We will move on to a discussion with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on planning and renewable energy projects. I welcome Mr. Mark Griffin, assistant secretary of the planning division, Mr. George Burke, principal officer, Ms Aileen Doyle, senior planning adviser, and Ms Emer Connolly, assistant principal officer.
Renewable Energy Projects: Discussion with Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Mr. Mark Griffin
I thank the committee for the invitation to meet it today. When we were preparing our input for today's discussions, I was conscious that this matter has been part of the committee's deliberations in recent months, although in different guises. A number of parties have appeared before the committee to set out the EU and national policy framework within which Departments, State bodies and the private sector seek to meet challenging energy targets, including the target of achieving 33% of electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2020.
When the committee met other groups, a range of issues were discussed, including the challenges the industry faces in securing leases for its offshore developments, connecting to the grid and securing planning consent under current processes. I will focus on the latter aspect and possible developments in this area.
I will give a brief overview of how development consent for wind energy projects is managed, as it will help highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of the system and place what we hope to do in context. I will take the simpler process first, the system that pertains for onshore wind. The Department is heavily involved in this regard in terms of provision of policy guidance. An application for consent to develop a wind farm with more than 50 turbines or having a total output greater than 100 MW would be processed under the new strategic infrastructure, SI, consent process, which I will discuss in detail.
Other wind farm developments below these thresholds are required to secure planning permission from the relevant planning authority under the 2000 Act. In simple terms, this involves pre-application consultation with the public and the planning authority, which is encouraged before lodging any application but is not mandatory, unlike the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. Within five weeks of lodging a planning application, prescribed bodies and the public may make submissions on it and the planning authority must have regard to them in assessing the planning application. The application must be dealt with in eight weeks if no additional information is required. Where additional information is sought, the authority has four weeks from receipt of the additional information to make its decision and eight weeks if an environmental impact statement, EIS, accompanies the application. Within four weeks of the notification of the decision of the authority, an appeal may be made to An Bord Pleanála by either the applicant or a third party. It is an objective of the board to deal with all appeals within 18 weeks. The process typically takes between 30 and 38 weeks when an appeal to An Bord Pleanála is included.
As some members who were involved know, wind turbines sited in industrial sites, beside business premises and on farms with a total height not exceeding 20 m, a rotor diameter not exceeding 8 m and subject to other conditions as set out in planning regulations, have been exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission since July.
The framework for the development of onshore wind farms is supported by policy guidance in the form of the wind energy guidelines for planning authorities, which issued in June 2006 under section 28 of the Act. The guidelines serve a number of purposes. First, they offer advice to planning authorities on planning for wind energy through the development plan process and in determining applications for planning permission. Second, they aim to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the country in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy and the treatment of planning applications. Third, they are of assistance to developers by offering advice in the pre-application consultation process. Fourth, they encourage developers to engage in public consultation with local communities, ideally prior to submitting a planning application.
When this process is compared with the one in place for offshore wind, one appreciates the greater challenges involved in progressing offshore wind projects. Offshore wind farms are subject to the Foreshore Acts, which are administered by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The process of submission and consideration of an application is as follows. The application, together with supporting documentation, including the EIS, is submitted to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The application must be advertised publicly and interested parties have one month in which to make submissions.
The application is also forwarded to a range of statutory bodies for consideration, including the National Parks and Wildlife Service under the aegis of our Department, the National Monuments Service, the sea fisheries control division of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the sea fisheries protection authority, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Marine Survey Office, the Marine Institute, the Valuation Office of Ireland and the Departments of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Transport.
Following the consultation process, a technical and scientific evaluation of the proposal will be undertaken by the marine licence vetting committee, MLVC, a multidisciplinary committee providing expertise in a range of areas including fisheries, engineering, navigational safety, marine chemistry and marine biology. The submissions received during the consultation phase and the applicants' responses to these submissions are considered by the MLVC. It will then make a recommendation to the Minister on whether to grant, to grant with conditions or to refuse. One of the major weaknesses identified during the committee's discussions was that the lengthy timeframe for making a decision on applications for a lease or licence under the Foreshore Acts is not set out in statute.
