Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 6 May 2026
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy
Building Climate Resilience and Flood Risk Adaptation: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No apologies have been received but Senator Cathal Byrne is substituting for Senator Noel O’Donovan. In the first part of this session, we will resume the discussion on climate resilience, flooding and adaptation. Last week, we met the Office of Public Works, OPW, and the Department in respect of their plans and strategies around flood adaptation. This is the second session in that series. We will hear from local authorities in relation to their plans and works on particular schemes.
I welcome the following representatives to the meeting. From the County and City Management Association, CCMA, we have: Mr. Robert Burns, chief executive, Monaghan County Council; Mr. Eddie Taaffe, chief executive, Wexford County Council; Ms Teresa Walsh, director of services for climate action, and Mr. David Grant, resident engineer, South Dublin County Council; and Mr. Uinsinn Finn, director of services, and Mr. Tom Prendergast, senior engineer, Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe. They are all very welcome.
I remind everybody in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are either on silent mode or switched off.
Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to advise everybody of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make any charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction, please.
I will invite witnesses to make opening statements of a maximum of five minutes each. Once those statements have been delivered, I will call members of the committee, in the order in which they have indicated to me, to put their questions. The committee operates a rota system that provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with witnesses. It is important to note that the time is for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and for witnesses to be succinct in their responses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to please be focused on their contributions.
I propose that we take the opening statements in the following order: Mr. Burns from Monaghan County Council will be first, followed by Mr. Taaffe from Wexford County Council, then Ms Walsh from South Dublin County Council and finally Mr. Finn from Galway County Council.
Mr. Robert Burns:
I am chief executive of Monaghan County Council and am a member of the CCMA and specifically its environment, climate and circular economy committee. The Cathaoirleach has already introduced my colleagues. On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation today. We look forward to assisting the committee in its deliberations on the importance of flood adaptation. I will be giving an overview from the CCMA and then of the situation in Monaghan. My colleagues will follow with updates from their respective counties.
The largest flood risk study undertaken by the OPW in 2018, the national catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme, assessed flood risk across 300 communities. Comprehensive flood maps were then produced and resulted in 29 flood risk management plans, which identified approximately 150 new and additional flood relief schemes nationally. It is noted that the Government has supported this by committing €1.3 billion for their delivery over the lifetime of the National Development Plan 2021–2030.
Local authorities involved in the five defined stages of CFRAM are at different places progressing their projects. These take time to ensure that the necessary steps are followed, including tendering for engineers and contractors, then appointing and procuring them; conducting surveys and assessing data; submitting plans, followed by designing detailed schemes and procuring contractors for the works.
In addition to this, a number of smaller schemes, usually with a cost of €1 million or less, were identified under the CFRAM programme. These are to be progressed directly by the relevant local authorities with full funding from the OPW. Tranche II has pinpointed further schemes under CFRAM to be potentially progressed to build on the work achieved by the local government sector for flood relief. Given the scale and complexity of flooding challenges, there is a need for co-ordinated, multi-agency responses. Along with the OPW, local authorities work with relevant Departments, Uisce Éireann, Inland Fisheries Ireland and Coillte. This reflects the shared responsibility and concerted effort required across national, regional and local levels to manage flood risk effectively and respond to flood events.
I will move on to Monaghan County Council and matters related to flooding in Monaghan town, as referred to in the committee's invitation. Monaghan town has a well-documented history of flooding, primarily linked to its topography and drainage constraints. Low-lying areas around the Marcartan Road and Castle Road areas, close to the town centre, rely on the Shambles River as the sole outlet which creates a significant bottleneck during high rainfall events. In addition, there is a history of flooding in areas surrounding the town, including Milltown, influenced by flows in the River Blackwater and this is the subject of a proposed tranche ll project by the Office of Public Works.
