Mr. Tom Coughlan:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to make the submission to the committee. I present myself to the committee as County Manager of Clare County Council. I am also the chairman of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the County and City Managers' Association. Therefore, some issues will relate to the CCMA and others will relate to Clare County Council. I have also supplied a copy of the CCMA submission to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government regarding a new planning and consent architecture for development in the marine area.

The submission made by the managers' association, and my own submission, welcomes the proposal to reform the current foreshore licensing-leasing consent system. That is the main issue of concern for local authorities. There are a number of issues of concern about the current system that I hope that the new Act will address, to some extent. It was interesting to hear the previous discussion. Some of the issues discussed were a lack of a plan-led approach; a lack of integration between sea-based activities and the planning system; serious delays in issuing licences-leases; no statutory timeframe for the consent process; duplication of requirements, such as the fact that one needs planning permission and foreshore consent; inactive leases sterilising areas; and a lack of enforcement. Such a situation leads to a disconnected system and acts as an impediment to investment and development in the marine area. The previous discussion referred to the potential wealth that can be generated by the marine sector, particularly in the aquaculture and energy areas. That is something that we are very conscious of in Clare County Council.

I welcome the aim of the proposed Bill, to align the foreshore consent system with the planning system. I also welcome the fact that the Bill intends to legislate for a single environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment for major projects to be carried out by a single authority, An Bord Pleanála.

I note that the Bill contains a proposal to define a near-shore area and that the day-to-day management of a near-shore area will be assigned to local authorities with the exception of a development that requires an EIA or an appropriate assessment. However, the proposed territorial definition of the near-shore area is between the high water mark and the low water mark. That means that local authorities will have a limited role in terms of development and activity beyond the outer limit of the near-shore area. That means the edge of the near-shore area and the 12 mile limit.

It is envisaged that certain developments currently dealt with under section 225 of the Planning and Development Act will remain the responsibility of local authorities, even if they straddle the low water mark, such as pier and marina developments not requiring EIA and AA. The Bill anticipates that local authorities could be assigned responsibility for certain activity and development entirely beyond the low water mark. That would be pretty minor type development such as the deployment of navigation aids or research devices on or within the near-shore.

It is accepted that An Bord Pleanála and planning authorities should be the main consenting authorities associated with planning and development applications in the marine environment, with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, overseeing the estate management aspects of the process. Clare County Council and the CCMA consider that the planning authorities should be the consenting authorities for planning applications in the foreshore area, as distinct from what is provided for in Bill. The Bill provides that local authorities would only be the consenting authorities for planning applications in the near-shore area.

With regard to the structure, An Bord Pleanála would then be responsible for the following - the assessment of applications for developments within the exclusive economic zone, beyond the 12 mile limit; strategic infrastructure as defined in the planning legislation in the foreshore; local authority development that requires an EIS or Natura impact statement; and appeals for all development within the foreshore other than the strategic infrastructure or local authority development that requires an EIS. Local authorities are responsible for all other applications for development in the foreshore area including the near-shore area. That forms the basis of the submissions. It makes sense that local authorities, in keeping with the Government policy outlined in Putting People First and giving more functions to local authorities, should have the role of determining consent applications for the foreshore area and the near-shore area.

The role of consenting authority could be undertaken by an individual local authority or, where necessary, local authorities. Alternatively, a single local authority or local coastal authority could be identified as the lead authority to deal with applications that traverse the jurisdiction of a number of planning authorities.

I shall comment on resources for planning applications. Obviously there could be resource implications if local authorities took on the responsibility. We consider that applications for development consent or permits on the foreshore and in the exclusive economic zone should reflect the level of resources required. That is in keeping with the recommendations of the efficiency review group of local authorities and local government, that we charge economic fees.

As envisaged in the Bill, responsibility for the day-to-day maintenance of the near-shore area could be assigned to local authorities regarding permitting activities by the introduction of new or existing by-laws that provide for the requirement to obtain permits for events with amenity value and activities such as filming, non-invasive site investigations, temporary moorings, seaweed harvesting of a minor nature or the deployment of scientific instruments and sample collection for research purposes.

I note that the Bill referred to enforcement. The CCMS recommends that enforcement in the foreshore area should be a matter for local authorities.

With regard to the general development of the maritime area and foreshore, and referred to in the previous discussion today, a plan-led system should provide a framework for planning decisions, rather than planning applications and consents for permission being dealt with on an ad hoc basis. We feel that there should be a plan-led approach. That would facilitate the development of the potential wealth of the marine environment in a planned, efficient and sustainable manner. The strategic integrated framework plan for the Shannon estuary will be published later this month and could provide a framework for such a plan-led approach. The plan's objective is to balance the economic development potential of the estuary with a need to protect the environment and is the first of its kind.

In summary, I welcome the proposed approach of the Bill to align the foreshore consent system with the planning system. I suggest that an enhanced role could and should be assigned to local authorities in the context of foreshore licensing and development consent. As I said, the enhanced role would be in accordance with Government policy on the strengthening of local government as set out in the Government's policy document entitled Putting People First.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make my presentation and trust that it will assist the committee in its consideration of the Bill.