The Department believes that the strategic infrastructure process sets the benchmark for what we want to achieve with a modern consent process for developments on the foreshore, including offshore wind developments once they are transferred into our Department. The key policy objective of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 is to provide for a streamlined, single consent process for certain classes of infrastructure development of national importance by statutory bodies or private promoters. In addition to motorways and local authority projects, which are handled by An Bord Pleanála, these classes now include heavy and light rail and metro and other infrastructure requiring an EIA, such as significant airport or port developments and waste infrastructure.
Regarding energy infrastructure, major electricity transmission lines, strategic upstream and downstream gas pipelines, thermal power stations, storage of natural gas and liquefied natural gas facilities, oil refineries and large onshore wind farms are covered by the Act.
The Act is designed to provide a better quality service for all stakeholders, infrastructure providers, State bodies and the general public alike through a single consent process for approval of projects, a rigorous assessment of all projects, including their environmental impacts, full public consultation and greater certainty of timeframes.
Pre-application consultations form an integral part of the new process. Their purpose is to try to ensure that the subsequent application for permission is of a high standard, correct procedures are followed, the scope of the project is properly defined, adequate information is submitted and issues relating to proper planning and sustainable development and the effects on the environment are adequately addressed from the outset in the application. From the point of view of maximising community involvement, the board has powers to involve any person who it thinks is in possession of information that is relevant to the proposed development in the pre-application discussions.
At application stage proper, the same extensive rights of public participation that exist in respect of "normal" planning applications apply equally under the new process. It is worth noting that the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála has signalled that its general policy is to hold oral hearings in all cases other than the most straightforward.
The Act, which came fully into force at the end of January 2007, provides for the parallel restructuring of An Bord Pleanála to allow for the establishment of a strategic infrastructure division acting as a one-stop-shop in respect of development consent for all major infrastructure projects. Since January 2007, the board has received 97 requests for pre-application consultations and arranged 144 meetings with the promoters in these cases, concluded 63 pre-application consultation cases and received 16 formal strategic infrastructure applications under the new process. To date, six formal applications have been decided by the board under the Act, all of which have been decided within the statutory period of 26 weeks. They were each the subject of an oral hearing.
Given the size and complexity of projects determined, such as the City West Luas extension, the natural gas Powergen plant at Toomes, the liquefied natural gas import storage terminal at Tarbert or the railway line between Clonsilla and Pace, achieving a decision on these projects within 26 weeks while ensuring that all environmental and public participation considerations are taken into account is, in our opinion, a major step forward. It is useful to note that the east-west interconnector, referred to in several previous presentations to the committee, has completed the pre-application consultation process with the board. We understand the formal application under the Act will be submitted shortly.
When the Minister addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on 1 July he stated that as a general principle it is necessary to achieve co-ordination of consent procedures and the removal of unnecessary regulation. He stated, "There remains one area where I am yet to be satisfied that this has been achieved. It relates to the foreshore process which is based on legislation that is over 70 years old. The transfer of foreshore functions to my Department in the next few months affords me an opportunity to address this issue."
At the time he stated it was his intention to complete an urgent review of the operation of the foreshore functions and ensure they were tightly integrated with the modern planning processes available under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006.
It would be wrong of me to try to second guess the outcome of the strategic review and the Government's consideration of its findings. However, it is fair to say that we all wish to see a model for the foreshores that has a single consent process, with clear provision for the scoping of potential environmental, marine and ecological impacts at pre-application stage, public consultation at the application stage, greater certainty of time frames and consultation with prescribed statutory consultees at all stages. As part of the preparatory work for the strategic review and in anticipation of the transfer of functions, we have been examining different models in operation or under development in other jurisdictions.
The presentation by the Irish Wind Energy Association raised the issue of extending existing permission for onshore wind operations to deal with the situation on the ground where there were delays in getting access to the grid. The statutory guidelines relating to wind farm developments published in 2006 to which I referred earlier explicitly refer to planning authorities using their powers under the Planning Acts to grant permission for duration longer than five years in these types of cases. Planning authorities were again reminded of this policy advice in a circular from the Department issued in July 2008.
It might be helpful if I briefly mention other initiatives of interest to the work of the committee. In June regulations were approved by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which exempt a range of renewable technologies for use across the industrial, agricultural, and commercial sectors from planning permission requirements in the same way that planning exemptions were introduced for solar panels, micro-wind turbines and heat pumps for domestic use last year. These latest exemptions focus on wind turbines, biomass and combined heat and power.