Flooding within the town has been recurrent and includes the following key events: early recorded flooding near the Shambles River in 1965 and 1990; more significant flooding in November 2009; a severe rainfall event in October 2011 resulting in urban flooding and road closures; Storm Desmond in December 2015 causing record flood levels; and additional flood events in 2022, 2024 and, most recently, in October 2025 at the time of Storm Amy. These events resulted in significant disruption to the town centre. There were road closures, businesses were disrupted and there was significant inconvenience to the public in the town centre at Macartan Road and Castle Road and in the surrounding areas of Milltown, Coolshannagh and Ballyalbany. A prominent business and a number of residential properties in the Coolshannagh area suffered significant flood damage during Storm Amy. While there was extensive and severe flooding county-wide during Storm Chandra in January and February, particularly in the south of the county, Monaghan town was not significantly impacted.
The main factors contributing to flooding in the town are limited discharge capacity of the Shambles River, low-lying urban topography and insufficient culvert capacity within the drainage network. However, the increased frequency and sustained intensity of rainfall events is a significant, aggravating factor leading to more regularly occurring flooding incidents. While the town centre flooding has not adversely impacted homes, it has adversely impacted transport movement into and through the town, with the N54 closed for a number of days in October 2025. The flooding has also led to the disruption of business and retail activity in the town. As mentioned earlier, properties in the Coolshannagh and Milltown areas have suffered flood damage. A number of flood assessments and reports completed on behalf of Monaghan County Council over the past ten years have set out a range of recommendations for works and flood management measures in the town centre, including upgrading and extending culvert infrastructure, increasing storage capacity through cleaning and adaptation of the Ulster Canal that passes through the town, modifications to weir structures and flow control systems, raising sections of Castle Road as well as localised flood defence and infrastructure protection measures.
Significant progress has been made with improvements to the Glen Road to Shambles River culvert. In the past two years, two major sections have been completed at the Glen Road and within the Aldi supermarket site. Other elements of works are planned, including the final phase of culvert works connecting from the Aldi supermarket site to the Shambles River. The council is also carrying out a detailed review of flood risk assessment for Monaghan town and the surrounding areas and liaising with the OPW in this regard. The council is also working with the OPW on interim measures, with a view to developing a longer term, more comprehensive flood protection scheme. In the interim, the council is developing traffic management and public safety plans to align with early warning systems, carrying out maintenance of the local streams and rivers and repairs to existing surface water drainage systems. To enhance our emergency response to flood events, through the support of the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management, NDFEM, the council is investing in specialist pumping equipment and flood-related training for personnel, so it can ensure it has a scalable response capacity to deal what are likely to be more frequent and sustained flood events in the future. In September, the council will take possession of a range of high capacity pumps, establishing a strategic hub that will support flood response in County Monaghan and more widely in the Border and north-west region.
Flooding in Monaghan town is a recurring issue driven by structural constraints in the drainage network and increasingly severe and harmful weather events. We continue to work with the OPW to support effective flood risk management and protection in Monaghan town and, more widely, in County Monaghan. Given climate change and the evolving nature of the flood risk challenges in the town, we are looking to incorporate both traditional engineering methods of flood protection and nature-based solutions, which can have added benefits in terms of enhancing sustainable urban design and supporting biodiversity gain. Ensuring effective and timely flood protection for Monaghan town and other vulnerable locations in the county will require a co-ordinated and phased approach and sustained investment by Government to enhance resilience, protect critical infrastructure, support business continuity and ensure public safety.
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Enniscorthy flood defence scheme today. The town of Enniscorthy is situated on the banks of the River Slaney in County Wexford. It is located in a V-shaped valley and has a long history of flooding which is being exacerbated by climate change. Extreme floods have occurred in 1965,1978, 1986, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2014, 2015, 2021 and more recently in January 2026. These floods were all out-of-bank events and presented a risk to life, health and safety, and caused significant property damage and traffic disruption in the town. With the impacts of climate change, a pattern of extreme flooding is starting to become evident every five to ten years. Earlier this year Storm Chandra was among the most significant extreme flooding events experienced by Enniscorthy in recent memory, causing flooding in 32 residential properties, 42 commercial properties and the closure of seven schools.
