Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Feb 2000

Vol. 513 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Foreshore Licences.

Mr. McDowell

I propose to share my time with Deputy Richard Bruton. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue which is of considerable importance to the people of my constituency and other constituencies in the greater Dublin area, particularly those bordering the bay. For many generations Dublin Bay has been an amenity and resource. There is always a balance to be struck when dealing with a facility of economic importance to the city which is also a significant amenity to those who live in the city and in the eastern region generally.

This application was made by Dublin Port Company in autumn in a way and at a time which ensured it came to the attention of most people who would be directly affected by it, particularly those living in Clontarf, at a late stage in the day. There were few opportunities to make objections within the statutory period for which there is provision and I regret that. It has led to much bad feeling in my constituency about the issue.

Since then, what has happened demonstrates the total inadequacy of the way in which we deal with applications of this kind generally. The law governing this has existed since the 1930s with some European regulations grafted on some time later. That law allowed the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to make a decision largely without a statutory requirement for public consultation. That such consultation takes place has come about through custom and practice and the European regulations which have been grafted on. That is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The lack of adequacy in the law was clearly demonstrated by the response of the previous Minister, Deputy Woods, when he got himself into a knot over the issue of planning permission. He suggested to the port company that he would not be minded to grant the foreshore licence unless an application was at least made, if not determined, for planning permission. Then he tried to say that, nonetheless, the two applications were in parallel and one would be decided without prejudice to the other. The Minister was trying to have it both ways.

It strikes me that there is a potential conflict of interest anyway. The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources has an interest in the port as an economic unit which serves both the city and business in the eastern region. He is also obliged under current legislation to make a decision on environmental grounds. Apart from the legal competence of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to make a decision on environmental grounds, there is clearly a conflict of interests in so far as the Minister is wearing two hats.

There should be clarity about the process. Has the Minister had legal advice on his decision about planning permission? What is the Minister's view on the merits of the application?

Mr. R. Bruton

I welcome the Minister to the House. The old Joni Mitchell song said, "Don't it always seem to be that we don't know what we got 'til it's gone". That is the case in Dublin Bay. A commercial company is seeking permission to produce free land from its point of view. That is what drives this. The Minister's decision to go through a planning process is welcome on one level, it has some public dimension, but it treats the issue as if it were a technicality to be determined solely by An Bord Pleanála. This is a regional issue about alternative uses of the bay and the long-term social costs and benefits. That will not enter the framework when An Bord Pleanála makes its decision.

Deputy McDowell pointed out that there are serious legal doubts about the legality of the Minister's actions because he admits that he is only now looking for legal endorsement from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government for this method of handling future foreshore applications. The examples cited by the Minister are not similar to this one.

There is a clear conflict of interest between being a shareholder in the port and determining this. At the heart of the matter, we must ask if we will use the bay, a public amenity for the people of Dublin, solely to meet the commercial needs of Dublin port for free land. This should not be seen as solely an issue for An Bord Pleanála, it is a wider political issue and the Minister must look at that dimension.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

Dublin Port Company applied to the previous Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources for permission under section 10 of the Foreshore Act, 1933, as amended, to have 21 hectares of foreshore owned by the company in the port area reclaimed for port purposes. Publication of an EIS in respect of the project and the commencement of a process of public consultation were advertised prominently in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times on 1 October and copies of the EIS and other associated documents necessary for the public consultation process were made available for the statutory period of one month at both the port company's offices and Store Street Garda station. The purpose of such public consultation is to afford the public an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposed development.

The port company has advised that, following publication of a notice in the newspapers on 1 October and having regard to the relatively small attendance at the exhibition in the port offices of the public consultation documents, public representatives for the area, at both national and local level, known residents associations in the area and other known interested parties such as An Taisce and Birdwatch Ireland were written to and invited to attend at the company's offices. The company advises that the response was mixed, with some attending and having fruitful discussions, some sending apologies and some ignoring the invitation.

A total of 428 submissions were made to me on the proposed reclamation. The vast bulk of these were from individual residents or family groups with Clontarf addresses, while two were from community action groups, the Clontarf Residents Association and the East Wall Community Development Council. The submissions were under 14 broad headings.

The observations made on the proposal, 16 of which were in favour, have been referred to the port company for its response, which is now to hand. My Department has engaged independent consultants to review the adequacy of the EIS prepared by Dublin Port Company. If adequate, the submissions made and the company's responses to them, together with the company's proposal for the reclamation, will be considered by them and a report made to my Department. The Department will then assess those reviews and responses and will make recommendations to the Minister. This process will take at least two months to complete.

If the EIS is found to be inadequate, the company will be required to publish a supplementary EIS or, if the shortcomings are deemed to be serious enough, publish a new EIS. In that event, the time scale for a decision could be significantly longer than the two months just mentioned.

The best standards of public planning require that a proposal on the scale envisaged by the port company are dealt with on an integrated basis. On environmental grounds alone there is little point in my granting permission for reclamation if the company does not receive planning permission for the development it proposes on the area of foreshore in question. My Department has, therefore, advised the company that, without prejudice to any decision which the Minister will ultimately take on the application for permission under the Foreshore Acts, in the event of a posi tive decision the Minister will require the board, before any reclamation commences, to apply for and obtain full local authority planning permission for the proposed reclamation.

Mr. R. Bruton

Can that provision be applied under the law? There is no power to do that.

Mr. Fahey

This approach is in line with my Department's actions in developments in State owned harbours where the foreshore is owned by the State. It will be recalled that my Department went through the planning permission process in respect of the reclamation of foreshore for the construction of the ferry terminal at Dún Laoghaire. My Department will be applying for planning permission for proposed developments at Killybegs and Castletownbere harbours.

Mr. R. Bruton

That is different.

Mr. Fahey

These works will not commence until my Department has received full planning permission.

My Department is also liaising with Dúchas, the heritage service, which has responsibility for special areas of conservation, special protection areas, marine archaeology, etc. and will, in considering the application, have regard to advice given by that service.