On another matter, last week the Minister issued comprehensive guidance on flooding and the planning system for public consultation. These guidelines will put in place a systematic approach to integrating flood risk into the planning process, building on long-standing acknowledgment in legislation that it is an important planning issue and recognising this as an important element of the future climate change adaptation strategy.
If the Chairman or committee members have questions for us we will be happy to take them.
I thank Mr. Griffin who has identified the seriousness of this matter. We have heard various submissions and ongoing complaints about the length of time involved and delays which take place, particularly with regard to offshore wind projects.
For months we have been hearing about the transfer of functions from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but nothing has happened. I understand problems have arisen with regard to staff not transferring to Clonakilty. Is this correct?
Mr. Mark Griffin
Not to the best of my knowledge. On paper, the transfer of functions looks relatively straightforward. However, the transfer will split a range of functions that were first given statute provision in 1933 and which were the subject of various amendments in the intervening period.
In simple terms, the Government decided that responsibility for foreshore functions with regard to port developments covered by the Harbours Act, energy developments including offshore gas and wind, other forms of electricity generation and transmission originating offshore and aggregate and mineral extraction would transfer to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The functions with regard to the grant of foreshore licences relating to aquaculture development would rest with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Initially, the mechanism to effect this was to transfer the functions in their entirety to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have found that to give effect to the transfer of functions, rather than a simple order which is the normal way in which functions are transferred between Departments or Ministers, primary legislation is necessary to split the functions between the two Departments involved. This is not a straightforward process. We understand the time line for completion is the first quarter of 2009.
I am not aware of any issues with regard to staff in Clonakilty or any structural or institutional arrangements within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This has not been flagged to us.
We were told by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that she was transferring the functions but that difficulties had arisen.
Does responsibility for granting foreshore licences remain with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will this be the case until this change is introduced in early 2009 when responsibility will be handed over to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?
Mr. Mark Griffin
What will be handed over is responsibility for foreshore functions relating to port activities, all energy developments on the foreshore including oil, gas, wave, wind and tidal energy and aggregate and mineral extraction. The heavy duty activities on the foreshore will be transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The granting of foreshore licences for aquaculture activities will remain with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is getting complicated.
I was Minister with responsibility for the marine from 1994 to 1997 and we dealt with all foreshore licences. I find this extraordinary. In those days, one did not deal with applications for offshore wind farms and the Act is completely unsuitable for it. The reason we have asked Department officials to come before the committee is that we are anxious to put together proposals for Government on how developments such as wind farms, wave and tidal power should be dealt with in a modern way, ignoring what has gone in the past.
We have development areas with regard to structural planning matters. Will proposals be made to examine designated areas for wind farms or wave power? Will the Department have the expertise to deal with this or should the Marine Institute do so? It is a technical matter as distinct from a purely planning function.
The strategic approach by which An Bord Pleanála deals with many major developments has been successful. As Mr. Griffin stated, the time frame is reasonable, there is certainty and it provides an opportunity for the public to have a say. From what I can gather from the people involved in these proposals for offshore wind farms, the size and location of turbines are changing because of new developments in the area. They will possibly be built further out to sea. I am keen to hear the views of the Department. If it was in our position and making recommendations, given its experience and leaving aside what happened in the past, would it have the necessary expertise to deal with individual applications of this nature?
Mr. Mark Griffin
I will answer that question in several ways. I have to be cautious when speculating on what the Government might or might not do when it comes to giving operational effect to the transfer of functions.
I accept that, but we are not interfering with the Government. This is an all-party committee which is trying to send proposals to the Government. That is why were are looking for advice from experts.
Mr. Mark Griffin
I see this in reasonably simple terms and as a three-stage process. When the functions transfer to the Department in the first quarter of next year, 1 February 2009 or whenever it may be, it must be in a position to provide for continuity of service to those who already have applications in the system, or whose applications will come to us very shortly thereafter.
