andMr. Haughey asked the Minister for Communications if he will, following a decision of An Bord Pleanála to reject the planning application for LPG Storage in Dublin Bay, reject the harbour works application lodged in 1979 and initiate a programme of planning policy for the future of Dublin Bay and its surroundings.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Bay.
7.
The Dublin Port and Docks Board applied in 1979 for a harbour works order to reclaim an area of about 94 acres of foreshore opposite the Clontarf seafront for port development. Of this, an area of about seven acres was the requirement in respect of the LPG storage project. In view of the fact that the Port and Docks Board's application for a harbour works order was made as far back as 1979, I am asking the board to review its requirements in the light of developments in the meantime, including the recent decision of An Bord Pleanála in relation to the LPG project.
I should explain that the question of planning policy for the future of Dublin Bay and its surroundings is a matter for the planning authority and for the Minister for the Environment.
Does the Minister recall a similar question being asked over 12 months ago? At that time he was unable to make any specific undertaking regarding the harbour works order, on the grounds that the planning application was pending. As that planning application has been rejected and is now out of the way, and the Minister's own party gave a commitment in 1982 that that harbour works order would not be allowed, is the Minister now in a position to say that he will follow that line at this stage?
If I remember correctly, the previous question related directly to the LPG cavern project. I know that all the Deputies from the constituency were concerned about it. That question is now out of the way because of the decision of An Bord Pleanála not to permit it. As I have said, I have now asked the board to review their application in the light of that decision and of the passage of time since 1979.
Is the Minister not prepared to reject that application which has been on hands since 1979? The onus would then fall back on the Dublin Port and Docks Board to decide if they wish to make a new application.
It amounts to the same thing. I have not made a decision on the 1979 application. I have asked the board to reconsider it. When it comes before me, I shall consider it.
In considering this matter, whether it is to do with the abortive gas cavern appeal or not, would the Minister bear in mind that the amount of sea space which is available to the people on the north side of Dublin, particularly in the Fairview-Clontarf area, is by nature limited and that sea space is of enormous importance to the environment and, indeed, to the health of the people in that area? Would he be prepared now to give an undertaking that no further harbour works areas will be made which will in any way encroach on that very valuable and important amenity for the people of the north side of this city?
I do not think that I could make such a blanket commitment. I acknowledge the concern of the people in the area about the nature of any future works. Indeed, I recognise the concern of all the Deputies for that constituency. I had indicated previously that, before any decision is made in relation to any future harbour works, I shall consult immediately with local community associations and so forth and with local Deputies.
Might I remind the Minister — he may not be aware of it — that there was an occasion in the past, many years ago, when a harbour works order was made without any of us being aware that an application for it had been made? We in this House may not always be in a position to be as vigilant as we should be in regard to this matter. Would the Minister once and for all put the matter at an end and remove any risk that this valuable environmental amenity be interfered with? Would he lay it down as a matter of policy that no applications for future works orders for that particularly valuable piece of sea will be entertained in his Department?
I want to stress on the Minister the importance of that directive principle by him. With the best will in the world and no matter how vigilant any of us may be — Deputies or councillors — there is always the possibility that, through inadvertence or oversight on our part, very serious long term damage could be done to that part of our system.
I shall bear in mind and consider what the Deputy has said. I acknowledge the very deep concern about the environment and the general surroundings. I would like to consider the proposal which he has made. However, I do not wish to make such a blanket commitment as the Deputy appears to suggest.
Referring to the second part of the Minister's reply, that planning is a responsibility of the Department of the Environment, may I ask him if he envisages the possibility of divided responsibility between his own Department and that of Environment on such issues as the movement of substances, whereas Environment would be taking responsiblity for storage and general planning? Does he envisage that that division could lead to a less than orderly planning? Would he consider instituting some procedure whereby the two Departments would get their heads together to ensure proper planning of the bay?
I do not see that there is any problem. As the Deputy will be aware, my role is confined to granting foreshore licences or harbour works orders. Before that, I must consult with the planning people and with the Department of Fisheries and the marine surveyor in my Department. There are sufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that nothing is rushed, to say the least of it, and that a proper decision is taken.