Vol. 677 No. 4
38 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the measures he plans to address a backlog of appeals being dealt with by An Bord Pleanála; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10232/09]
45 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of planning appeals in the year 2008, and the percentage of these that were disposed of within the statutory 18 week period in relation to delays in planning appeals, which in many instances are inhibiting development activities throughout the country; if the additional staff promised to An Bord Pleanála are in place; and the further steps that are being taken or which are proposed to deal with the backlog of cases and to restore compliance with the statutory objective of determining appeals and referrals within a period of 18 weeks. [9941/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 38 and 45 together.
An Bord Pleanála has a statutory objective to determine appeals and referrals within 18 weeks. Consideration of the performance of the board must take account of the legacy of record levels of case intake over recent years and the assumption of significant new functions under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006.
In 2007, the board received a record 6,664 new cases, up 12% on 2006, and determined 6,163, which is a 10% increase on 2006. This high intake, coupled with an increased workload on strategic infrastructure cases, resulted in a significant backlog at the end of 2007 and challenged the board in meeting its statutory objective. In 2008, almost 5,600 cases were received and 22% of cases were disposed of within the 18-week period.
In light of the demands on the board, sanction was given in 2007 for an additional 35.5 permanent staff, bringing the total complement to 172. Board membership has also been increased from ten to 11, on a temporary basis.
The board is now focused on dealing with the backlog and restoring compliance with its statutory objective. Caseload is expected to continue to decline with about 5,000 new cases anticipated over 2009. In the two months to the end of February, the board determined over 900 cases with 584 cases determined in February, the highest monthly output on record. Cases on hand have fallen 16% compared to the same period last year.
To assist the board, I recently initiated arrangements, through the offices of the county and city managers' association, to secure the temporary secondment to the board of senior planning staff from authorities in the greater Dublin area. I expect a positive response that would allow the first staff to transfer within the coming weeks.
In the context of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, I also intend to provide for a reduction in the board's current quorum of three to two, for the purpose of determining certain classes of routine cases.
Does the Minister accept that, in these difficult times, any bureaucratic obstacle to development must be removed forthwith? There must be a strong emphasis on the encouragement of development. Three suggestions occur to me. First, one does not have to jettison good planning to ensure that the process is working effectively. The involvement of a pre-validation process can ensure that. In some local authorities invalidation runs at 40%, while in others it is below 8%. That situation should be clarified.
Second, I am glad that steps are being taken at last concerning planning appeals. I worked on the basis that only one quarter of all appeals last year were disposed of within the statutory timeframe of 18 weeks. I think the Minister said the figure was 22%, which is less than one quarter. Whatever resources are needed should be given to An Bord Pleanála to clear that backlog, including freeing up local authority planners.
Third, I know developers are not the favoured class of people in the world today, but without development this country will be in even greater trouble. Can the duration of planning permissions be extended under the terms of the new legislation for something like three years? This would encourage finance to get developments under way.
I am making those three suggestions to the Minister not to help developers, but to help development.
The Deputy is right to make that distinction. People may say that while they like housing, they do not like developers but who builds the houses?
Exactly.
We recognise that fact and we all share the same objective in trying to stop bad development. We want to ensure good development and good quality housing that is properly planned. Not only are the Deputy's suggestions worthy of consideration, but I will also be bringing them forward. They are vital for people who have invested large amounts of time and money. In the Deputy's own part of the country recently I was told that an individual had invested considerable sums — up to €600,000 — yet the pre-application stage was sent from one planner to another. That lack of consistency bedevils our planning system. I am trying to bring consistency to all levels of planning, as well as consistency between local authorities. Many of the issues the Deputy has raised will be addressed in the new Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill.
May I ask one supplementary question? If the Minister accepts they are good ideas, will he, in the name of God, put them into operation as quickly as possible?
I will call the Minister again. I want to get Deputy Finian McGrath in.