There is also the question of whether we are satisfied that the system is functioning properly. Consider the range of presentations made to the committee in the past few months, for example, from the likes of NOW Ireland. There is a clear view from that body which has several problems, one of which is related to the certainty of the process, how it will be dealt with by the marine licence vetting committee and the timeframe. One of the principal weaknesses in the Foreshore Act is the lack of a statutory timeframe for the length of time it should take to adjudicate on an application. Consider the two cases I cited previously. With the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, the time limit of 26 weeks in which to decide has been achieved in all cases so far. A more typical planning application sent directly to a planning authority is dealt with in 30 to 38 weeks, where there is a referral to the board. Our experience has been that most cases are being referred to the board, which is the entitlement of people. The Minister has indicated that he would like to examine the appropriateness of trying to integrate the foreshore consent process with the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act.
Consider the scale of developments in the system. Codling Wind Park has obtained consent for 220 turbines providing up to 1,100 MW of energy. Oriel Wind Farm will provide up to 300 MW of energy. Saorgas has applied to build 100 turbines on the Kish and Bray banks with an overall generating capacity of 250 MW. Fuinneamh Sceirde Teoranta in Galway will provide approximately 100 MW. If these were on-land developments, they would have to be dealt with under the strategic infrastructure process. One could ask the question: "Why not have the same process in place for developments offshore?" It would give greater certainty for timelines and there would be full provision for public consultation at pre-application and application stage. There is a competent authority with a track record in dealing with large-scale infrastructural projects which are diverse in nature such as heavy rail, the metro, the Luas, a whole range of energy infrastructure and motorway schemes. In these cases the authority buys in expertise to support it in considering individual applications. Why not do it in the case of offshore wind farms?
The third stage - the Chairman raised this point - concerns a marine development plan. Consider the approach being taken by other administrations such as the United Kingdom and Denmark. This is exactly what they do. The plan is a spatial planning framework for developments at sea. The United Kingdom identifies exclusive development zones deemed suitable for offshore wind farm developments. There are other development zones which for environmental, heritage or other reasons would be deemed unsuitable for such developments. There are other areas still which would be suitable subject to conditions and the undertaking of detailed environmental and other assessments. Interestingly, the United Kingdom foresees that process knitting in to the new planning commission which has been established and which is modelled largely, we are pleased to say, on our Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. Such an approach is an option and there are benefits from taking it.
Consider the wind energy development guidelines that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government prepared in 2006. This is the sort of spatial planning approach taken in advising local authorities on how they might assess whether particular areas are suitable for on-land wind farm development. It is to be considered in detail in the development plan process. There was considerable time and effort put into examining the issues of aesthetics, location and visual impact. The Department believes this is very useful in assisting local authorities with onshore wind energy developments. It is certainly a model which could be deployed in determining an appropriate framework within which to grant permission for offshore wind farm developments.
Is the Marine Institute a body which could carry out such a plan?
Mr. Mark Griffin
It would require a multidisciplinary approach to prepare such a plan. Consider the range of people and bodies involved in assisting in the preparation of on-land wind farm developments. These include Sustainable Energy Ireland, An Bord Pleanála, local authorities, the Geological Survey of Ireland, the Irish Aviation Authority and representatives from academia. To develop an offshore spatial model one would bring together the range of disciplines required to provide an input to that process, if that is the course ultimately deemed appropriate for Ireland.
Most of points I was going to raise have been addressed by Mr. Griffin, for which I thank him. On the timing of the legislation, it should be brought before the House and dealt with as a matter of urgency. I asked the Tánaiste in the Dáil last Thursday and she said this would happen in early 2009.
On the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, it is key that developments are proofed against some robust spatial plan for the marine which should be in place before a proposal is transferred to the strategic infrastructure stream. Without this one does not have anything to work off as a plan. This has been acknowledged in the delegation's contribution. When planning permission is granted initially for an onshore development - this was referred to by Mr. Griffin - it can be extended to ten years. There have been problems with grid access for renewable energy projects, not just offshore wind energy projects. There is a bottleneck in gaining access to the national grid. Does the Department - this is something of an aside - have a role to play in fast-tracking such projects as the east-west interconnector? Can such projects be put in place in order that the national grid can accommodate a higher level of renewable energy projects? Is it the case that we need to have the east-west interconnector in place even if these were granted and facilitated? Can the Department help to speed up that process?
