Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kinsealy/Feltrim Sewerage Scheme.

Jim Mitchell

Question:

5 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment if he will confirm that Dublin County Council, in seeking approval from him for the Kinsealy/ Feltrim sewerage scheme, did not include in that original request a spur of that pipeline to Baskin Cottages; whether it was his Department which (1) initiated the request to include the spur to Baskin Cottages and (2) provided the funds for that spur; and if he will now outline the reason for this initiative in view of the fact that the county manager had twice previously, in writing, declared the spur unnecessary.

Dick Spring

Question:

39 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the decision to approve sewerage and drainage works for the Baskin Cottages, Kinsealy, County Dublin.

Mr. Flynn

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 39 together.

I refer to my full and detailed statements on this matter both in my contribution to last week's confidence motion debate and in reply to a parliamentary question of July 1989 (Official Report Vol. 391, No. 5, Cols. 282-284).

It has always been normal for my Department to suggest improvements, whether by way of addition, modification or deletion, to local authority proposals for water and sewerage schemes. It has been fully acknowledged that the Department suggested an addition in the case of the Feltrim/Kinsealy scheme and the objective grounds for this have been clearly set out. The Department's suggestion was, of course, for a re-examination of the proposal by Dublin County Council. It was this re-examination by the council, at administrative and elected member level, which was effective in developing the amended proposal which was then adopted. In common with all significant water and sanitary services capital works which have arisen since the commencement of the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1987, this scheme was wholly financed by a grant from my Department; the final amount of this grant will be within the cost estimate for the original scheme made by Dublin County Council.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Unless the Minister is very thick, and I do not think he is, he will be aware that if the suspicions surrounding this case are justified it will be one of the most scandalous cases of self enrichment in the history of Irish politics. In view of that, will the Minister agree to an independent inquiry, under the aegis of Dublin County Council, into all the facts surrounding this matter, to establish the valuation of the property concerned before the pipeline was laid and the valuation now, and also to establish whether it was the Minister who took the initiative in this case and not his officials?

Mr. Flynn

I reject what the Deputy is saying in this regard. All of this was put on the record last week. The council were free to consider the request to technical, administrative and political level and they could have reacted in any way they thought fit. They thought fit to act in a certain way and approval issued. What the Deputy is now suggesting is manifestly incorrect. The Department make suggestions in relation to the capital programme. It has always been the case when major schemes are being put in place, that we tidy up loose ends and get the best benefit, cost wise and in terms of pollution control, from any new development like that. Indeed, the county development plan for 1983 indicated that the policy was to complete the programme of drainage for isolated clusters of council cottages. I agree that that is a good thing to do. Deputies must remember that the scale of this scheme was never intended to facilitate any major developments. The pipe size would not allow it. I made that quite clear. I gave the dimensions of the pipe coming out from Baskin Cottages, going into the treatment works, the outfall from that to the Sluice River and the connection of that to the Malahide Road.

Mrs. Owen

It is the same size as the pipe that serves Swords and Malahide. There is nothing small about it.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is right in that it is the same size pipe. It was never intended to cater for any excess capacity or any other major developments. In relation to the question of zoning, that ground was zoned as agricultural. The planning and development Act, 1990 makes it absolutely clear that land cannot be assumed to have development potential merely because of its physical proximity to a sewerage pipe. In all the circumstances, I have to say that benefit does not accrue to the land owner. This was merely doing what would be regarded as normal practice in that when one is laying a major scheme one would connect up all the loose ends and thereby give the benefit of a pollution free environment to those serviced in the area.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to advise the Deputy that if his final question No. 6 is to be dealt with it should be taken now.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would prefer to deal with this. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the records of Dublin County Council for 17 September 1984 and for 5 February 1985 in which the county manager categorically stated that there was not any need for this extension? Will the Minister answer the question? Will he agree to an independent inquiry under the aegis of Dublin County Council into the present value of the land and into the value of the land before the pipeline was laid? In view of the fact that even in agricultural zoning, once there are underground services a number of developments are permitted, including hotels and leisure complexes, will the Minister agree to an independent inquiry to establish whether or not the value of this land has been greatly enhanced.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are having repetition.

Mr. V. Brady

What about Dunboyne?

Mr. Flynn

The question of the value of the land is not a matter for me.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

This connection from the outflow into the Sluice River, the mere connecting up of that pipe in the same pipe size to that on the Malahide Road, conveys no benefit on the land owner.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Let it be independently assessed.

Mr. Flynn

I do not know what insatiable appetite the Deputy has for inquiries but there is nothing in this that requires further investigation other than what I already put on the record of this House in July 1989. The Deputy is resurrecting it now, for what reason? I have restated the position and given all the technical reasons. I substantiated the position. I said it was done by the elected members in their wisdom to satisfy the requirements of the area and in the best interests of the community they serve.

Mrs. Owen

It was a Fianna Fáil majority, Minister.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

It has come up on a number of occasions that it was a Fianna Fáil majority——

An Ceann Comhairle

The time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted.

Mr. Flynn

I know of many councils where there are Fianna Fáil majorities and others where there is not. Surely the Deputies are not saying that all developments should be decided depending on who has the majority on any particular council.

Mrs. Owen

This one was.

An Ceann Comhairle

A brief final question.

Mr. J. Mitchell

If the present majority on Dublin County Council appoint Senior Counsel to independently assess all the facts of this case will the Minister consent to such an inquiry?

Mr. Flynn

The matter is not relevant.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is very relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

Question No. 7 to the same Minister.