consolidate Ro‐Ro activities. Such a

berth, being adjacent to substantial port lands, could also potentially contribute to the handling of

quarter ramp vessels thus potentially releasing capacity at the Deep water Berth.

An indicative layout of such a facility is illustrated in Figure 7.3. The cost of developing the

infrastructure for such a scheme would be in the order of €27M including access ramp.




FINAL 56 May 2010

Figure 7.3: Indicative RoRo/Multi‐Purpose Berth

Demand to facilitate larger Container vessels (Short Term)

7.3.2 This trend towards larger container vessels is already evident. It is necessary therefore to provide a

suitable berth which has sufficient quay length and water depth and with access to sufficient back‐

up lands for the handling and storage of containers. Ideally back‐up land should be immediately

adjacent to the quay area in order to avoid shunting operations

Given that the lands adjacent to the Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal have been identified as the mostsuitable location for long term container operations it is considered that any short term

accommodation of larger container vessels would be best be carried out at this location. This will

avoid any unnecessary development costs.

Subject to scheduling it is considered that in the short term container vessels could be

accommodated at the new Ro‐Ro/Multi‐Purpose Berth proposed adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal (Ref: S7.3.1). Considerable cost savings could be made if such a facility was shared in the

short term. Additional facilities for the accommodation of container trade would be limited to the

preparation of a container storage yard and the provision of container handling equipment . The

additional cost of providing such facilities would be in the order of €14M, including a harbour mobile

crane.

Eventually as demand increased, container operations could be developed as proposed in section

7.2.1 by the construction of new container berths with the multi‐purpose berth solely

accommodating other modes.

Figure 7.4 illustrates a pos sible layout.




FINAL 57 May 2010

Figure 7.4: Accommodation of First Phase Containers at RoRo/Multi‐Purpose Berth

Relocation of Bulk/General Cargo Trades from City Quays (Medium

Term)

7.3.3 Relocation of trades from the City Quays will be influenced by the timing of Cork Docklands

developments and the construction of the associated proposed cross river bridges. Given the

current economic climate there is uncertainty as to when this might occur. However it can be

anticipated that not all activities will relocate at the same time and as such some consideration can

be given as to how the accommodation of displaced trades may be phased at Bulk/General cargo

facilities at Ringaskiddy and Marino Point.

Any new Bulk/General cargo facilities at Ringaskiddy will include an extension to the Deep Water

Berth and the construction of new quays and associated hinterland at the location of the existingADM jetty. A new single berth will likely be adequate to accommodate displaced Cereals/feedstuffs

if an additional multi‐purpose berth has already been provided adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry

terminal (Ref: S7.3.2). This additional berth would most sensibly be provided as a 180 m extension

to the DWB which could be considered a first phase in the development of additional bulk handling

facilities at Ringaskiddy. Such an extension to the Deepwater Berth would involve a capital cost in

the region of €10M‐€12M.

Further provision of Bulk/General Cargo facilities would involve the construction of quays and

reclamation on the ADM jetty foreshore within the constraints of the site and in phases to suit

demand/need. A possible arrangement is illustrated in Figure 7.2. The cost of providing additional

quays and reclamation as shown would be in the order of €38M ‐ €40M excluding port equipment.




FINAL 58 May 2010

At Marino Point accommodation of Bulk/General cargo trade could be accommodated in a first

phase by the use of the existing jetty. This could offer a very low cost first phase although a new

access viaduct may need to be constructed. Further phases could comprise extensions to the

existing jetty as demand requires.

Relocation of Bulk Liquids from Tivoli (Medium Term)

7.3.4 Relocation of Bulk Liquids could most appropriately be accommodated in a phased manner at

Marino Point. The existing jetty at this location is currently used for the offloading of bulk liquids

and could be used in a similar manner for displaced Bulk Liquids.