Concerns have been expressed about the placement of some of the leases. They probably will be contrary to best practice or the spatial plan. Is there any possibility of retrospectively changing them so that they meet the plan? This is a similar matter to the proposal on ignoring the building energy regulations because so many houses have already been built. Certain schemes could be improved if they were allowed to proceed retrospectively when the new spatial plan is introduced. Is there any possibility of using a carrot and stick to ensure existing granted facilities are redesigned?
Mr. Mark Griffin
In regard to the five year permission, the original guidelines prepared by the Department in 2006 made it clear that section 41 of the Planning and Development Act provides for an extension of permission of up to ten years where it is sought by the applicant. To our knowledge, however, many of the applications did not seek permission for longer than five years. That may have been because they did not expect to wait longer than five years for a grid connection. In light of the experience that has shown the need for a lengthy lead-in time before a connection is established, Mr. George Burke issued a circular last July which reminded local authorities of the guidelines and advised that where substantial works were carried out, it was open to them to extend permission for a period of up to ten years.
In regard to the east-west interconnector, we understand Eirgrid has undergone a pre-application consultation process with An Bord Pleanála under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. It is expected that an application will be lodged in due course and, based on An Bord Pleanála's track record, we hope it will be approved within the 26 week timeframe.
I cannot speak on the retrospective amendment of leases. I genuinely do not know the position because the leases would have been granted under a particular arrangement. Given that we are considering developing the foreshore consent process, it may be the case when the functions are transferred to the Department that we will seek to provide ministerial powers for retrospective examination in amending legislation. However, I do not think this will be possible in respect of leases already approved under the existing consent regime. That is my own view, however, and I may be mistaken.
Nothing has been constructed yet, but alterations invariably will be required as the structures change, so revised permission will have to be sought. Would it be possible at that stage to improve compliance with the anticipated spatial plan for the marine? It is highly unlikely that projects which were granted permission three years ago will not change as new technologies become available.
Mr. Mark Griffin
We will take that point on board. In regard to the spatial policy for offshore development, the route suggested by the Deputy is a matter for the Minister to decide. It will take time to prepare because the process is much more complex than is the case for onshore wind farms. Even if it is developed, however, we will still have to be in a position to grant permission for offshore wind farm developments. The figures to which the National Offshore Wind Energy Association referred in its presentation are in the order of 4,000 MW of offshore wind generation by 2020 or 2,000 MW by 2012. At present, 25 MW is being generated, so a huge amount of work will be required if those targets are to be met. We have to be cautious about putting in place a system which could inhibit development.
It is important that a proper balance is achieved, having regard to our targets for renewables and what we want to do in terms of ensuring that the development of offshore wind farms meets environmental, visual and other requirements.
In regard to the concept of the spatial plan, the Department is working in anticipation of the transfer of the relevant functions. Agencies such as the Marine Institute, which understand the area in question, could in the interim engage in preparatory work in conjunction with the Department. Clearly, time will be needed to consult with agencies and establish the parameters involved but members of this committee visited the Marine Institute, for example, and found it has the capacity to assist. I ask Mr. Griffin to keep an open mind with regard to engaging these agencies so that the Department is not working at a disadvantage when the functions are transferred.
As the Senator noted, the Marine Institute has done tremendous work in regard to mapping. We were told during our visit that it believes the east coast is the ideal location for wind farms, whereas the west coast is the place for wave power. I do not suggest that anyone here is not taking this matter seriously but we could be self-sufficient in energy production if we put our minds to it. We could lead in this area and, with the development of the interconnector to Britain and Europe, could be a net exporter of energy.
This committee will make recommendations after consulting professionals such as Mr. Griffin. I do not care what body deals with this issue, provided it has the expertise to manage it quickly and within a plan. People should be able to receive guidance and reassurance on whether their investments would be worthwhile. I am sure Mr. Griffin feels the same way. In my opinion, the Foreshore Act 1933 is out of date regarding this type of development. If we sit back and wait for powers to be transferred, we will have wasted time. Whether it is the strategic infrastructure division of An Bord Pleanála or elsewhere, if we know we are to transfer responsibility to it, what should we do from now until that transfer takes place? Do we need a spatial plan so that people will have some guidance? It is not like the onshore example as people have a vested interest in the land they own. The sea is owned by all of us, so somebody must decide to lease parts of that sea to somebody to produce power. The question is whether it should be in this area or in some other area.
