Vol. 528 No. 3
206 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands her views on whether notification under the habitats directive of intention to designate was inadequate; and the procedure which was used to ascertain ownership of these lands by Dúchas. [30257/00]
Proposed SACs were widely advertised in the regional newspapers and on local radio. In addition maps of the sites are available for public inspection through Dúchas, the heritage service of my Department, in county council planning offices, Teagasc county offices and farm development service offices. My Department has directly notified over 13,000 individual landowners and will notify any additional landowners that come to notice. My Department operates a freephone line to assist landowners in respect of SAC proposals. I wish to assure the Deputy that all landowners who come to notice will be provided with an opportunity to object, on scientific grounds, to the inclusion of their land in these sites.
Landowners were identified through various methods. Initially a contract team was engaged to search Land Registry records. Rates records were also examined. However, these methods were found to be too time consuming and inaccurate at the time. Accordingly, Dúchas arranged for its local officials to identify landowners. I do not consider that the notification procedures have been inadequate.
207 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands her views on whether the Irish regulations implemented through the habitats directive go far beyond what is necessitated by the directive by choosing and imposing restrictions on non-priority sites in a manner which lacks transparency; and if this flawed interpretation of the habitats directive has been used as the basis for all subsequent discussions including compensatory mechanisms. [30258/00]
The Irish regulations transposing the EU habitats directive provide the necessary powers to designate and protect special areas of conservation, and to compensate landowners for any losses arising from the imposition of restrictions necessary to ensure the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of these sites. The directive requires all activities, plans and developments impacting significantly on SACs to be assessed in the light of their likely effect on the relevant conservation interest. If in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for a site, and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the only considerations which may be raised, in the case of priority habitat sites, are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In the case of non-priority habitat imperative reasons of overriding public interest may also include those of a social or economic nature. These facts provide the basis for discussions between my officials and interested parties. I am satisfied that the Regulations correctly give effect to these provisions in Irish law and that they have been implemented in a transparent manner.
The position in relation to compensation is that I have agreed to compensate landowners, in full, for actual losses arising from the imposition of restrictions. If landowners are unhappy with any compensation awards offered, they may refer the matter to independent arbitration.