I have three short questions. Did I hear the Minister correctly when he said there was a 10% increase in appeals to An Bord Pleanála? As regards the backlog of appeals, does the Minister still share my view, and that of many people in Dublin North Central, that the proposal of the Dublin Port Company to fill in 52 acres of Dublin Bay, currently before An Bord Pleanála, is environmental vandalism? What is his current view on the position?
It is quite improper to raise in the House a matter that is currently one for determination by an independent statutory body.
I accept that point but I have not finished.
It would be quite improper and, if I recall, unlawful for the Minister to venture such a view.
I take that point but I just wanted to ask the Minister what his current view is on the particular proposal to destroy Dublin Bay. When the Minister is dealing with the planning legislation, it is important to have sensitive community and environmental development throughout the city of Dublin. Up to this we have seen a lot of crazy, wildcat stuff.
To answer the Deputy's first question, it was not 10%; it is up 12%. On his second question, it is not in the Minister's gift — indeed, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said, it is illegal to comment on any application or to try to influence any application. However, in my role as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have extended the special protection area for Dublin Bay. It is an area I consider to be of immense ecological importance. That is why it was done. It has been welcomed by most people who are interested in Dublin Bay. As the Deputy knows, we have also set up the Dublin Bay task force. We are looking at regenerating the bay as a real resource — something that Dubliners can be proud of. Compared to any other city, we are lucky and privileged to have such a bay.
I know that both the Minister and the Deputy are interested in this matter but it is well beyond the scope of the question.
What about the 52 acres?
As the Minister said, there is a sizeable backlog of applications before An Bord Pleanála. In my own constituency of Dublin North East, the majority of planning decisions that end up with An Bord Pleanála go over the 18-week period. What extra measures can the Minister take to ensure that these planning applications are determined within the timeframe? I know he has appointed 35 more planners, but will that ensure that in future decisions are made in a more timely manner than at present?
The short answer is "Yes". I hope we can comply with the 18-week period because the peak of applications has now gone. In the Dublin area in particular, we will be moving staff from local authorities to An Bord Pleanála. We will also reduce the quorum required for routine applications from three to two. All these measures will ensure that we actually comply with the 18-week period. We will do that as quickly as possible.
I have a couple of brief questions. In the context of this legislation, can the Minister ensure that something can be done about commercially malicious appeals that are taking place? The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, can provide some examples of where that happened. Objections were lodged purely to delay a commercial operation so that they could get their own operation up and running.
Can there be more co-operation with planners at local authority level to provide a checklist or information to local engineers concerning basic errors that are being made in planning applications? In that way, applications could be streamlined in the first instance.
As public representatives, we have all come across cases where engineers, allegedly acting on behalf of individuals — usually young couples — literally rob money from them by putting in planning applications which they know in their heart and soul have no possibility of being granted. Despite this, they gather the fees for such applications, while the local authority is blamed as a result.
Regarding what the Deputy termed "malicious applications"——
Malicious objections.
They are difficult to determine because an individual can get another person to do it on their behalf. I have no doubt this happens but proving it in law may be difficult. This point has been made repeatedly to me but it is difficult to deal with it in legislation.
The Deputy is correct that a template would be helpful to applications, streamlining the process and pointing out any potential pitfalls. Some local authorities provide this but, again, it is a question of getting consistency between the various authorities.
Concerning engineers making applications on behalf of gullible people, one cannot legislate for gullibility. I do not know why an engineer would be putting in an application. I would have thought an architect or a planner would be far better qualified to do that.
It could be an architect or a planner.
People need to choose carefully and have a bit of cop on and common sense.
How long does the Minister anticipate it will take to get through the backlog of An Bord Pleanála cases?
It is difficult to estimate the time but we are getting through it fairly quickly. However, cases have fallen by 16% compared to the same period last year. While I cannot give a precise time on clearing it, steady progress is being made.