I have learned from this that it is not just about going to a particular area. Power has to be taken onshore and it must link into a grid. The seabed must be examined for suitability. Representatives from the Marine Institute were able to tell us of locations along the west coast suitable for wave power given the lie of the land, where all this would have to be brought onshore.
There is a great deal of information out there but we must get it all together so that we can say that in 2009 or 2010 we will transfer this responsibility to X, we have done all this research in the meantime and X will be up and running in the middle or the end of 2009 or whenever.
With regard to the spatial strategy on offshore wind farming, will this not sell itself? As the Chairman mentioned, it will sell itself along the east coast with regard to the suitability of sites at sea. Access to the grid is one of the main issues. We have granted planning permission for onshore projects in my county over the years but none of the projects is running because they cannot get access to the grid. Planning permission for four or five turbines to farmers and individual landowners has been granted but they are still not running because there is no access to the grid. I asked about this when representatives of the ESB came in but I did not get a very satisfactory answer. There is no use granting planning permission to schemes - either on land or offshore - unless we can get access to the grid. Why do we need a spatial strategy or plan when the projects will be dictated by the suitability of sites along whichever coast we use?
I welcome the 26-week time span for the decision. If there is a plan, this will be useful for the timescale. I know there are many objectors. Is there any appeals system to An Bord Pleanála with regard to major planning applications? Under the old system if there was disagreement with the local authority, one could appeal to An Bord Pleanála or vice versa. Is there any appeals system under the new scheme? It is not that I am looking for one as sometimes we are better off without them.
Perhaps the next issue is not relevant today but I will ask about it anyway. It relates to the ecology of inland areas where there were recent landslides in Leitrim and Kerry. It was mentioned that wind farms may have been the cause. Is there any proof this is the case and will it cause a problem in future? Most wind farms are built on high ground inland to catch the wind. Is the construction of such farms a cause of landslides or should we consider this in future?
Mr. Mark Griffin
In response to some of the issues raised by the Chairman and Deputy Aylward, we are not waiting for the transfer of functions before we take action in the Department. The Minister indicated in July that he wanted to undertake a review of the foreshore licensing regime and, in effect, it is happening already in the Department. We have a section under Mr. Burke where much work and research is being undertaken on best practice internationally on the management of the foreshore. Earlier I cited one example of the UK system.
As part of this review, we will engage very heavily with the expert people in this area, most notably the Marine Institute. We see that process evolving in two phases. In the first phase we have a planning and development amendment Bill, to which the Minister got approval in principle from Government in July, that will look at a range of issues. We are looking to see if anything can be introduced in legislation early next year. The heads of the Bill will be drafted by the end of the year, with the Bill to be published in the first quarter of next year. We will see if any practical legislative changes can be introduced that would improve the operation of the foreshore consent process as it currently pertains.
During the course of 2009 we will look to how and whether we should introduce a spatial framework for development on the foreshore. This leads to the point mentioned by Deputy Aylward, the reason we need a spatial policy. The Marine Institute said that the east coast is the most appropriate for the development of offshore projects, but not every site on that coast would be suitable. A spatial policy would indicate, having regard to environmental impact and what we know of the sea shore, currents, navigation channels and bird migration paths, that certain parts of the foreshore on the east coast would be wholly unsuitable or only suitable subject to conditions.
With regard to the appeals system under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, one of the strengths of the Act is that there is major emphasis on pre-application consultation with project promoters and teasing out all the issues relating to environmental impact, the effect on heritage and the sorts of issues that impact on the public. These issues are teased out at pre-application consultation stage and again during the application process. In terms of an appeals, ultimately the system available is to have a decision judicially reviewed.
I might ask Ms Doyle to say a word on the bog slides. My understanding is that we do not know what caused the recent bog slides in Kerry and Leitrim. Both of the developments were subject to environmental impact statements but we understand the permission granted for both of these developments came before the publication of the 2006 guidelines which focused significantly on the issue of soil stability.
Ms Aileen Doyle
There is a whole appendix devoted to best practice for wind energy development in peatlands. We consulted Trinity College Dublin for expert advice on the question of ground stability. There is a whole section, both in the appendix and main guidelines on the question of building wind energy on peatlands. Applications that post-dated the guidelines will certainly address that issue in great detail.