Should the jetty be used for other bulk or general cargoes then a bulks berth could be provided as

an extension to the existing jetty at minimal infrastructure cost (in the order of €1.8M ‐ €2Mexcluding pipe work) as illustrated in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5: Possible Bulk Liquids Berth at Marino Point

Relocation of Container Operations from Tivoli (Medium Term)

7.3.5 Relocation of container activities from Tivoli will b e influenced by a number of factors including;

Operational implications of navigational and physical constraints at Tivoli

Realization of value from the Tivoli estate to fund port projects

Customer demand




FINAL 59 May 2010

Again the timing of any movement of activities is unknown but the provision of further container

facilities at Ringaskiddy could be phased on a berth by berth phased basis as illustrated in Figures

7.6 to 7.9 and as listed below;

1. Multi purpose berth for container

and RORO services (Ref: S10.4.1 &

S10.4.2) – (Figure 7.6)

2. Construct s econd berth (Figure 7.7)

3. Construct third berth with

associated reclamation – (Figure

7.8)

4. Fourth berth with associated

reclamation. (Figure 7.9)




FINAL 60 May 2010

Conclusions

7.4 Following the detailed site selection, short‐listing and site appraisal process the following

conclusions are made with respect to the strategic development of Port of Cork;

Main Infrastructure Development

7.4.1 The primary location for the relocation of port activities from the upper harbour should be

Ringaskiddy. This location is already associated with considerable port activity and port related

development would be consistent with CDP and emerging Local and Regional Planning and

Transportation policy objectives. Consolidation will have considerable benefits in terms of port

operations and the relocation of both containers and bulks to this location will minimise the need to

rely on more than one major road upgrade scheme. Flexibility and future proofing opportunities are

presented with this approach.

7.4.1.1 A new dedicated container terminal would best be located on port lands adjacent to the Ringaskiddy

Ferry Terminal.

7.4.1.2 Bulks operations should primarily be located at the Deep water berth and ADM locations

7.4.1.3 There will be a requirement for a supplementary site for Bulk/General cargo which should be

located at Marino Point.

7.4.1.4 The Marino Point site is best suited to the accommodation of Bulk Liquids trade.


7.4.2 Initially facilities for deeper drafted container vessels and new RO‐RO services could be

accommodated at a Multi‐purpose Berth adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal

7.4.2.1 Depending on the type of trade to be accommodated phasing of the relocation of bulks trade should

commence with either;

o An extension to Ringaskiddy Deep water Berth, or

o The use of the existing Marino Point jetty with associated access improvements through the

escarpment.

7.4.2.2 Further phases of the accommodation of bulks should comprise either;

o the development of a new quay and back‐up land on the ADM Jetty site, or

o Extension of the existing Marino Point Jetty

7.4.2.3 Transfer of container trade from Tivoli should be phased by the timed provision of additional berths

and back up areas adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal

7.4.2.4 Accommodation of displaced bulk liquids should be phased by either;

o The use of the existing Marino Point Jetty, or




FINAL 61 May 2010

o The provision of a dedicated liquids berth as an extension to the Marino Point Jetty (if bulks

operations are also present)

Evaluation of Recommended Strategy

7.4.3 The strategy outlined in this review is designed to best meet the commercial and operational needs

of the Port and its customers; to best contribute to the competitiveness and economic demands of

the Region and the Country; and to facilitate the sustainable population growth of the Region

A flexible strategy, regularly reviewed, comprising of short, medium and longer term objectives,

which has regard to financial considerations and which has a supportive planning framework is

deemed to be the most viable approach. It is the Port’s judgement that the final outcome to the

Review of the Strategic Development Plan meets these objectives.

The Strategic Development Plan review process, incorporating extensive public consultation, has

identified a range of factors influencing the identification of the preferred sites for future

development. These factors and the impact of the proposal to locate new port activities in future at

Ringaskiddy and Marino Point are discussed below.

The following paragraphs describe how the recommended strategy meets the particular needs and

objectives of the port, addresses the issues raised in the public consultation process and meets key

regional requirements.

Needs and Objectives of the Port of Cork

The outlined Strategy is designed to best meet the needs of the Port in the unitised sector ( Lo‐Lo

and Ro‐Ro), Bulk Solid, Bulk Liquids and General Cargo sectors in a feasible, phased and practical

manner. How the above proposals will meet the Port of Corks stated needs is illustrated in Table 7.4




FINAL 62 May 2010

Lands Adjacent

Ringaskiddy

Ferry Terminal

Deep Water

Berth

Extension ADM

Marino

Point

Containers ‐ 600 m quay √Bulk Solids ‐ 700 m quay √ √ √

Liquid Bulks ‐ 170 m Berth √

Ro‐Ro ‐ 250 m Berth √ N E E D S

Accommodation Seveso activities √

Single Container terminal for larger vessels √

Accommodate mainland Europe Service √

Phased relocation from City Quays √ √ √ P H A S I N G

Phased relocation from Tivoli √

Table 7.4: Meeting the Port of Cork’s Needs

Tourism, Culture and Heritage

By locating new port activities at Ringaskiddy and Marino Point no port developments to the south

and the east of Cobh have been proposed.

