Port of Cork Strategic Development Plan Review

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 are

measured 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, and

barges 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 undertaken 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 City

Quays.

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 ‐ is

handled 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 and

the 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 project 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 to 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 destination 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 the amenity value of Cork Harbour.

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 management.

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 overall 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 to

provide 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 the

Strategic 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 be 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 terminal.

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 justified”.

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 Context

2.1 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 competitiveness. In the case of the marine sector, good international 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

2 Cork County Development Plan 2009 ‐ 2015

3 South 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 the

achievement 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 pre‐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 in

improving 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 promote 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 CASP 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 acknowledging

that, 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 port centred logistics, requiring land banks adjacent to port facilities; 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 the

reduced 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 the 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

Per

Cen

t Sha

re

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

Ave

rage

Gro

ss T

onna

ge (,

000

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 the

demands 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 only

vessels 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, medium 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 19 May 2010

Vessel Characteristics and Berth requirements

3.3.2 It is anticipated that container vessels which will seek to use Port of Cork in the future will be of

greater length and draft than those currently operating. In planning for the development of port

infrastructure it is anticipated that container vessels could have drafts up to 10 m and lengths up to

200m at a minimum.

The likely closure of the City quays because of redevelopment in Docklands and Tivoli because of

operational constraints will lead to the loss of a significant length of berthing quay which is currently

available. Up to 1275m will be lost at City Quays and in the order of 716m at Tivoli.

In considering projected trade volumes it is anticipated that Port of Cork will ultimately require up

to 3 container berths, 4 bulks/general cargo berths, a single bulk liquids berth and a single Ro‐Ro

berth in order to meet anticipated trade volumes and customer requirements.

Landbank & Back Up Areas

3.3.3 Appropriate back up areas need to be available adjacent to any new berthing facility. Whilst

requirements for the provision of back up areas will vary from trade to trade it is recognized that

where possible back up areas should be provided immediately behind operational quays in order to

ensure cargo handling operations are as effective and efficient as possible. This is particularly

important in the handling of break bulk and project type cargos.

Funding

3.3.4 Although the consideration of the funding of particular developments is beyond the scope of this

review of the Strategic Development Plan, the assessment and selection of suitable sites must

consider the potential cost of developments as this will be a key constraint in the realization of the

Port's goals.

The sale and redevelopment of the Tivoli Estate is likely to be required in order to fund future port

developments. In the context of changed economic and property outlook the strategy for the

realization of value from the Port’s assets, in particular the Tivoli estate, must be reviewed.

Consideration must also be given to how funds may be available in the short to medium term to

facilitate a phased development of facilities.


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 potential

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 redeveloped. 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 key

criteria 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 the future

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 were

awarded 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

Adj’ Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal Marino Point B

East Side Ringaskiddy basin Marino Point B

Adj’ Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal

Dogsnose Bank East Side Ringaskiddy basin ADM

ADM Dogsnose Bank Dogsnose Bank Whitegate Whitegate Cork Dockyard Haulbowline Cork Dockyard Marino Point A Cork Dockyard Haulbowline Whitegate Curlane 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 developed for bulk liquids storage which might also have cost benefits.


FINAL 28 May 2010

Shortlisted Sites

4.2.7 It is clear from the foregoing that there are a number of sites that would be appropriate for more

than 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 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.


FINAL 29 May 2010

Chapter 5 Public Consultations

Section 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 Councils, 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 virgin 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 amenity 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 plans 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 all 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 the 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 competing

priorities 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 noise 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 be 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 possibly 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 the 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 well.

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 Assessment

Assessment 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 Trades

6.1 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 are 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 developed 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 a significant 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 been reclaimed for some considerable period of time and will be suitable for development of the types envisaged

Site has good potential for future expansion

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 required but would not be a significant constraint

Consolidation can be expected under 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 the sedimentation 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

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank 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 but is 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 quay envisaged 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 the Port 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 a loss 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 be significant conflict with other harbour users

As the proposed development is 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 for the phasing of developments

Site is very remote from all other 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 craft sailing grounds


FINAL 41 May 2010

Road and Rail Transport

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank The site is accessed by the Regional Road R624 which has capacity and poor alignment issues

This site would access directly onto the N28 National Road Network

This site would access directly onto the N28 National Road Network

All traffic associated with a port development at this location would use the Regional Route R630

Belvelly Bridge, a heritage structure, is a major constraint in terms of route upgrade.