I found this very useful and I hope we can return to the witnesses if required. A spatial plan is good for all the reasons outlined by Mr. Griffin. People will not waste their time. They will know where to go if they are thinking of putting their money down. That is very important.
The other issue brought home to us is that with these long delays, people are in a queue waiting for turbines. People do not have an idea as to when an answer will be received. Technology is changing and people may not know when to order equipment because they do not know if they will get permission. It is not like going into a shop and buying the equipment the day after permission is granted. There is a long lead in time to the erection of such turbines. For this reason, it is important that people know if they apply in a designated area they can have pre-application discussions and have a fair chance of getting their projects through. In this way people will have more confidence to go ahead and invest their money. The impression I got from some of the people to whom we spoke was that they were always fearful. They did not know what would happen. It is easy to switch and go somewhere else. Airtricity recently developed a big site in the Thames Estuary. The money and opportunities are there. We have the raw materials - that is, the conditions. It is only a question of getting a proper structure.
Do the representatives have any comment on the delays in accessing the grid system?
Mr. Mark Griffin
I do not, because it is not a function for which we are responsible.
I know.
Mr. Mark Griffin
I know that is not very helpful to members, but we do not deal with access to the grid except in one respect. Members may recall what I said earlier about the east-west interconnector. It will go through the strategic infrastructure process, and we are facilitating access to the grid to the extent to which we have responsibility, that is, with regard to the planning consent process. However, in terms of the gate system and when and how access can be obtained, it is not an area in which we are involved.
Is there any way we can progress this as a body? Can we get access for landowners who have planning permission for three, four or five years and just cannot get access to the grid? The ESB or whoever is responsible--
EirGrid.
- -is not taking them on board. I do not know what the problem is. Is there any way we can progress that?
We could submit our recommendations. The Cabinet has a sub-committee on climate change and renewable energy. There is a bottleneck in the system at the moment.
Are the representatives happy that if the process were transferred to the strategic infrastructure division of the board, it would have the capacity to deal with this?
Mr. Mark Griffin
When one is proposing a transfer of that nature, resources and institutional arrangements must be considered. One cannot simply take a massive block of work such as this and port it into An Bord Pleanála without considering all these issues. For example, when responsibility for the strategic infrastructure process was transferred, extra staff members were required.
Mr. George Burke
Thirty five extra staff.
Mr. Mark Griffin
There are individuals and entities that are involved in the process of granting foreshore licences. Those people are not going to disappear. It is a question of how we tap into them and how we can make best use of them. It is about changes to the consent process that will make it more streamlined and offer greater certainty in terms of timelines and so on.
Mr. George Burke
For the avoidance of doubt, and to reinforce what Mr. Griffin has said, the strategic review is under way in the sense that we are carrying out the necessary research. We have an indicative timeline but obviously that is subject to other things happening. I wish to emphasise that it is under way.
Mr. Griffin mentioned the principles that come out of the strategic consent process under the strategic infrastructure provisions. After 97 pre-application consultations, 144 meetings and 16 formal applications, we can say with a degree of certainty that it is working. We have obviously been involved in this. If I were to pick out one area, as Mr. Griffin mentioned, it would be the pre-application consultation process. It sets up all the issues to be dealt with at the formal application process.
Who actually meets the applicants?
Mr. George Burke
The board would meet with the applicants.
Do you mean the staff within the board?
Mr. George Burke
Yes, the staff within the board - the professionals. These are not only professionals in the planning area - if engineering expertise were required, for example, that expertise would be called in. The main point is that they help the potential applicants at that stage by pointing them in the right direction and, sometimes, pointing out the blindingly obvious. For example, if an area is in a special designated zone - going back to the point made earlier about strategic spatial planning - they might suggest considering alternative approaches. That is the benefit of it. When the process was set up originally there was an emphasis on how long the pre-application consultation process would take. The answer to that is, of course, as long as necessary. Developers have come to the view that this is the real prize. It sets up their formal application to the point where they have a greater degree of certainty - although nothing is sacrosanct - that the issues have been addressed.
All the technical issues are resolved.
Mr. George Burke
Exactly.
This has been very useful. I thank the representatives. Their attendance is deeply appreciated. We will produce our report and I hope it will be of assistance in sorting out this problem. I do not think the problem is insurmountable by any means. It is a question of getting the right people together under one roof.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 October 2008.