Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 May 2006

Vol. 620 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Water and Sewerage Schemes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. This is a sad story of neglect and the failure by the Government to give a sewerage scheme to Achill Sound. This has gone on since 1991. Although that project was supposed to have been introduced 15 years ago, not a spade has been put in the ground. That is a disgrace. I wish the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could experience the colour of the sand and the smell. Raw sewage goes out to a sheltered bay. It is a disgrace that this can happen today. Where is the EU responsibility of Government to deliver on this issue and build a treatment plant?

The difficulty is that the polluter pays principle is now kicking in for a scheme that should have been put in place in 1991. As a result of this principle, the community is being asked for a contribution it cannot give. This community is treated as if it were on O'Connell Street with lots of footfall, enterprise and business. However, because the community has been neglected, there is no potential to satisfy the contribution required under the polluter pays principle. The principle has dealt a fatal blow to any chance of stopping this raw sewage from going into Achill Sound. I have asked about this before. Some sort of hardship clause must be invoked. There is provision for such a clause. Will the Minister examine this? The polluter pays principle works for an area that has the economic potential to repay through housing levies and water charges on commercial premises. The Government is playing a blame game even though the Council has made some effort. A scheme worth €8.9 million was approved and sanctioned in June 2005 and went out to tender. A massive local contribution of at least €4.5 million was required but could not be paid. As a result, the Department asked that the scheme be reduced so that the local contribution would be smaller.

The scheme has been downgraded to cater for a population of 1,200 instead of the original 2,000. Some areas, such as houses on the Mulranney road and Bull's Mouth road, have been removed from the scheme. This change has reduced the cost to some €6.3 million. However, the council maintains that its contribution should be 19% while the Department suggests 38% is required. This is calculated on the basis of an area that has pipes and a collection system. Achill Sound is unique in that it has no treatment system because it has been grossly neglected. At the price of €6.3 million the Department wants Mayo County Council to pay €2.4 million marginal cost, equivalent to 38%. The local contribution should be €1.2 million or 19%.

Today we heard the IDA has failed miserably to create jobs in Mayo. I ask the Minister of State to address this urgently.

The national water services pricing policy framework provides for the recovery by sanitary authorities of the cost of providing water services from the users of those services, with the exception of water services provided to householders for domestic purposes. This policy is consistent with the polluter pays principle and the EU water framework directive. The policy fully respects the prohibition on charging for domestic water services as provided under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997. It also requires full recovery of the cost of providing water services to the non-domestic sector by means of a meter-based volumetric charge and the metering of this sector.

The major part of the capital cost element of water services schemes relates to domestic water services and is funded by my Department through the water services investment programme. The marginal capital costs are recovered from non-domestic users on a consolidated countywide basis over a period of up to 20 years. A fair and transparent mechanism is used in determining the appropriate level of non-domestic capital costs to be applied to water services projects, including sewerage schemes.

This is identified by sanitary authorities on a scheme-by-scheme basis with the methodology used and the resultant outcome closely monitored by my Department to ensure equity in the application of the policy. My Department has worked very closely with sanitary authorities in developing the charging mechanism and the conditions that apply to pricing policy. A mechanism for the calculation of charges that includes operational, marginal capital and administrative costs has been developed and rolled out to authorities. The unit cost of water services will invariably differ between sanitary authorities given the differences in the costs of water services provision across different local authority areas.

The Achill Sound sewerage scheme referred to by the Deputy has been approved for construction under my Department's water services investment programme 2005-07. In common with all projects funded under the programme, this scheme must be progressed consistently with the water services pricing policy. Local authorities must ensure the design and scale of individual schemes takes account of the implications of the pricing policy framework. This involves my Department funding the capital costs associated with the provision of services to meet the requirements of the existing domestic population together with a contribution of up to 40% for serving the additional future domestic population.

It cannot be done. The money is not available.

The remaining marginal capital cost of servicing non-domestic consumers and providing for future development is recovered by the local authority from all non-domestic consumers in its functional area on a countywide basis through a combination of water charges on commercial consumers and planning levies on future development.

Only significant largescale consumers who reserve a specific proportion of the overall capacity of a scheme are required to make a direct up-front contribution to the capital costs. I understand it is unlikely there are any such consumers in this case. My Department has advised Mayo County Council of aspects of the council's proposals that need to be reviewed to allow the appropriate non-domestic capital contribution to be determined. My Department has previously approved the council's tender recommendation for the scheme and the council is currently reviewing the scheme with a view to reducing the overall cost to a more economic level.

It should be 19%.

I am conscious of the importance of the Achill Sound scheme and met a representative, Councillor Murray, who I assured of the importance of this scheme. Any submission from the council will be dealt with as a matter of urgency on receipt in my Department.

Waste Management.

Mount Olive Road, Swan's Nest Road, Mount Olive Grove and Swan's Nest Avenue are pleasant residential streets in St. Benedict's parish, Kilbarrack, in the heart of my constituency, Dublin North-East. The 400 houses in the area lie between Kilbarrack Road and Kilbarrack shopping centre. Besides the small pocket park behind the shopping centre, the residents have only one small open space of approximately three acres. For over seven years my colleague, Councillor Anne Carter, and I have campaigned to have Mount Olive-Swan's Nest open space upgraded to a full city park with plinth walls, a decorative railing, improved surface for the football pitch and a new seven-a-side pitch for the children of Kilbarrack. About six months ago I was approached by the committee of Kilmount Football Club, which uses the pitch, requesting urgent support for the upgrading of the green area and the provision of dressing rooms nearby. The Kilmount Football Club committee outlined an ambitious programme to develop the club with under age children's teams and a seven-a-side facility. I arranged for the deputy area manager of Dublin City Council to meet the committee last February.