The area identified by tourism interests as the most scenic in Cork Harbour and which is the most

sensitive from a tourism, culture and heritage p erspective is not proposed for future port facilities.

Any impacts at proposed port locations will be considered in detail at design / environmental impact

statement stage of any project and mitigated where feasible and appropriate.

Environment

The locations chosen for new port developments do not involve any expansion into areas with

special SPA, SAC or pNHA environmental designations. At design stage any potential impact on such

areas will be assessed in detail and any mitigation or compensation measures will be considered at

that time.

At any location in Cork Harbour the issue of noise is likely to give rise to concerns. The site selection

process, undertaken as part of this review, involved comparative noise modelling but at design stage

there will be a detailed assessment of potential noise impacts and mitigation, abatement or

management m easures proposed as necessary.

Adherence to best practice guidelines, ongoing technical improvements and the ports own

Environmental Management System should minimise air and dust emissions at the proposed

development locations.

In terms of scenery and landscape impact the selected locations are likely to have the least overall

impact. Again at design stage and following detailed assessments efforts will be made to minimise

impacts where feasible to do so.

Industrial Sites

The two preferred sites, Ringaskiddy and Marino Point are either zoned for industry and port usesand/or have existing industrial and port activities adjacent.




FINAL 63 May 2010

Harbour Management

It would be an ambition of the Port to advance any project arising from the strategy outlined in the

context of an integrated approach to overall development in Cork Harbour.

The outcome of the Strategic Development Plan Review will be communicated and discussed with

all Stakeholders. Any individual project will be advanced in full consultation with residents, amenity

groups and other stakeholders prior to an application for statutory approval.

Infrastructure and Traffic

Infrastructure and Traffic were key issues in the formulation of the proposed development strategy.

Upgrade proposals in road infrastructure at the primary site Ringaskiddy have been prepared by the

National Road Authority and by Cork County Council which would serve the supplementary site at

Marino Point. Improvements to key interchanges on the strategic road network are also being

advanced.

Detailed traffic assessments will be undertaken at project design stage.

Rail

The potential port development identified for Marino Point could be connected to the rail network

at some point should a demand emerge that is commercially viable, which adds to the

competitiveness of the Port, which serves the needs of the region and meets customer

requirements.

It is proposed to communicate the findings of the recently commissioned Rail Study and to detail to

interested parties the significance of the study in the site selection process.

Leisure and Amenity

The chosen strategy seeks to respect the overall Leisure and Amenity value of the Harbour. The

extent of reclamation proposed for the previous Oyster Bank Scheme has been considerably

reduced. Reclamation will only become necessary for the latter stages of development. Also the

existing Pier can remain operational for a considerably longer period before relocation to the east.

Engagement will continue with all stakeholders to assess how any concerns can be allayed through

mitigation and community gain initiatives.

Phasing

A phased approach to the delivery of port infrastructure is the only feasible approach open to the

port at this time. The sequencing of individual projects will be dependent on several factors

including ongoing assessment of needs and availability of finance. A phased approach also offers the

opportunity for continuous review, monitoring of impacts and assessments over time.

Fishing

The outlined strategy avoids port developments at sites which would have the most impact on

fishing grounds and the marine ecology generally.

Stakeholder Engagement Process and Relationships

The port proposes to communicate the outline strategy to stakeholders over the next few months

and to elaborate in detail on the site selection process.




FINAL 64 May 2010

It is also proposed to have ongoing engagement prior to and during the development of projects.

Planning Policy

The preferred locations of Ringaskiddy and Marino Point are consistent with the policy of developing Cork as a national Gateway. The provision of better and more competitive port facilities

in the Lower Harbour and the redevelopment of the City Docklands and Tivoli sites are both

required to support the Cork Gateway.

