Mr. John Wilde Crosbie:

As stated, one of the better provisions of this legislation is that outline planning permissions will not apply in this zone, such that people will not be able to obtain outline planning permission and then, the devil being in the detail, do lots of things permitted under that outline planning permission. We are concerned that the role of the county council under this legislation is somewhat restricted as compared with what is provided under the previous Act. Under that Act, a development which adjoins a county council's functional area requires planning permission. This area has been extended by the definition of the "inshore zone". We do not know the reason the inshore zone definition is restricted to bays and estuaries. For example, if one is in Dublin Bay approaching Dalkey Island the inshore zone comes within the remit of the county council but when one turns the corner one approaches the common law foreshore which is no longer an inshore zone because the definition does not take into account the two watermarks once one leaves the bay.

It would be much better perhaps if the county councils' functional area were not defined in terms of tides. We are now entering a time of rising sea levels, which means the tide limits will change dramatically not only in terms of ownership of the land but in terms of the functional area of the county council, which is defined by reference to the inshore zone, which is tied entirely to tides which are going to change. It would be worthwhile doing something in this area. I regret I have not had time to read the Bill in great detail. It seems to me our planning laws generally are tied too much to the concept of land, its use and development. This Bill provides an opportunity to move away from this and to define the use of water. While the Bill refers to "on or over the seabed", it does not state, "in the water on or over sea beds".

An issue arose recently in London in a case entitled Tower Hamlets v. CityJet, which indicates that the technology of ships now plays a big part in terms of how issues need to be addressed. CityJet have large ships which contain helicopter decks and are self-positioning, with engines pointing in all directions. They brought these ships up into the middle of the Thames River and allowed helicopters, which had picked up people from CityJet flights wishing to travel up town, to land on them, in respect of which Tower Hamlets said it needed planning permission. CityJet's response was that it did not because it was not using land, which it was not. The House of Lords then twisted the words of the relevant legislation in terms of the meaning of "land", which meant CityJet required planning permission to continue what it was doing. This draws attention to the fact that the technology of ships now is such that one no longer needs to tether them to the sea bed. Currently, one can place a ship in the exclusive economic zone, where it can remain in place with engines running, thus not making use of land anywhere. For this reason, there is a need to consider inclusion of a definition of "water" as well as of "land".

An issue that has come to light and is the subject of a case before the Supreme Court in relation to Balbriggan Harbour, which comes under the remit of Fingal County Council, is the use of estuaries for house boats. Because of the manner in which the functional area of the county council is defined in this Bill, a connection is required in terms of what is defined as an inshore zone. It is possible for anyone wishing to do so to anchor in the mud a house boat or a boat which one declares is a house boat but is not but in which one proposes to live as such. Provided that boat stays afloat at all times, it can remain anchored there without planning permission. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.