Mr. Tony Smyth:

I thank the Chairman and the members for this opportunity to comment on the outline heads of the maritime area and foreshore (amendment) Bill. We welcome the broad aim of the proposed legislation to rationalise and streamline the consent and planning process in regard to marine development. The OPW's main interest in the proposed legislation concerns the possible implications it may have for our work in the construction of flood relief schemes in coastal towns and cities where defences against tidal influences on rivers are generally necessary and where issues of foreshore consent may arise.

We set out briefly in our submission the OPW's involvement in coastal protection measures and flood relief scheme development which may impact on foreshores where they comprise reaches of rivers that are subject to tidal influence. I do not propose to read that submission into the committee record except to stress the role of local authorities in the Coast Protection Act as the initiating authority.

As I indicated, the main interest of the OPW with regard to the new proposals concerns the possible impact they may have on the progression of major flood relief projects in coastal areas and, in particular, any potential for duplication or delays that may arise out of the consent process set out in the Bill. As we outlined in our submission, while flood relief works carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act are classified as exempt development for planning purposes, the OPW is required under those Acts to follow a comprehensive public consultation process as well as statutory consultation with all relevant Departments and bodies prior to seeking the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the works. Also, under the Arterial Drainage Acts, the OPW is the competent authority for the environmental impact assessments and appropriate assessments, and any proposals for development or works under those Acts require screening and, if necessary, a full assessment.

The proposed foreshore (amendment) Bill would appear to require that any development on the foreshore which would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an appropriate assessment, AA, would be subject to approval by An Bord Pleanála. It is noted that the procedure for such an application will be similar to that which operates in regard to the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. However, the terrestrial elements of a flood relief scheme development could not be examined in isolation from the aquatic elements, and vice versa, and therefore the work involved in the AA or the EIA would necessary be duplicated. Such duplication would run counter to the objective of the Bill which is to achieve a more streamlined and efficient consent system. The OPW would have a concern therefore that the operation of the new consent process for the foreshore developments involving an application to An Bord Pleanála would not result in unnecessary duplication of work in regard to the EIA and AA requirements or in delays to the progression of flood relief works.

Having regard to the exempt status of the flood relief works, the detailed and substantial consultation process to which the works are subjected under the Arterial Drainage Acts and the OPW's designation as competent authority for EIAs and AAs under those Acts, it would be the OPW's expectation that the proposed new consent process will not operate in such a way as to create any unintended obstacles to the efficient progression of such works. The OPW will be consulting the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in regard to this matter over the coming weeks.

The OPW has less concern in regard to the impact of the proposed new legislation on coastal or erosion protection works, which, as explained in our submission, are generally carried out by local authorities. It is noted in this regard that, under head 19 of the general scheme, it is proposed that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will have powers to make regulations to exempt certain activities from the requirements to obtain consent. One of those listed activities is emergency works related to sea defences and it will be expected that most coastal or erosion protection works carried out by local authorities might fall into that category.

In summary, the OPW welcomes the broad thrust of the aims proposed in the new legislation but has some concerns in regard to the potential for duplication or delay in how the new consent process will operate in regard to flood relief works carried out under the Arterial Drainage Acts. As I said, we will consult the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on ways to minimise and, if possible, eliminate such potential delays or disruption.

I would be happy to answer any questions members may have and to help the committee in any way we can.