In 2015, Wexford County Council, working in partnership with the Office of Public Works, appointed a consultant engineer to design a flood defence scheme for the town. This was undertaken under the Arterial Drainage Acts 1945, and as amended in 1995, and EIA Arterial Drainage Act Regulations 2019. Following significant consultation, a proposed flood defence scheme, with an estimated cost of €45 million was submitted to the Minister for public expenditure in March 2022. The scheme proposed a combination of dredging, channel widening, removal of the Seamus Rafter road bridge and hard defences including solid walls, glass walls and embankments.
The scheme was refused by the Minister in March 2022 based on issues identified by an environmental consultant appointed by the him. These included concerns relating to loss of range of the freshwater pearl mussel; implications of the effects of freshwater pearl mussel on the population dynamics in the Derreen River; proposals for habitat restoration as a mitigation measure for potential impacts on floating river vegetation were seen as impermissible as they were deemed to be compensation rather than mitigation; lack of consideration of environmental impacts of alternatives for major elements of the scheme; concerns around proposals for construction environmental planning at construction stage; concerns about the methodology for landscape and visual impact assessment; and insufficient information with respect to potential habitat loss for juvenile lamprey. It is important to point out that the council is of the opinion that these issues had been adequately dealt with in the proposal. It must be borne in mind that a flood scheme such as the one for Enniscorthy cannot be successfully completed without river dredging and other in-channel works. Consequently, impacts on species such as the freshwater pearl mussel and floating river vegetation cannot be completely avoided.
Since the 2022 refusal, the council, in partnership with the OPW has continued to work on a flood defence scheme for Enniscorthy and the project steering group meets monthly. In order to de-risk the project, the overall scheme has been broken into two phases. The first phase comprises the removal of the Seamus Rafter bridge and the construction of a replacement road bridge and separate pedestrian bridge. Both new bridges are deemed essential to a solution that will address increased flood risks and support the town’s continued functioning. Phase 2 of the scheme proposes the development of the remaining flood relief measures and is expected to include some or all of the following: dredging; channel widening; construction of hard defences including solid walls, glass walls and embankments; and upstream catchment works based on natural attenuation, also known as nature-based solutions.
The council is actively progressing the use and applicability of nature-based flooding solutions in the Slaney catchment. Preliminary discussions have been held with specialists leading in this area and the council intends to engage in further works in order that maximum use of nature-based solutions, including natural attenuation, can be assessed and implemented as far as possible in the scheme.
The project steering group continues to meet monthly and is preparing to make a submission in June 2026 to MARA for a marine area consent, MAC, for first phase works. The current programme for submission to An Coimisiún Pleanála is quarter 1 of 2027, subject to receipt of the MAC from MARA. Regarding phase 2, procurement of the main project consultant is ongoing via a restricted procedure. Pre-qualification submissions from consulting engineers have been received and are being assessed. It is planned to invite stage 2 tender submissions in June 2026. In the meantime, the OPW recently provided €2.6 million in funding for interim flood defence measures. It is expected that these measures will be in place by October.
Ms Teresa Walsh:
I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to discuss the Whitechurch flood alleviation scheme. I am joined by my colleague Mr. David Grant, the South Dublin County Council, SDCC, resident engineer on this scheme. The OPW is the lead agency for flood risk management in Ireland. SDCC is fully supportive the Office of Public Works’ flood relief plans and programmes because they are closely aligned with the council’s strategic priorities at both regional and local level. Such initiatives and projects facilitate the advancement of sustainable development across cities, towns and communities. In 2018, to identify communities vulnerable to significant flood events, the OPW completed the most comprehensive flood risk study undertaken by the State. The CFRAM programme was delivered in collaboration with local authorities.
