The first petition for consideration is P00026/12 from Mr. Michael Bowes, Fernhill Golf Club, on the failure of the National Roads Authority to inform interested parties of its intention in respect of the N28 road. I will open it up to the floor for any proposals.
Decisions on Public Petitions Received
Obviously it is a huge issue for the person involved and for the petitioner but I do not think it is admissible under our terms of reference. It would appear to be almost like a civil case between the person who owns the lands and the National Roads Authority and the county council. I suggest we write to the petitioner, refer to the terms of reference and say it would not appear to be within our remit. If the NRA is under the remit of the Ombudsman, I am aware of a recent extension of powers, we might clarify whether it comes under the remit of the Ombudsman or the Minister might clarify if there are any plans to do that in the future.
I support the Senator in stating that obviously this is a devastating issue for the family involved and an awful trauma for them. Unfortunately I agree this appears to be a case that should be heard in the courts and it is not within our remit to deal with this very serious matter. I hope a worthwhile solution can be found for everybody involved and that there will be a successful outcome for the family in due course but unfortunately we cannot assist them.
Is that agreed? Agreed. The next petition is P00055/12 from Ms Evelyn Flynn, Irish Cob Society, regarding the revocation of ICS approvals by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 30 November 2012 to maintain the Irish cob studbooks and to issue equine identification passports. I suggest we write back to the petitioner advising that because it is not apparent that ICS has exhausted all the appeals processes with the Department, we would not be in a position to examine the matter and direct it in terms of the appropriate bodies to which it should appeal. The option of the Ombudsman is also available. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next is petition P00079/12 regarding a request for the re-examination of the course of action taken by Galway County Council when refusing a section 44 application - revocation of planning - of the Planning and Development Act 2000. I will open it up to members.
This is a very complex issue. It arises out of a personal situation and obviously we are not here to adjudicate on such a situation or a case between a county council and An Bord Pleanála and an individual. It also points to some policy questions that have been raised that would be important for us to examine further. Obviously, as a committee, we do not have the power to intervene or to stop any development going ahead which has been granted planning permission. I think the questions raised warrant further investigation by us. The suggestion by the secretariat that we seek further clarification and information from Galway County Council on the number of issues raised around how the planning permission was granted, whether it can justify the planning permission granted in the context of the questions the petitioner has raised about public consultation and the national wind strategy etc., is extremely important. This should be done by the committee because if there is a lacuna in the legislation in regard to wind energy, planning and so on, as a test case, it would highlight the issue for other individuals who may find themselves in a similar situation so that we could best inform the relevant Ministers as to how any legislation needs to framed going forward.
I compliment Senator Ó Clochartaigh on the work he has done on this important issue prior to its coming before the committee. I appreciate the serious circumstances in which up to 80 families find themselves. My heart is with them. At the end of the day the planning process is in place. If the wind farm company went through the process and did everything properly, I am absolutely amazed as to how the local community was unaware such an application was going through their local authority. I would question openly where the local county councillors to whom those 80 families entrusted their local business were, and why they did not organise public meetings to address the concerns of the local community. Surely to God every county councillor, across the party political divide, on the local authority knew the application was going through. I know from my time as a member of a local authority, that if a developer was within a smell of making an application for a wind farm the local community would be notified not by the wind farm company but by the people representing the local community. That is what I would say in this case.
With regard to public consultation, it is as clear as a pikestaff that there is no onus on anybody to put leaflets through a door informing people in a locality that they are about to engage in the planning process. The documentation in front of me does not state that people have to do so.
Even when it comes to stating that it is strongly recommended that the developer of wind farm energy projects should engage in active consultation and dialogue with the local community at an early stage in the planning process, ideally prior to submitting a planning application, it states it is not mandatory but it is strongly recommended. I am not defending the wind farm company but what I am trying to say is that it did what it had to do to get its planning.
It is most unfortunate that the local people were debarred from submitting an observation which would have allowed them to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála after the planning permission being granted, but they were denied all of that because they did not know that it was going on. It is unbelievable and crazy to think the wind farm was being proposed, the planning notices went up, the advertisements went in the newspapers, nobody knew about it and all of the county councillors stayed quiet about it. It is amazing. I am shocked. However, it happened. I am afraid it is an impossible situation for these people. They will have to live with this.
In County Kerry, many years ago before wind farms became as predominant as they are now, I and another councillor introduced into the county development plan a rule with regard to a minimum distance at which a wind farm could be developed near local houses because we felt so strongly about the issue. Unfortunately, An Bord Pleanála used to overrule this. When the council would refuse on that ground, An Bord Pleanála would overturn that decision. That was most unfortunate. I always was very concerned. While I would believe in wind farm energy, and I think it is good, I would never want it to be imposed on a community or to devalue a person's house. Such an outcome is wrong. My question is where were the county councillors.
I agree with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that wind will be an important commodity in the future, but with that importance comes enormous problems. We see here a very personal problem for one person and the many others who live near her in that a wind farm is being located right next to where they live. There are difficulties for this committee in the specific issues but there are sufficient policy matters raised here for us to keep more than a watching brief on this. There is the matter of oversight of local planning. There are matters relating to the need for local consultation.