39 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the status of bog cutting; the restrictions in place; his proposed policy amendments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10278/09]
75 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will review the decision to ban turf cutting on designated bogs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10088/09]
88 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will review the decision to ban turf cutting on 32 designated bogs in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10089/09]
172 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will confirm that following his meetings with a group (details supplied) that he and his officials will work in association with turf cutting families to find a feasible solution that will ensure people can maintain their tradition of domestic turf cutting while at the same time protecting the environment in line with European directives. [10587/09]
182 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps that have been taken to revise the interpretation of the habitats directive with a view to reducing its bureaucratic application with particular reference to restrictions on such traditional practices as turf cutting for domestic purposes and similar interpretations that have no environmental or beneficial impact in view of the fact that traditional practices have been environmentally friendly and, in particular, keeping in mind that the doctrinaire interpretation of this regulation creates serious antipathy towards national and European institutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10388/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 39, 75, 88, 172 and 182 together.
Bogs are important natural habitats and are home to unique ecosystems containing rare flora and fauna. Both blanket bogs and raised bogs are protected habitats under European and Irish law and representative samples have been designated as special areas of conservation, SAC, under the habitats directive or natural heritage areas, NHA, under the wildlife Acts.
Ireland has some of the most ecologically important bogs in the European Union. In 1999, when the first of these sites was designated for nature protection, all commercial cutting on these bogs was stopped and the then Minister granted a ten-year grace for those who were cutting turf for their personal domestic use to find alternative sources of fuel. This period expires this year for 32 raised bog SACs.
Blanket bogs, which occur predominantly on the western seaboard but also in County Wicklow and the midlands, can tolerate a certain amount of turf extraction without compromising their value as habitats. It is envisaged that cutting on blanket bog SACs and NHAs can continue, except in sensitive areas, under the current restrictions, which prohibit commercial extraction and the use of sausage peat cutting machines.
Raised bogs occur predominantly in the midlands. There are over 1,500 raised bogs in the State, of which only 139 are designated for nature protection as SACs or NHAs. The continued cutting of turf, by hand or machine, and associated drainage on these designated raised bogs is incompatible with their preservation. Even with the restrictions in cutting introduced in 1999, over one third of the best bog habitat on these sites has been lost in ten years. More needs to be done if we are to meet our obligation to protect this important habitat.
The habitats directive imposes a legal obligation on the State to take measures to ensure the protection of this essential and irreplaceable part of our natural heritage. In the light of scientific evidence, it would not be appropriate to grant an extension to the derogation in these areas. It is necessary to put arrangements in place to facilitate the transition to a full cessation of turf cutting on 32 raised bogs by the end of this year, and on the remaining number of designated raised bogs in 2012 and 2014. My Department will establish an interdepartmental working group to consider how best to achieve these cessations over the coming years and to assess the resources that will be required. This group will consult with interested parties, and report back to me later this year.
Is the Minister aware that 97% of the 32 raised bogs designated as SACs are already in State ownership through one or another agency? The remaining 3% of these bogs comprises half-acre plots allocated by the Land Commission. Is the Minister aware that the Corine maps, used to give the calculation that one third of the bogs allegedly evaporated over the past ten years, not only measured degraded bog but cut away bog over the past 100 years? Will the Minister publish or place in the Library the Fernandez report?
The Deputy may be aware that his party colleague Deputy Connaughton organised a meeting with me and many of the families involved in the west. I am aware of the sensitives around this issue and I have spoken to those involved. It is an issue that goes back to 1999. I have done everything I can to ensure a fair resolution. The transition phase approach is probably the best.
We need to be careful with this issue. It was exploited irresponsibly at the time of the Lisbon treaty debate. There was a misperception that we were stopping turf cutting on all bogs, including blanket bogs, which was never the case. It is a small number of bogs that are in question. The Deputy pointed out the small percentage in private ownership.
We are trying to resolve this issue in a way that facilitates the tradition of turf cutting but, at the same time, ensures we meet our EU obligations. If we ignore those obligations, we will face substantial fines. That is not the motivating factor behind resolving this matter but we need to be mindful of it.
Ireland has the best raised bog habitats in Europe. I will facilitate any requests the Deputy has on this issue. If he wants to meet with me or have me meet a delegation I would be happy to do so.