In 2018, the OPW and SDCC initiated the development of a flood alleviation scheme for the Whitechurch stream to address fluvial flooding impacting the Tara Hill and St. Enda’s areas. The Whitechurch flood alleviation scheme, with an estimated construction cost of €6.7 million, encompasses structural improvements and the raising of riverbanks, construction of new walls, reinforcement of existing structures, installation of debris traps and trash screens and additional associated works to protect areas within St. Enda’s Park and along Whitechurch Road from flooding. The scheme is designed to defend against an estimated one-in-100-year flood event and covers approximately 1.5 km of the site. The Office of Public Works funds the scheme as sanctioning authority, while SDCC is the contracting authority. The roles of each are defined in a memorandum of understanding.
The preliminary design phase was commenced in October 2018 by the OPW's flood relief design section with the RPS Group. A formal planning application was made to An Bord Pleanála in August 2020 under section 177AE of the Planning and Development Act 2000. In December 2020, An Bord Pleanála issued a direction to grant permission. Following the granting of permission, a judicial review process was brought before the High Court in February 2021. This process was completed in November 2022, when the granting of permission was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The detailed design phase of the Whitechurch stream flood alleviation scheme began in April 2021 on applicable portions of the project. This work was suspended in November 2021 pending the outcome of the judicial review process. After the Supreme Court ruling in November 2022, the detailed design efforts resumed and have continued during the construction phase. Construction is being conducted directly by the OPW eastern region construction section and commenced in March 2023. The scheme has experienced some delays due to: the discovery of archaeological artefacts; identification of a significant structural defect at the inlet to an important culvert; the presence of previously uncharted services near or across the river which required coordination with service providers for modifications; a considerable upward revision in the estimate of invasive species along the riverbank that are now undergoing permanent removal; and ongoing negotiations with local property owners to secure access to private land needed to complete the defence works.
Currently, the scheme has achieved 65.26% completion in terms of linear metres of flood defences constructed. Storm Chandra presented severe weather conditions over an extended period, resulting in significant impacts for several communities throughout south Dublin. Our team maintained continuous vigilance and responsiveness during the event from 27 January to 6 February 2026. The flooding experienced at Grange Park due to Storm Chandra and as a result of historical rainfall events in 2007 and 2011, when the river overtopped its banks, highlights the critical necessity of the Whitechurch stream flood alleviation scheme and reinforces the urgency of finalising all outstanding components of the planned works. The sections completed to date have functioned as designed. However, until the entirety of the proposed measures are implemented, residual risks remain during flood events throughout the construction phase.
SDCC acknowledges the announcement made by the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Deputy Moran, on 30 April 2026. The approval of €6.6 million in funding to eight local authorities, including an allocation of €536,000 exclusive of VAT to SDCC will support the introduction of interim flood protection measures in response to flooding caused by Storm Chandra. The construction of flood defences is continuing. It is estimated that they will be completed in December, with landscaping and commissioning scheduled to be completed in mid-2027.
The implementation of the Whitechurch flood alleviation scheme constitutes a significant element of SDCC’s Climate Action Plan 2024-2029 and is included within the action area of flood resilience. It is recognised that managing rainfall run-off is a central adaptation challenge arising from climate change, particularly as global temperatures and sea levels rise and precipitation patterns shift. Although south Dublin faces limited exposure to coastal flooding and erosion, climate change has increased the frequency and duration of intense rainfall events and storm surges, resulting in elevated risks of pluvial and fluvial flooding in susceptible areas within the county. The flood alleviation scheme serves as an effective measure for managing flood-related risks, safeguarding the local community, and enhancing economic resilience. Upon completion, the Whitechurch scheme will provide protection to more than 52 properties, with a one-in-100-level of assurance.
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
Galway County Council welcomes the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of climate adaptation and flood risk management in Ballinasloe in County Galway. Ballinasloe is an example of a town that has experienced significant flood events in the past and where the delivery of permanent flood relief infrastructure remains a key priority. By way of background, Ballinasloe experienced a significant flood event in 2009. That event had a major impact on the town, including on properties, homes, roads and the wider community. Following that event, Galway County Council, in partnership with the OPW, delivered the Derrymullen flood defence scheme. Those works were progressed in 2010 and 2011 and provided important flood protection to properties in the Derrymullen area and have prevented flooding to residential properties during flood events since then. The Derrymullen scheme remains a key part of the existing flood defence arrangements in Ballinasloe. It also demonstrates the importance of targeted investment in flood protection works following significant flood events. However, while those works were important, they did not remove the broader flood risk to Ballinasloe.