Some sections of the N28 already exceed capacity at peak times. However the AM peak hour is significantly higher than the off peak period

Some sections of the N28 already exceed capacity at peak times. However the AM peak hour is significantly higher than the off peak period

The R630 is a busy road and sections of the road already exceed capacity without any additional port related traffic

The present volume of traffic already exceeds the current capacity of the road

From this site traffic travelling to/from the N25 Southbound to/from the N71 (West Cork), N22 (Kerry), N27 (Kinsale, City Centre), Carrigaline will not have to use the Dunkettle Interchange

From this site traffic travelling to/from the N25 Southbound to/from the N71 (West Cork), N22 (Kerry), N27 (Kinsale, City Centre), Carrigaline will not have to use the Dunkettle Interchange

Any such additional port related traffic would have to route via a number of villages and residential areas such as Aghada, Rostellan, Saleen, and Ballinacurra

This road is not a designated National Route and it would most likely need to be upgraded to accommodate any significant port traffic

Traffic travelling to/from the N8 and N25 Eastbound will still use the Dunkettle Interchange

Traffic travelling to/from the N8 and N25 Eastbound will still use the Dunkettle Interchange

The R630 is not a designated National Route and a new offline road alignment would be likely to be required

There are currently plans by Cork County Council to upgrade approx. 3km of the road to dual carriageway, however at present there is no funding for this scheme

There are proposals published by the NRA to upgrade the National Primary route N28 to a dual carriageway. This upgrade scheme is ready for CPO and is awaiting funding commitments.

There are proposals published by the NRA to upgrade the National Primary route N28 to a dual carriageway. This upgrade scheme is ready for CPO and is awaiting funding commitments.

All traffic from a port development at this location would have to access the N25 at the Lakeview Roundabout. This junction is currently congested at peak periods

The proposed upgrade commences approximately 0.8km south of the N25/R624 Interchange and does not extend as far as Marino Point Site

Road upgrade proposals for this site are more advanced than for other sites under consideration

Road upgrade proposals for this site are more advanced than for other sites under consideration

There will be significant additional traffic on the N25

The current proposals do not factor in the possibility of port relocation to Marino Point and the proposals may need to be upgraded to accommodate any additional port traffic

There are no existing or disused railway lines in the vicinity of this site and as such the site is not suitable for rail connection.

There are no existing or disused railway lines in the vicinity of this site and as such the site is not suitable for rail connection

Traffic travelling to the N8 and N25 Southbound would still have to use the Dunkettle Interchange

A major port development at this site would give rise to significant additional traffic on the N25 and traffic travelling to the N8 and N25 southbound would still need to use the Dunkettle Interchange

The use of this location would give rise to an additional mileage of approx. 80 km per round trip

The site is adjacent to a rail line and the potential therefore exists for rail connectivity in the future. There is an existing disused railway line at Marino Point

There are no existing or disused railway lines in the vicinity of this site and as such the site is not suitable for rail connection


FINAL 42 May 2010

Ecology

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank

Gen

eral

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



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

Potential for disturbance of birds within Cork Harbour 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

Most of the birds using this part of the SPA are migratory and hence there will be little opportunity for them to habituate to noise

Most of the birds using this part of the SPA are migratory and hence there will be little opportunity for them to habituate to noise

Terrestrial Ecology

Overall for this site the potential for disturbance of birds within Cork Harbour SPA is considered low to moderate

Dredging works will be required at this site which might result in the degradation of some habitat which 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 than reclamation areas associated with other sites

The marine habitat in areas of potential reclamation and dredging is moderate to high quality fish nursery and fish feeding 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 for a 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

Marine Ecolog

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 Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank

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

There is limited scope to 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

There is limited scope to 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 likely that noise emission characteristics of bulk solids operations would be less intrusive than for container operations.

