UPDATE - 16/12/2009
Text of Submission by RfR to the An Bord Pleanala Metro North Oral Hearings - 15/12/09
Residents for Realignment Ltd (RfR) was set up to lobby to ensure the RPA would choose a route for Metro North which:
1. Maximised the use of the green and unoccupied zones
2. Run the tunnels at a depth which ensured minimum disruption during construction
3. Eliminated the possibility of post-construction impact
The community of Drumcondra mobilized and mandated RfR to participate in the decision making process so as to ensure the protection of Drumcondra and surrounding areas from any potential negative effect of the construction and operation of Metro North.
To this end RfR are honouring a commitment made at a meeting in Corpus Christi Parish Hall of six hundred residents in June 2007 to continue to work on their behalf, up to and including making an oral submission to these hearings.
RfR have through extensive lobbying ensured that residents were given an opportunity to partake in the consultation process on alignment selection. This involved obtaining funding for an independent expert, Mr Brian Madden, to look at the proposed alignments in the Drumcondra area. Assisted by the subsequent report compiled by Mr Madden, residents in Drumcondra made individual submissions on this issue.
This consultation process resulted in the RPA adopting a compromise alignment ‘Option 6’ which significantly increased the use of the green and unoccupied zones in the area and most importantly moved the cross over tunnel to a green field site.
RfR had identified to the RPA at a very early stage the difficulties that would arise with the original positioning of the cross over tunnel. We feel the moving of this cross over tunnel from underneath homes to a green field site was an extremely important achievement for both residents and the project.
As already stated in our written submission we continue to have issues in relation to the methodology of construction of the cross over tunnel and request that the Inspector define this methodology as a resident friendly condition of the railway order, as the different construction methods have significantly different impacts on the community.
RfR have to date made two detailed submissions and also engaged extensively with the RPA and other stake holders prior to the application. In light of submissions from other parties we feel it appropriate to draw attention to three specific issues.
1. We request that a Resident’s Charter be made part of the Railway order and that this Charter be circulated to all homes along the route.
As part of this charter RfR request that in relation to hours of work the Inspector apply a blanket ban on night works in residential areas with leave for the contractor to apply for an exemption in exceptional circumstances, rather than residents having to apply for the exemptions to stop the work. An Bord Pleanala (APB) needs to protect those residents affected by its decisions rather than residents having to defend themselves.
2. RfR have concerns about the surface water capacity in the Drumcondra area. This problem has been acknowledged by Mr Tim Brick in an answer to Dublin City Council (DCC) chamber questions and therefore we ask the Inspector to pay particular attention to areas where developing existing green field sites would lead to any possibility of increases in the run off to areas that already flood in Drumcondra. We note that Fingal County Council (FCC) are currently undertaking flood mapping and would ask the Inspector to ensure DCC carry out a similar exercise.
3. RfR noted that FCC expects the Metro North project to create 37,000 new jobs. We have accordingly requested DCC to estimate the number of net jobs expected to be created by the project factoring in a 24/7 bus gate.
RfR have at all times attempted to improve the project from a resident’s point of view and to that end we have a few further comments to make.
1. RfR would like it noted that they were successful in obtaining funding for the Madden report and would like to thank Brian Madden for his professionalism. We were also successful in obtaining funding for independent expert advice for all residents along the entire route and would hope that this will now be the standard in all major strategic infrastructure projects. Although we also feel that the terms of reference for the independent expert tender need to be much more specific in future.
2. In relation to these hearings RfR requested that daily transcripts or web casting be made available however this was refused, despite an internal review, by ABP. We have referred this matter to the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information and are awaiting a decision which although too late for our purposes may assist other residents in future cases. RfR would respectfully request that the hearings be made more user-friendly. It would be very useful to:
a. Have a member of ABP at the back of the hall to assist members of the public with procedural issues regarding the running of the hearings, and,
b. Have a daily progress update on ABP’s web site so that members of the public and indeed those who have had to pay a fee in order to make their submission in the first place would have some reasonably accurate indication as to when they may be called. We do acknowledge that Mary Denise O’Reilly, RPA, has endeavoured to up date people in this regard.
3. RfR would also request that where a residents group has formed and engaged positively, that if as a result of their engagement an acknowledged and recognised improvement within a project is achieved, they be awarded all reasonable costs.
We would like to thank residents along the entire route, our public representatives and legal advisors for their help and support. This concludes our oral submission which together with our two written submissions we hope will be taken on board and be of assistance in delivering a world class Metro project.
| 