Two years ago, an effort was made by departmental personnel to stop turf cutting on the Bragan Mountains in north Monaghan, affecting over 200 farmers. A resolution was found to the problem then but it will re-emerge again soon. I would like to take up the Minister in his commitment to facilitate Members in examining the problem in this area, particularly considering the current economic climate, difficulties with farm incomes and the dependence on turf as a winter fuel. I would like to work with the Minister to discover if we might arrive at a solution to this problem.
The Deputy's question is specific and might be worthy of——
The cutting of turf is important to people and it is vital that a solution be arrived at.
The specific information the Deputy is requesting might not be available to the Minister.
I am not aware of the specific instance to which Deputy Crawford refers. However, we have tried to resolve the disputes that have arisen. There is a scheme in operation which involves the voluntary purchase of designated bogs and under which more than €7 million was paid out last year. The interdepartmental group to which I referred earlier will examine the additional measures necessary to achieve a complete cessation of cutting on raised bogs that are designated as SHCs or NHAs.
Quite a number of Deputies have taken an interest in this subject and I will keep them well informed with regard to anything that emerges from the deliberations of the interdepartmental group in the coming weeks and months. The transition to a full cessation of cutting will take place in respect of 32 raised bogs this year. However, there are some 139 raised bogs in total that have been designated and the transition in respect of the remainder will occur in 2012 and 2014.
We also have the option of providing turf cutters with other plots. This option may not suit everyone but it is open for consideration. We will examine the various options that exist and it is hoped that a satisfactory resolution will be reached.
In the context of alternative plots, the Minister might consult his Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, who will explain to him the difference between black, brown and white turf.
One would not get such a variety of turf in Ringsend.
I acknowledge the offer the Minister made in respect of our meeting to discuss this matter. Is he aware of the fact that a number of people in east Galway carried out a study in respect of almost half of the bogs covered by the Fernandez report? This study shows that Fernandez overestimates the loss of bogs by at least 93%. In light of the Minister's acknowledgement that approximately 3% of bogs are in non-State ownership, how is it possible that one third of bogs have disappeared over a ten-year period? Carrowbehy bog in County Roscommon has grown by almost 13%. Even though most of Cloonshanville bog, with which the Minister of State is familiar, is in State ownership, it is alleged that 5.25% of it has disappeared over the ten year period during which very little turf cutting took place.
The figures which are being presented and on which the Minister is basing his decisions simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Everyone accepts the need for preservation. However, I again ask him to reconsider the position in respect of the small percentage of bogs that are not in State ownership.
I would be happy to investigate the claims made by the Deputy. However, the national parks and wildlife service, NPWS, is clear as to what is required. The NPWS liaises, at all times, with the Commission, which is adamant that we have overstepped the mark to a major degree and that we have been given a great deal of latitude. The cessation to which I referred earlier was unilaterally declared by Ireland, which, as such, was taking a liberty in making such a declaration.
We are facing into a difficult situation. Perhaps the Deputy might put his claims to the interdepartmental group in order that they might be examined and their validity or otherwise established. Claims and counter-claims have been made and there is a need to establish the actual facts. As already stated, the NPWS has made it clear that there has been a sharp deterioration in the quality of our raised bogs, which, as far as it is concerned, are disappearing at an alarming rate.
The Minister and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
40 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in view of the reduction in planning applications, greater emphasis should be put on pre-planning discussions and the resolution of technical and other problems in advance of applications; and if he has conveyed his views to the local authorities in this regard. [9942/09]
Under section 247 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, a person who has an interest in land and who intends to make a planning application may, with the agreement of the planning authority concerned, enter into pre-application consultations in respect of the proposed development. The section also provides that the planning authority must not unreasonably withhold its consent to a request for such consultations.
In June 2007, my Department issued guidelines for planning authorities in respect of development management. These guidelines are a step-by-step guide to all stages of the planning application process and they begin with pre-application consultations. The guidelines were issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and planning authorities are obliged to have regard to them in the performance of their planning functions. A copy of the guidelines is available on my Department's website.