The wider Ballinasloe flood relief scheme is now being advanced by the Office of Public Works as lead and with Galway County Council as the local authority partner. The scheme is currently at stage one scheme development and design. The project is at options development report stage and specialist environmental surveys are substantially complete. Preparation of exhibition documents is ongoing and preparation of the EIA report and the Natura impact statement, NIS, is due to commence shortly. The current provisional end date for stage one is the third quarter of 2026. A considerable body of technical work has already been progressed. This includes hydrological and hydraulic assessment, options development, environmental surveys, archaeological and built heritage assessment, topographical survey work and the preparation of exhibition drawings and scheme documentation. This detailed design and environmental work is continuing. The immediate priority is to finalise the preferred option, complete the exhibition material and progress the environmental assessments required to bring the scheme through the statutory process. The current programme is for a public exhibition launch in October 2026. The exhibition stage is an important part of the statutory process under the Arterial Drainage Act process.
From Galway County Council’s perspective, the priority is to continue to work closely with the OPW and the project consultants to progress the scheme as efficiently as possible while ensuring that the technical, environmental and statutory requirements are properly addressed. We are very conscious that communities affected by flooding want certainty and want to see permanent flood relief measures delivered.
We are also conscious that flood relief schemes of this scale must go through detailed design assessment, public consultation and formal statutory approval before construction can proceed.
In conclusion, Ballinasloe is an important example of the adaptation challenge facing towns and communities across the country. The 2009 flood event demonstrated the real impact flooding can have on homes, businesses and public infrastructure. The Derrymullen flood defence scheme that was delivered after that event has provided important local protection, but the wider Ballinasloe flood relief scheme is the next critical step in providing a more comprehensive and long-term response for the town. Galway County Council remains committed to working with the OPW, local elected members, affected landowners, the local community and all relevant stakeholders to progress the scheme.
I thank the Cathaoirleach. We are happy to assist the committee with any questions.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Finn. We have an Teachta Carthy substituting for an Teachta Cronin. Members will be taken in the order they have indicated. They have five minutes each.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all our witnesses for coming in today. I am familiar with Ms Walsh and Mr. Grant and the really important work they are doing along Whitechurch Road, which is a road I grew up on, so I am very familiar with the Whitechurch flood alleviation scheme and the real need for it. We are looking at the delays in these types of schemes and we are trying as a committee to understand why they take so long. Representatives from the OPW appeared before the committee last week. I could not find the transcript, but they said that maybe ten to 11 years, on average, is how long these schemes tend to take, some of which are the design stage, the planning and-or judicial review stage and the construction stage. Ms Walsh today has very clearly identified five reasons why during construction there were and continue to be some delays. She identified five issues, and I do not know whether they were known unknowns or unknown unknowns that arose during the course of construction. She mentioned discovering archaeological artefacts, the structural defect they found and the invasive species, the knotweed, that was there but maybe they did not know the extent of it or it had not been surveyed before. This is what I am trying to get at. Why did these issues arise during construction or how did they come to the council's knowledge during construction and not before that? Is it possible or would it be possible for other schemes to address issues like this before it gets to the construction stage? That is the first question for the witnesses.
Ms Teresa Walsh:
I thank Deputy Ahern. Yes, these were unknown unknowns, to use the Deputy's phrase. It was not until we actually got planning permission and could go on site and, indeed, remove trees and vegetation that were required as part of it that some of these came to light. We then sought extensive consent to get into private lands and private gardens, but there were one or two areas that just proved a little bit more difficult and negotiations went on for a number of months. Then, there was the 20-month delay with the judicial review as well. They were the main reasons for delays.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do the witnesses have any sense of how long these delays have added to the construction process itself?