There may be potential for negative noise impacts if bulk cargo handling operations are required to be undertaken extensively during night‐time

There may be a potential for negative noise impacts at this location 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

Noise

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 Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank

The main site is reasonably well screened by the escarpment and there is limited potential for visual impact on scenic routes

The presence of existing adjacent industrial buildings and 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 the ultimate 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 not within 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 cranes for 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 for development 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

Views from the surrounding 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 for visual impacts on dwellings occupying higher slopes

Views from the surrounding 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 elements in the landscape

Land

scap

e an

d Visua

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

Marino Point ADM Adjacent Ferry Terminal Dognose Bank Air quality is unlikely to be a significant issue at this site given the relatively large distance (800m) to sensitive receptors

Air quality is unlikely to be a significant issue at this site given the relatively large distance to receptors

Air quality is unlikely to be a significant issue at this site given the relatively large distance to receptors. Good practice in port operations will assist in minimizing impacts

Air quality is unlikely to be a significant issue at this site given the relatively large distance to receptors. Good practice in port operations will assist in minimising impacts

Air Qua

lity

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 to population 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 not meeting the HSA’s guidelines depending on the final location of any such activities and detailed design considerations

There could be potential problems with accommodating Seveso activities 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 to risk from any potential Seveso activities

Seveso Activities

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

Development at this site is broadly consistent with regional planning policy.

Development at this site is broadly consistent with regional planning policy.

Development at this site is broadly consistent with 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

Development would also be 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 third 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 operations 71.4M3 5.3M 76.7M

IBM0253 – 101C Marino Point ‐ Bulks/General

Cargo 56.6M3 ‐ 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 Cargo 78.3M 11.9M 90.2M

IBM0253 – 130B Dogsnose Bank – Bulks/General

Cargo 83.6M 9.1M 92.7M

IBM0253 – 135B Dogsnose Bank ‐ containers

136.0M 29.9M 165.9M

1 Includes multipurpose berth (including access ramp)

2 Includes access ramp

3 Costs 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 proofing 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 from

the 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 periods However NRA 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 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 R630 infrastructure 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 be extremely 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 the 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 operating 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 the

context 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


Existing rail connection only likely 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.


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



Immediately adjacent to Cork Harbour SPA (Monkstown Creek section) Potential for disturbance of which may limit the extent of development possible.

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”. The site would contribute to consolidation of Port activities.

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

Physical constraints including planned submarine electricity cable and degree of exposure in storm conditions.

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”

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.

Development at this site is broadly consistent with 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 negate 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



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 intervening period and as such the plan must provide for flexibility, future proofing and adaptability in the short to medium term.

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 upgrades 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 most

suitable 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 possible 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 existing

ADM 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 ‐ €2M

excluding 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 be 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 second 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 √

NEEDS

Accommodation Seveso activities √

Single Container terminal for larger vessels √

Accommodate mainland Europe Service √

Phased relocation from City Quays √ √ √

PHASING

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 perspective 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 measures 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 uses

and/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 that

lands 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 logistics 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 65 May 2010

Risk

7.4.4 It is important in reviewing the Strategic Development plan to give consideration to risks which may

impact on implementation. Table 7.5 lists the main risks that have been identified and proposes

how these might be approached in the implementation of the plan.

Risk Approach N28 upgrade Port of Cork should continue to advocate the importance of the new N28 to

Ringaskiddy Capacity of existing roads for interim developments

Detailed traffic assessment and implementation of mitigation measures where possible

R624 upgrade Port of Cork should seek to influence the upgrading of the R624 to Marino Point with Cork County Council and the National Roads Authority.

Environmental impacts Rigorous testing of proposals by EIA and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures

Noise impact Detailed noise assessment of individual schemes

Use of modern equipment and methods of working to reduce noise generation in port operations

Screening where appropriate

Consideration of working hours

Limit on ADM site due to impact on Monkstown Creek SPA

Detailed consideration of type of operations and potential impact

Capacity of existing Marino Jetty for proposed uses

Carry out load assessment and develop proposals accordingly including strengthening if required

Ownership of Mario Point Seek to acquire site

Consideration of alternatives if Marino point is not available

Compliance with Planning Policy Port of Cork should continue to engage in the development of Planning and Transport Policy at all levels to strengthen policy in support of the objectives of the Strategic Development Plan

Public Objection Ongoing engagement with all stakeholders throughout the implementation phase

Funding Ongoing consideration of funding options

Consideration of timing in respect of release of Tivoli lands. Advance Tivoli Redevelopment Scheme

Table 7.5: Main Risks in Implementation


FINAL 66 May 2010

Chapter 8 Recommendations

Summary

8.1 Arising from this root and branch Review of it’s 2002 Strategic Plan, the Port of Cork has restated it’s

commitment to ensure that Cork remains a world class port with a sustainable and economically

viable future, to support and serve the economic competitiveness and sustainability needs of the

Cork Gateway, its regional economy and hinterland.