The guidelines strongly promote the benefits of pre-application consultations, because they provide a planning applicant an opportunity to discuss the merits of a proposal for development at an early stage. They state that every effort should be made to facilitate, as far as is practicable, reasonable requests for pre-application consultations and that planning authorities should aim to facilitate such requests as soon as possible, but in any event within two to three weeks. Pre-application consultations also provide a planning authority with an opportunity to play a proactive role in guiding a project, from its inception, in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development principles.
Overall, in the region of 25,000 pre-application consultations take place annually. As the number of planning applications has fallen significantly — from 92,600 in 2006 to 64,000 in 2008 — planning authorities should be in a position to commit additional staff resources to facilitate requests for pre-planning consultations.
Question No. 45 in my name, which was answered with Question No. 38, relates to the backlog in the planning appeals system, whereas this question relates to the beginning of the planning process. Does the Minister agree that the objective of planning is to deliver a high-quality built environment and to also encourage rather than impede development? Does he agree that all the relevant processes should be designed to achieve this objective?
Despite the changes to which he refers, does the Minister agree that considerable difficulties remain and that there is a lack of consistency among local authorities? Does he further agree that even though there are problems with regard to the pre-planning process, county managers should be going out of their way to encourage pre-planning discussions in order that, in so far as is possible, any relevant issues could be dealt with prior to an application being lodged?
I am also concerned about the validation process. Why is there an enormous difference regarding the percentage of applications declared invalid in counties Dublin, Limerick, Waterford and Galway, in which the invalidation rate is 40%, and the percentage that obtains in counties, Sligo, Wexford and Louth, in which the rate is less than 8%? Surely there is a need for the Minister to intervene in this regard. Invalidation costs applicants money and delays the process.
As indicated in reply to Questions Nos. 38 and 45, there is a lack of consistency among local authorities. I presume the Deputy is referring to the local government service indicators relating to pre-application consultations, which indicate that there is a major difference from local authority to local authority. In the context of the forthcoming legislation, I wish to ensure that some form of consistency will be obtained across all local authorities. It is sometimes difficult to pinpoint from where these differences originate. One could state that local authorities operate in different ways and that they possess a certain level of autonomy. In my view, however, it does not make sense when one can just cross a border and see the difference in planning immediately. There is a value, of course, in pre-application consultations but one of the difficulties is that sometimes people are under the impression that once they go into pre-planning, the matter is sorted, done and dusted. That does not necessarily follow. One must still go through the planning process.
Unquestionably, planning departments in recent years were being crisis driven, such was the volume of applications. It is a fact that the application processes have slowed significantly but there is a culture pertaining from that period affecting local people and residents in terms of access to planning departments. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe can confirm, at one time the public could not telephone the planning department of Cork County Council outside a couple of hours per week. The department would take calls only during those times. I am concerned that the culture that developed in this period, whether it was right or wrong, would continue in the future.
As the Minister will have witnessed, both as a public representative and a member of a local authority, different approaches are taken by different local authorities at the operational end with regard to access, consultation and public recourse, despite the legislation. An opportunity has been presented to us now. The Minister should produce a code of practice or guidelines on consultation processes. Certainly, one-stop-shops could be set up within council departments where staff could be redeployed to provide more customer-driven and customer-focused approaches such as pre-planning consultations and advising residents' groups. Is this something of which the Minister has taken cognisance and does he envisage some type of standard being put in place regarding the operational end of the process, as opposed to the legislation?
Yes, I am aware of this. The guidelines were supposed to deal with many of these issues. The guidelines are very clear and advise people of the requirements. People are told if, for example, there is a need for an environmental impact assessment, a necessity to obtain an IPCC licence or waste licence in certain cases and about the need to comply with other planning guidelines where relevant, such as retail planning guidelines, the sustainable rural housing guidelines, guidelines on child care facilities and so forth. All of this is explained to the applicants at the time. The planner must include a summary of the key points discussed at pre-application consultation and the guidelines state that the matters discussed or agreed at pre-application consultation meetings are without prejudice and cannot bind the planning authority to act in a particular manner in the determination of any subsequent application. However, where the recommendations in the report are likely to depart significantly from the matters discussed or agreed at the pre-application discussion stage, the matter should be highlighted on the application for the attention of the decision maker. This will help to ensure applicants are treated consistently and reasonably throughout the course of their application and that where there is a change of direction on the part of the planning authority, it is clear to the applicant why this is the case.