Kilmount Football Club has provided recreation for the children and youth of the Kilbarrack parish for over 30 years at this location. The pitch is also made available to the local secondary school, Ard Scoil La Salle, which plays all home matches there and has won Leinster and all-Ireland soccer titles in the course of its outstanding academic and sports history. Last week the Mount Olive-Swan's Nest community was stunned to learn that Dublin City Council has prepared a report for the north central area committee proposing a waste management centre for a large corner section of the Mount Olive-Swan's Nest park. Instead of being offered a high-quality, refurbished small city park, my constituents are being threatened with a busy regional bring centre that will devastate the area with additional heavy traffic, remove a significant part of the amenity, leave an eyesore high wall structure for youths to hang around and produce unknown environmental effects given the range of waste accepted. The bring centre will open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. seven days per week, including bank holidays. There is no doubt that a huge and constant stream of cars will greatly increase traffic on the already busy Swan's Nest road and avenue and Mount Olive road. It is also likely that much additional traffic will be attracted to rat-run through the adjoining 400 houses of the Grangepark estate and the over 500 houses of the Woodbine and Millwood estates in Raheny, while Raheny road, a key artery of my constituency that already has heavy traffic, will be completely clogged. The 2.4 m walls, sliding roller gates and gatehouse, highlighting poles, huge waste receptacles and 20 sq. m compactors are typical of an industrial project and have no place in a much loved area of a quiet residential estate.

Residents also have grave concerns regarding the wide range of waste products to be deposited at the location which includes, besides glass, plastic, aluminium, steel and cardboard by-products, wood and garden waste, and especially hazardous waste including waste oil, car batteries, paints and so on. On a walkabout of Mount Olive-Swan's Nest estate last week, I found residents appalled and distraught at the prospect of this waste centre being installed at their cherished local green space. They have formed an action committee totally opposed to the proposals and this evening in this House I speak for them.

Yesterday I urged Dublin City Council north central area manager, Mr. Declan Wallace, to abandon the proposed waste centre at that location and put it in an industrial estate, where such a centre truly belongs. Mr. Wallace says that the announcement is simply a pre-consultation stage of the project, but my constituents are unanimous that they do not want that waste centre on their little green in the heart of an older Dublin City Council estate under any circumstances. Instead, they want the green upgraded to full city park status with a plinth wall and railings boundary and improved pitches and facilities for the local Kilmount Football Club.

I hope Dublin City Council, under the stewardship of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, will listen to them.

I thank Deputy Broughan for raising a matter obviously very much in the interests of his community.

Under the Waste Management Act 1996, as amended, local authorities have a statutory duty to make a waste management plan for the prevention, minimisation, collection, recovery and disposal of non-hazardous waste. Dublin City Council, as the lead authority for the four Dublin local authorities, completed the review of its waste management plan late last year, and a plan is now in place for the period from 2005 to 2010. Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 38 of the Waste Management Act 1996 to provide and operate, or to arrange for the provision and operation of, facilities for recovery and disposal of household waste arising within their functional areas.

Government policy on waste management, as set out in the policy statement Waste Management — Changing our Ways, is based on the internationally adopted hierarchy of options that places greater emphasis on waste prevention, followed by minimisation, re-use, energy recovery and finally, the environmentally sustainable disposal of residual waste. We must concentrate, therefore, on more and more recycling facilities to ensure the general public has easy access to a large number of high-quality facilities. Increased levels of recycling will in turn lead to reduced levels of waste going to landfill for final disposal.

The issues raised by Deputy Broughan are a matter solely for Dublin City Council at official and elected member level, and my Department has no role in the matter. However, I understand from Dublin City Council that the council is proposing to place a manned bring bank facility at Mount Olive Park, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, which will take up 10% of the open space at the location. The location of the proposed facility is in line with the current waste management plan for the Dublin region, and the particular site in Kilbarrack is listed in the plan.

The council will require planning approval under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2003 for this facility. Under section 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, local authorities are exempt from planning permission when they carry out development in their own functional areas. However, Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2003 sets out the procedures for public consultation that must be followed by local authorities where they propose certain classes of development. It is open to any individual to submit comments or observations on the proposed development as part of the planning process.

In this case, Dublin City Council also intends to consult local residents prior to beginning the planning approval process. The bring bank facility will also require a certificate of registration from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in order to operate. On the designation of the park in question, section 67 — and Schedule 13 — of the Local Government Act 2001 empower local authorities to promote the interests of the local community regarding amenity, recreation and other functions. That includes the provision of parks, gardens, open spaces, playgrounds etc. It is a matter for each local authority to determine the extent to which those facilities should be provided and to allocate resources accordingly.

Decisions on what should be provided are properly left to local authorities themselves, as they are in the best position to assess the level of need in their area and how best to address it. There will, therefore, be ample opportunities for all interested parties to convey their views to Dublin City Council on the proposal to locate a manned bring bank facility at this location.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 May 2006.
Barr
Roinn