The draft Regional Planning Guidelines support the development objectives for the Port of Cork and

note that sustainable expansion of the Port is in line with the targeted economic growth for the

Region.

The 2009 Cork County Development Plan identifies Ringaskiddy as the preferred site for the

relocation of upper harbour activities. The outline strategies for the Carrigaline and Midleton

Electoral Areas, which were published as part of the review of the Local Area Plans, indicate thatlands will be zoned for new port activities at Ringaskiddy and Marino Point.

Economic Policy

National economic policy seeks to improve the competitiveness of our main exporting sectors.

Effective implementation of these policies will require port facilities which can accommodate larger

and deeper drafted vessels and have low operating costs and which thus have the capacity to

support substantial economic growth.

The preferred site was assessed as the most viable in terms of meeting the commercial and

operational needs of the Port in a competitive environment.

Facilitating Sustainable Population Growth

The relocation of port activities from Tivoli and the City Docklands has been identified as being

necessary to achieve the level of population growth targeted for Cork City. The redevelopment of

former port areas will ensure more efficient use of land within the city. The co‐location of

residential, employment and community / retail facilities within mixed‐use developments will

reduce the need for car commuting.

Cork City Council and the CASP review have identified the significant overall benefits and gains that

would arise if an additional population of over 20,000 was accommodated at South Docklands and

Tivoli on the lands vacated by port relocation.

Road Sustainability

A number of initiatives are proposed at the national level to enhance the sustainability of road

freight transport; including priority freight routes; key log istics centres; and more sustainable freight

vehicles. The emerging transportation policy will achieve better management of the capacity of

national routes and give priority to strategic freight traffic.

The Port of Cork will engage at a national level with the All Island Freight Forum in the

implementation of measures to improve the sustainability of port‐related road‐based freight.








FINAL 67 May 2010

Figure 8.1: Proposed Port Infrastructure at Ringaskiddy


8.2 The precise timing of the Port’s ongoing development is uncertain particularly having regard to the

current trends in the availability of funding or the Port’s ability to raise the level of required funds

from it’s own assets and therefore consideration must also be given as to how the Port may move

towards the planned infrastructure developments in the short and medium term in an affordable,

logical and cost effective manner.

The Strategic Development Plan must be flexible and be able to be adapted in the short to medium

terms to react to drivers and changing circumstances.

The following phased developments have been identified. The order of implementation will be

dictated by demand and customer/trade requirements.

Containers

8.2.1

Development of Multi‐purpose Berth adjacent to Ringaskiddy Container Terminal to cater

for larger container vessels.

Linear development of quays and reclamation adjacent to lands at Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal.




FINAL 68 May 2010

Bulk / General Cargo

8.2.2

Extension of the existing Ringaskiddy Deep Water Berth

Use of the existing Marino Point Jetty and adjacent lands with appropriate improvements

to jetty access

Development of quays and back‐up area at the ADM Jetty site on a linear phased basis as

demand dictates

Extension of the existing Marino Point Jetty and associated land side developments as

demand dictates

Bulk Liquids

8.2.3

Use of the existing Marino Point Jetty and adjacent lands with appropriate improvements

to jetty access

Development of dedicated bulk liquids berth at Marino Point as demand and other uses

dictate.

Ro‐Ro

8.2.4

Installation of access ramp at the Multi‐Purpose berth adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry

Terminal

SDP Review ‐ Action List

8.3 The following key initiatives and actions have been identified as necessary to ensure the satisfactory

implementation of the above mentioned infrastructural developments to meet th e Port of Corksstated needs and objectives.

8.3.1 The Port of Cork should continue to engage in the development of Planning and Transport Policy at

all levels of national and local government to strengthen policy in support of the objectives of the

2010 Strategic Development Plan.

8.3.2 Any proposals for development under the 2010 Strategic Development Plan should be rigorously

tested in relation to potential environmental impacts prior to finalising detailed proposals.

8.3.3 The contribut ion which the Whitegate Jetty might make as a potential location for further bulk

liquids activities should b e kept under review.





STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | APPENDICES

FINAL May 2010

Appendix A

Conceptual Development Plans

















Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jenny8220
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times