We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Moville Pier (Donegal) Works .

Moville Pier collapse and repair responsibility

Summary

The pier’s outer end collapsed during a 1980 storm after a £95,000 improvement scheme, funded mainly by the Department. The Minister said maintenance rested with the harbour commissioners, who had not reported their views to the Department.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will make a statement on Moville Pier, County Donegal, with particular reference to the cause of the collapse of the new part of the pier.

Comment on this

: Moville Pier is vested in the Harbour Commissioners for the port of Derry. Work on the present structure was completed in 1976 as part of an improvement scheme carried out for the benefit of local fishermen. The scheme was financed by a grant from my Department and a contribution from the commissioners. Following completion of the work the commissioners assumed responsibility for future maintenance of the pier.

During a storm in 1980 a portion of the outer end of the pier collapsed. Following investigations by engineers of the Office of Public Works and my Department it emerged that substantial dredging alongside the pier was carried out by the harbour commissioners during the summer of 1979 in order to facilitate the operation of a ferry service between Oban in Scotland and Moville. The engineers of the Office of Public Works and my Department are in agreement that the dredging led to the collapse of the pier.

In the light of the foregoing, this Department consider that the repair of the pier is a matter for the harbour commissioners and are in negotiation with them in the matter.

Comment on this

: How much of a grant was given for the original repair?

Comment on this

: The harbour improvement scheme to which the Deputy refers cost £95,000, of which my Department contributed £80,000, the balance being contributed by the harbour commissioners.

Comment on this

: In view of this Government's large commitment with regard to this work, is the Minister satisfied that the works carried out were of a satisfactory nature? Has he obtained an engineer's report certifying that these works were of the requisite quality?

Comment on this

: Consultations have taken place between the Commissioners, my Department and the Office of Public Works. The Department's case was put on foot of the original agreement which laid responsibility for maintenance on the shoulders of the harbour commissioners. The chief executive of the commissioners was to report to a committee of his harbour commissioners in November 1982 and was to advise the Department of the commissioners' views on this matter. The harbour commissioners have not communicated with my Department since that meeting.

Comment on this