Mr. David Grant:
I would say overall about 12 months, in all honesty. Expanding on Ms Walsh's point, as the Deputy knows, the stretch we were working on was heavily landscaped with mature trees and, obviously, we were not in the position to remove that vegetation or those trees until the planning permission was obtained. Therefore, it was not until after the judicial review that we were able to go in and take away the landscape and these problems started to be identified.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was stuff like the uncharted services. Were they ESB cables or water pipes or something like that? They were not on the map.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How does that happen? Does Mr. Grant have any idea how these things are uncharted? How do these things develop without the council and anyone else knowing about them?
Mr. David Grant:
We rely on the service maps that have been done by the service providers over the years. They were just uncharted. They were in the way of the works so diversions were required for us to proceed in certain areas. Obviously, there have been delays now in dealing with getting it redesigned and getting approval from service providers to carry out the works. Some of the works were 3 m deep digs on public roads, which required temporary road closures to get them working across the river. When it came to working across the river, we can only do that in season between July and September, so that restricts the time during which we can carry out a couple of those diversions.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to the more recent flooding issues. The council has given a report to the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, about lessons learned and things like that. Are there things it would have done differently? I have heard local criticisms in relation to the debris gate being blocked and acting as a kind of dam and other issues with drains being blocked or things like that. Are there things it would do differently now or that it can or has remedied that would prevent the flooding happening?
Mr. David Grant:
Hindsight is great. We had mitigation measures at these temporary locations, for example at the trash screen area where we are waiting on bespoke flood gates to arrive from Germany, which we hope to get delivery of soon. They are, in fact, the same mitigation measures we had placed there in November last year, when it was given an orange rain warning but the river did not overtop its banks. With a combination of what came down off the mountains and the intensity of the rainfall on that particular event through Storm Chandra and the blockage at the trash screen, there was more of a substantial blockage at the trash screen than we had forecast. In our modelling, we blocked that trash screen for about 60% blockage and it came up to about 70% or 80% blockage. On the basis of that, we have gone about remodelling the trash screen to see whether we need to make alterations in that to let more water flow through.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Lastly-----
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Very briefly.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Some interim measures were announced last week, which were very welcome. Some of them are to do with monitoring river levels generally and things like that. Looking forward, will the council be able to monitor the trash screen more closely or how is that going to be managed generally?
Mr. David Grant:
With the trash screen now, we will put a telemetry element on it, which will be a level gauge and alarm system and a camera. Once that alarm goes off, localised staff will be notified on their phones and they will be able to see to what level the trash screen is blocked and whether they need to respond straight away.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is great. I thank the witnesses very much.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank our witnesses. I have a general question first to all of them. Given the challenges they have all spoken about in terms of rainfall events, is it proving hugely challenging for roads budgets, particularly as road surfaces are being eroded and washed away constantly now on a much more frequent basis? How do they factor that in? What type of percentage cost are rainfall events adding to their annual roads programmes?
Mr. Robert Burns:
I will take that, a Chathaoirligh. Following on from Storm Chandra and Storm Amy, local authorities have looked at the cumulative effects of storm damage on the roads infrastructure. There has been a submission to the Department of Transport for €55 million for road repair costs. On the part of Monaghan County Council, we have a bill of €1.7 million, which includes a significant cost element for the replacement of a bridge in Inniskeen. If we look at the national budget for regional and local roads, it is around €700 million, and we are looking at €55 million being a proportion of that. It is significant. For perhaps rural and regional local authorities, which can often be more adversely impacted, resources are not huge in the first instance so they are having to carry that cost until, hopefully, they get paid at the end of the year or at the start of the following year. It can be a significant drain on the resources. The other thing is that more severe storms are happening. We have talked about rainfall here, but there has been a significant impact from wind, snow and ice. It is the different scenarios and permutations around it that are actually causing a very significant impact. With Storm Amy, for example, there was very severe wind at the same time as rain and that had an impact as well.
We were exposed after dealing with Storm Éowyn earlier last year.