I would have to perhaps not disagree with Deputy Healy-Rae but point out that a community impact statement is required under guidelines. All wind farm developments require a community impact statement which identifies the potential impacts of the proposed development on the local community. That appears not to have taken place but other requirements also appear not to have taken place. This is a matter of local planning and local consultation. There is, possibly, a need for compulsory guidelines on the building of wind farms, of which we will undoubtedly see more. These are a good development but they must be controlled and this committee has the capacity to play an important part in how that continues.
While we cannot stop this project going ahead, I would sincerely hope that we make the point to the petitioner, difficult though it will be for her, that we do not have that capacity, unfortunately, but that we would like to believe we have the capacity to change the way other decisions may be made in the future. That is what I would like to see this committee doing and I would like to be part of that process. Whatever we agree on today should be with a view to having a proper consultation about this matter in the future.
The issue here is that an applicant has written to us who, if one takes the details out of it, feels trampled upon, oppressed and ignored by the planning system. The planning system simply has been totally non-facilitating of the applicant and has supported a larger project, money and whatever one wants to call it. Basically, the system does not provide for proper notification and does not allow for persons who may not have been involved at the beginning, and the applicant's community is suffering as a result. It is perfectly suitable for this committee. It is something that we see across the planning system. It is such an intrinsic matter. The planning system has become so formalised and professional that if one hires the right person, one can get one's planning application through. If one does not have the right consultants and the right environmental professionals to get one's project through, one can be left out of it. The ordinary person has no say against it. The balance of rights in the planning system, the notifications, etc., are something that we can look at.
Unfortunately, we cannot stop the development proceeding, which is one of the matters we are requested to do, but that should not take away from the seriousness of the issue. As the applicant, Mrs. Cronin, states, she feels that the planning system has let down the community, the provisions are completely inadequate and more comprehensive mechanisms should be put in place to ensure it does not happen again. It is completely within our remit and it is something that is urgent.
The basis of the planning laws should accommodate communities and citizens and be inclusive. Clearly, this is a case that has given rise to considerable hardship for at least an individual family and perhaps more in the community.
I am struck by the representations made by both Senator Ó Clochartaigh and Deputy Nolan. I agree with the course of action as proposed by the Senator. We may not be in a position to deal satisfactorily with this specific case but I believe that there are issues which are of significant concern to the public in the course of which this committee can be of assistance.
The lesson to communities, a lesson that should come from this committee, is that communities and citizens should be aware. There is a responsibility to become aware of what is happening. There will be in the order of 2,700 wind turbines constructed over the next period of time to comply with a Government initiative which is by and large positive. There is a message here that communities should be aware and citizens should be alert, and the planning process should be designed to be inclusive. While we may not be in a position to satisfy this particular petitioner, we should be mindful of lessons that we can learn and a message that we can give to other communities and individuals.
We have a proposal. Is it agreed that we will correspond with the petitioner and outline that while, unfortunately, it is not our function to have any role in the planning that has already been granted, there are a number of policy issues and we will correspond with Galway County Council on the issues that have been raised?
Perhaps we would review it in relation to calling others who may be able to help us to debate it.
There is a policy issue in the adequacy of consultation on controversial large-scale developments, be they wind farms, telephone masts or whatever. Clearly, it is not acceptable that any community would not be consulted and have the ability to appeal. When we get the response from Galway County Council we can develop the discussion in the committee around the policy implications of the response. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Yes. Go raibh maith agat.
There is a good recommendation from the clerk to the committee that we may also refer this to the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht to examine in terms of possibly making recommendations. When we get correspondence back from the county council, we will develop that anyway.
I wish to raise a question or consideration. I acknowledge the contributions that other members have made. I apologise for missing some of the earlier ones. It strikes me that if there is no method of halting the development, there remains to the community involved a hurt or damage to their situation and it raises, from a public policy point of view, considerations as to how to rebalance that hurt or damage for them. In accidents, there is the question of such matters as compensation and indemnity. There should not be a blanket statement that we can do nothing about this, the planning cannot be undone and the project proceeds.
This does not balance in any way the cost, damage or worsened situation of the people who may have been able, had the project not proceeded the way it did, to have steered it in a way that caused less damage, inconvenience or cost. It is just a consideration.
We will need to deliberate more on the implications after we receive the response from Galway County Council. We may take the option of referring it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht to examine its implications. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next petition is P00030/12 from Mr. Des Keane on the cases of those convicted of capital murder whose death sentences have been commuted by the President with the result that this small group of prisoners has no redress to parole or remission. We have received correspondence from the private secretary of the Minister for Justice and Equality advising us of a Supreme Court case to be decided by the summer. I recommend to the committee that we defer consideration of this petition until the Supreme Court decision has been made. We should correspond to the petitioner conveying our regret at the delays in the courts system and that we will have to wait until the decision is made.
Deputy Charles Flanagan suggested we correspond with the Minister asking for clarification on why the delay has occurred.
We can certainly correspond with the Minister outlining our concern about the delays in the Supreme Court system, which are outlined by the petition.
The final petition, P00005/13, from Ms Joanne Doran on the provision of a new treatment for cystic fibrosis has been withdrawn because the Minister for Health has announced it will be resolved.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 2013.