I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 27 together.
Deputies will be aware that the Dublin Port Company made application to me for permission, under section 10 of the Foreshore Act, 1933, to reclaim 21 hectares of foreshore which is owned by the company in Dublin Port. An environmental impact statement, EIS, was required in respect of the proposed development and this was published on 1 October 1999. During the subsequent statutory one month consultation period, in excess of 400 submissions were received by my Department in relation to the proposal. The vast majority of these submissions were against the proposal.
My Department was concerned about the adequacy of the EIS and therefore engaged an independent firm of consultants to review it. The consultants furnished a report on 21 February. In summary, the consultants found the EIS to be inadequate under a number of headings, vis. scope of flora and fauna assessment; omission of any consideration of water quality; description of baseline conditions; identification of impacts; prediction of impact magnitude; assessment of impact significance; identification of mitigation measures; commitment to mitigation and content of the non-technical summary.
My Department accordingly informed the company earlier this month that a new EIS would be required before the application could be considered further. The company was further advised that any new statement should address the specific shortcomings identified in the consultants' report and that it should enter into consultations with, and furnish copies of, any new EIS to those who made submissions during the public consultation period.
It is now a matter for the company to decide on what action to take.
