Redundant docklands seen as ripe for redevelopment

THE plan for Dublin's redundant dockland would "bring together the many strands of public sector, private sector and community interests in the area so as to develop, a common vision for the future, according to a Government task force.

The task force, chaired by Mr Brendan O'Donoghue, Secretary of the Department of the Environment, was set up on Budget Day last January and given just two months to prepare a report on what mechanism should be put in place to redevelop the area.

Its report, presented to the Government early last month, says it would probably take 10 to 15 years to turn the vision of a master plan into reality, and this should be overseen by a widely representative Docklands Development Authority, subject to the normal planning process.

The report notes that the docklands area has been in decline in recent decades, mainly due to changes in the operation of the port and in many of the traditional port related activities. The character of the area had changed and it was now "ripe for redevelopment", exploiting its location close to the city centre.

Although some parts of the area currently had "a neglected, wasteland appearance", aggravated by problems with heavy traffic, the task force said the redundant docklands had "undoubted amenity opportunities' because of its network of waterways, including the Grand and Royal canal docks.

At present, these waterways were an under rated resource. There was a "stark contrast between the large numbers of people using the piers in Howth and Dun Laoghaire in the evenings or at weekends and the virtually deserted quays".

The overall level of new private sector development so far appeared "hesitant and patchy". The lack of a firm plan for the area, and of public authority commitment to its regeneration, had deterred investment, and there had also been criticism of some of the completed schemes.

Although census figures showed clear evidence of population decline, with a 34 per cent reduction between 1971 and 1991, more recent changes in the electoral register suggested that the rate of decline was now much less and, in some wards, the population had begun to increase.

The report notes local development and employment were the main focus of community groups. Given their considerable experience, "it would be important to ensure that a regeneration programme for the area would harness the valuable contribution which they have to make".

It is estimated that more than 400 acres of land in the area is in public ownership, mainly through CIE, Bord Gais Eireann, the ESB and Dublin Port. However, the report says that public sector interventions so far have been unco ordinated, and there is much scope for rationalisation.

For example, it mentions the road/rail transhipment terminal at North Wall Quay, saying it "does not appear to have an inseparable link with the port" and that CIE is examining the possibility of relocating it to the western fringes of the city, close to the M50 or "C ring" motorway.

The development of the Dublin Bus network and its integration with the proposed light rail system could open up the possibility of finding an alternative use for the garage site on Ringsend Road. Similarly, the "campshire" - the strip of land on both sides of the Liffey - could be developed for amenity use.

The next five years would see considerable public investment in the area, or in schemes which would directly affect it, such as the proposed tunnelled motorway serving Dublin Port, a new sewage treatment plant east of Ringsend Road and DART stations at Clontarf Road, Fairview and Barrow Street.

Other cities, such as Barcelona and Baltimore, had shown the potential for developing redundant port areas, while the regeneration of the London docklands "although not without its problems" was also an example. In Baltimore, it is credited with drawing seven million visitors a year to the city.

"Given its undoubted potential, there is a compelling case for the proposition that a renewal programme for the area requires a strategic approach, based on a master plan which would look at the area in its totality and, without being over prescriptive, define the means by which its potential can be realised."

But the task force says the plan should not focus on physical regeneration only. "The overall objective of the master plan must be to secure the sustainable social and economic regeneration of the area," it declares. One of the key issues would be to reintegrate the area into the life of the city.

According to the task force, the master plan should:

. Provide a framework within which the physical development of the area would take place in an imaginative but sensitive manner, sympathetic to the characteristics of the area.

. Encourage property owners in both the public and private sectors to bring forward suitable development proposals for vacant/underutilised sites.

. Develop the amenity, tourism and employment potential of the water bodies in the area, with the emphasis on creating jobs in boat building and new tourist facilities.

. Provide encouragement and support for "bottom up" local development activity and a framework to attain the social and economic objectives of local organisations.

. Identify how local employment needs can be met, and how development in the area could contribute to meeting wider job needs.

. Consolidate existing residential communities in the area and enhance its attractiveness as a location for further family and mixed residential accommodation.

. Develop solutions to the traffic issues arising in the area and promote improvements in the transport system, thereby opening it - and the bay area - to Dubliners.

. Consider the role which "anchor activities" such as water based sporting and leisure facilities might play in the regeneration process.

The report emphasises that a master plan for the docklands area must have regard to the overall planning framework for the city, and thus there would be a need for "a substantial involvement" by Dublin Corporation, both councillors and officials, in preparing and implementing the plan.

However, if rapid progress is to be made, it says "the lead role should be exercised by a special purpose body which would provide for representation of Dublin Corporation and a wide range of interests in the area, and have the power to intervene, where necessary, to secure co ordinated action."

The report says it would be "entirely inappropriate" to apply the CHDDA "fast track" model to the docklands area as a whole, because this would involve "the withdrawal of the planning process from the remit of the local authority and the exclusion of public participation in that process".

The Temple Bar model, under which all schemes must go through the normal planning process, provided a better precedent. "However, it too lacks the level of democratic/community involvement that would seem to be essential in the case of an agency concerned with the regeneration of an area as extensive as the docklands".

The proposed Docklands Development Authority would operate at two levels - a broadly representative council drawn from Dublin Corporation, community groups and representatives of other interests in the area - and a smaller executive board to implement the agreed plan.