Is the Minister aware that some of the serious problems arise when a different planner from the one who agrees the pre-planning report deals with the case?
Yes.
I am aware of one case where the person dealt with three different planners.
Yes, absolutely.
It cost a fortune. That situation must be dealt with.
There are many examples of bad planning throughout the country, with many housing estates built without facilities being put in place. It is important the Minister ensures greater time and effort is put into the pre-planning decisions taken by councils. Last week, the Minister publicly acknowledged that loopholes existed whereby developers did not have to provide environmental impact statements for some developments. What changes will the Minister make to the legislation to ensure this does not happen again?
In reply to Deputy Crawford, I have already acknowledged that the constant changing of planners is causing difficulty for many applicants and is costing them a great deal of money. I was speaking to people in Kinsale recently who had very unfortunate experiences. They wasted a great deal of their time, energy and money because of this. There was no consistency. There were three different planners dealing with an application. That is not fair and cannot be condoned. It is absolutely necessary to achieve consistency and I will examine ways of ensuring we do that in the new legislation.
Deputy Flanagan appears to be referring to the question of retention. We need to tighten up the system in that regard. Too often in the past people would go ahead and build — not something like a garden shed but a major building — and subsequently apply for retention. It was worth their while because the amount of money they had to pay in fines was not sufficiently punitive. We must ensure there is a disincentive for people to act in that way. There is an onus on us, as a result of European legislation, to deal with this.
The Minister spoke about guidelines for applicants. Would he consider issuing guidelines for planners to bring it home to them that the objective is good quality planning but that the ethos should be to encourage rather than impede development?
Yes, I acknowledge the Deputy's concerns. As I said to Deputy Crawford and others, that type of consistency is required across the board so people are left in no doubt. Sometimes planning is quite a subjective issue. We must move away from subjectivity so the applicants can understand where they stand and that if they do X, Y and Z, they have a chance of getting permission.
41 Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the projects that will be cancelled or delayed as a result of the deferring of the gateway innovation fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10257/09]
The €300 million gateway innovation fund, GIF, was established, as part of the National Development Plan, NDP, 2007-2013, as a strategic targeted intervention to stimulate gateway development in the context of the national spatial strategy and thereby further the NDP cross-cutting objective for more balanced regional development. Following a call for proposals for funding from the GIF which issued to gateway lead authorities, the main local authority in each gateway, in June 2007, a total of 39 project proposals were received from the nine gateways with a total projected cost of almost €1.2 billion and a total request for funding from the GIF of €718 million. The projects submitted ranged across a broad spectrum of areas and included proposals for transport and connectivity infrastructure, major city or town centre regeneration schemes, enhancement of public open spaces, recreational amenities and cultural facilities.
In light of the deteriorating economic circumstances, a decision was taken last year not to approve projects or progress allocations from the GIF. It is a matter for gateway local authorities to decide whether their proposals can be advanced through other sectoral or local programmes. I propose to circulate with the Official Report a list of the projects for which funding was sought from the GIF.