This review has played a key role in identifying and evaluating the Ports objectives and the facilities

and operational requirements which are necessary to deliver them, in a sustainable and balanced

way, having due regard to the needs of the Port of Cork, its customers, the regional economy and

the Cork Harbour communities.

This Review has established that by 2030 the Port of Cork is expected to be handling trade volumes

in the order of 380,000 TEU unitized cargo, 30,850 Ro‐Ro units, 1.8 million tonnes bulk cargo and 7

million tonnes bulk liquids. Accordingly advance planning and provision of new harbour facilities is

essential for the Port of Cork to operate competitively and is fundamental to supporting the future

growth of the Regional economy.

This Review of the Port of Cork Strategic Plan recommends that in order for the Port of Cork to

deliver on it’s role to support and contribute to the competitiveness of the regional economy and to

deliver on it’s commitment to it’s customers, the Port of Cork will have to provide additional port

infrastructure to allow the port to meet anticipated demand and to address key issues with regard

to existing port infrastructure. These additional port infrastructures include;

A new container terminal located on lands adjacent to Ringaskiddy Ferry Terminal..

Bulk, Break Bulk and General Cargo facilities located at the Deep Water Berth/ADM Jetty site

in Ringaskiddy.

Additional Bulk/General Cargo facilities at Marino Point.

A Multi‐Purpose Ro‐Ro berth adjacent to the Ringaskiddy Container Terminal

Bulk Liquids handling and storage facilities at Marino Point.


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 the Port of Corks

stated 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 contribution which the Whitegate Jetty might make as a potential location for further bulk

liquids activities should be kept under review.


FINAL 69 May 2010

8.3.4 The Port of Cork should continue to seek to raise the profile of the required road upgrades to

potential locations of the additional port facilities including in particular the N28 upgrade to

Ringaskiddy and upgrade of the R624 link road from Marino Point to the N25.

8.3.5 The Port of Cork should keep under review opportunities for the use of the Marino Point site to

accommodate rail access and movement by Rail of appropriate niche trades.

8.3.6 The timing of the Implementation of the various elements of the Strategic Development Plan should

be kept under review having regard to the various drivers influencing the need to provide new

facilities and the ability to fund them.

8.3.7 The Port of Cork should continue to actively engage with Stakeholders following the publication of

this Review and during the planning and implementation stages of the Strategic Development Plan

2010 proposals.

8.3.8 The Strategic Development Plan should be periodically reviewed typically every 5 years to assess the

influence of any changed circumstances, policy or legislation. The plan should be updated as

required to ensure it accurately reflects the current situation.

8.3.9 The Port of Cork should seek to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are adopted

at all stages when progressing individual proposals under the Strategic Development Plan, including

having due regard to sustainable transport short sea and coastal shipping, as complimentary to rail

freight.,

8.3.10 The Port of Cork should seek to ensure the use of modern technology in order to minimize the

environmental impact of port operations, particularly in relation to noise and air quality.

8.3.11 The Port of Cork should undertake a separate standalone study to identify the facilities and services

likely to be required to meet the requirements of the Cruise Sector in the medium and longer term.

8.3.12 The Port should continue to advance proposals for the redevelopment of the Tivoli estate in line

with Regional and Local Development Plans and Objectives and as a means of funding individual

projects to provide the required additional cargo handling facilities that have been identified.

8.3.13 The Port should regularly review its Capital Funding programme and explore opportunities for

partnerships with the private sector.

8.3.14 The Port should continue to monitor the trend to port centred logistics and pursue initiatives

utilising adjacent land banks to serve customer needs.

STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010 | APPENDICES

FINAL May 2010

Appendix A

Conceptual Development Plans

Date post:	09-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	portofcork-portofcork
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times