|
Gateway |
Project Proposals |
|
Cork |
New Eastern Gateway bridge |
|
Midleton Northern Relief Road |
|
|
Watermain extension to Whitegate |
|
|
Port of Cork new bulk terminal |
|
|
Galway |
Ardaun bus/cycle carriageway |
|
Concert/Conference/Education Venue |
|
|
Dublin |
Airport Box Development — roads |
|
Canal Route Development |
|
|
Liffey Valley Necklace |
|
|
Coastal Walk |
|
|
Waterford |
Pedestrian /cycle bridge |
|
Viking Quarter Public Realm Plan |
|
|
Mount Congreve Gardens |
|
|
Waterford Knowledge Campus |
|
|
Light Rail |
|
|
Waterford Port dredging |
|
|
Limerick |
City Centre Orbital traffic route |
|
City centre pedestrianisation and urban realm |
|
|
Link roads around Moyross |
|
|
Park and Ride (Sixmilebridge) |
|
|
Cycleways |
|
|
Concert Hall |
|
|
Shannon Town Arts/Culture centre |
|
|
St John’s Sq. Cultural Quarter |
|
|
Midlands |
Athlone Town Centre Regeneration |
|
Mullingar Sports/Leisure Facility |
|
|
Tullamore Grand Canal Quarter — roads, water, services infrastructure |
|
|
Innovation centres in Athlone /Tullamore |
|
|
Sligo |
New Garvoge Bridge and approach Roads |
|
Sligo City Centre enhancement |
|
|
Cleveragh Lands as Regional Park |
|
|
Cultural Quarter development |
|
|
Dundalk |
SW environs collector road and Eco District |
|
NW environs collector road |
|
|
Cycleways Network |
|
|
Letterkenny |
Urban Regeneration & Transport |
|
Science & Technology Research Facility |
|
|
Gateway Incubation & Innovation Centre |
|
|
Donegal Discovery Centre |
This is an example of the gateways that were announced. I did not table the question but I still have an interest in it because Cavan and Monaghan were designated as gateway towns. All kinds of ideas were in the air about what could be and should be done. I await the details of the Minister's reply to hear what areas are affected. In simple terms, there is no money for it.
It is clear that we have a serious financial situation and that we have had to cut back not just on current spending but that capital spending has had to be curtailed quite severely. I have tried to give the Deputy a comprehensive answer but, in essence, we do not have as much money as we would like.
42 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the analysis his Department has conducted of municipal waste water treatment works; the effect those works are having on water supplies; his plans to alter those works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10205/09]
The Government is committed to preserving and protecting our water resources as a key element of environmental policy and to putting critical infrastructure in place to support industrial, commercial and other development. The management of municipal waste water treatment plants is generally the responsibility of water services authorities. In addition, my Department co-ordinates and finances a major programme of investment in improved waste water infrastructure as part of the water services investment programme. The waste water schemes included in the programme are derived mainly from regular assessments of needs, undertaken by all local authorities at my Department's request, as an input to the overall strategy for meeting waste water services infrastructural requirements. Among the criteria that local authorities are required to take into account in undertaking those assessments are compliance with relevant national and EU requirements and, in particular, the need to ensure compliance with the EU urban waste water treatment directive.
Compliance with the general requirements of the directive in regard to secondary waste water treatment has increased significantly over the past decade, rising from a compliance level of 25% in 2000 to some 92% at present, with all remaining schemes needing to be undertaken included in the water services investment programme 2007 to 2009. In its most recent three-year report on water quality, published in November 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency noted an overall slight improvement in water quality in the environment. Improvements in waste water infrastructure as well as measures introduced to control diffuse sources of pollution from agriculture would have contributed to the improvement. I am satisfied that the policies and resources are in place to ensure the highest emission standards from our municipal waste water treatment plants.
I concur with the Minister about the efforts to control pollution from agricultural waste. The scheme has been of great significance but, unfortunately, 50% of farmers have to wait for a much longer time for their grants. What percentage of the grant does the Department pay towards local authority schemes? I refer in particular to the scheme in Carrickmacross, of which the Minister is aware, and the implications for industry if the percentage is not improved significantly. Given the difficult climate that we are in currently, it is very hard to retain employment. It is important that the situation would be recognised.
Deputy Crawford asked specifically about the scheme in Carrickmacross. I cannot give the exact amount for it but I am happy to look that up. I have a list of the various schemes and I am looking to see if Carrickmacross is listed. I am afraid I cannot see it on the list. That is not to say it is not going ahead, it is just not listed on the documentation supplied to me. I will get that information for the Deputy to find out exactly how much we are paying towards that and I will get him a timetable also as to when it will happen.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