It is something we are having to factor in. From the point of view of Monaghan County Council, it would be very useful if there was a fund in place so we did not have to apply for it post the event and we could call on it in advance. It has gone past the point of being a risk and is now more a certainty that there will be a number of named storms every year.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Burns.
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
Monaghan got away lightly. In Wexford, we suffered probably €20 million worth of damage to our road network. If we carried out all of this year's roads programme putting in what we normally put into our roads, we would just be back to where we were in December. There was a full year's worth of damage done to our roads. When you get severe rain, it degrades and reduces the life of every single road surface, not just the ones you see. The damage lasts for a long number of years before you catch up. It is a significant issue for rural counties.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A separate fund is a useful suggestion. It is something we have to factor in and the committee should recommend it.
Separately, I mentioned landscaping in general at last week's meeting when we had a good discussion. When developments come in, how considered is the approach from the planning side of the local authorities around incorporating nature-based solutions into developments and biodiversity net gain? I am looking at those co-benefits that could be derived from a planning application. In particular, I see a lot of developments that are really skimping on the landscaping element. A couple of whips are planted and maybe a few trees here and there, although some developments are extremely good. Would local authorities not all consider having as a default that a significant budget be set aside for landscaping in housing developments, businesses developments and pretty much any development? Should the opportunities be used, when a new development is coming on stream, to incorporate landscape plans, tree planting and nature-based solutions in schemes?
Mr. Robert Burns:
Most local authorities would require an element of nature-based solutions, particularly attenuation within sites that does not add to the flood risk elsewhere. Perhaps it is time that we seriously examined the use of hard surfaces within developments, infrastructure or the public realm more generally. I would not just single out private developers. There is a probably role here for local authorities and State agencies as well to incorporate that when designing works that we are doing. It is a very valid point about biodiversity and co-benefits. We are also dealing with a multitude of crises. A nature-based solution starts to tick a lot of boxes around more sustainable urban design and reversing biodiversity loss also, while perhaps getting us to the point where we reach biodiversity gain, particularly in our urban areas.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Deputy Cronin for allowing me to substitute. If I may, I will concentrate on my local authority, Monaghan County Council, of which I and two other members were previously members. We are well aware of the issues Mr. Burns raised, primarily because they have been long-standing issues, particularly in respect of the flooding in Monaghan town. One of the things that Monaghan County Council can take great credit for - it has been a hallmark of the staff and management of the council for a number of decades up to this day - is that when funding and approval are provided to the council for a project, the project is delivered generally very quickly, efficiently and effectively. In respect of the flooding issues Mr. Burns raised, particularly the flooding in Monaghan town centre which has brought the county town to a standstill a number of times, what precisely are the next steps that need to be taken to resolve those issues? What is the current blockage to completing those steps?
Mr. Robert Burns:
I outlined in my statement where we are at on that. I will cover that again and give my own view on it. There is a challenge between different agencies doing the work. That is something we all have to navigate. While it is good there is a Monaghan flood relief scheme, it is disappointing that is in tranche 2 and has not moved ahead. We have met the OPW in recent months and we have looked at a way of bringing that forward because that is where the stumbling block is. It is not necessarily a resource issue with funding but a resource issue in terms of staffing and getting that moving.
We will proceed with an interim solution for Monaghan town, which will consist of some of the works I outlined, including culvert work. We will also have a full review of Monaghan town because perhaps the CFRAM programme has looked at one area of Monaghan, which is outside the town. That is because it looks at the risk to properties and businesses, which is right, and cost benefit is usually the primary consideration. We are seeing something a lot more nuanced here, in that even in Monaghan town, there were no businesses or homes actually flooded but the disruption to society and business was immense. We have to start to look at how we factor that in and it should become part of the cost-benefit approach. I am looking at Monaghan County Council taking a much stronger role in this and the OPW is quite happy with that. We need to push ahead with that.
We are completing a review of a catchment flood risk assessment because that has not been done in the round for all of Monaghan and the surrounding areas. I mentioned Coolshannagh and Milltown as they are very severely impacted and a very large employer there has had significant disruption. That weighs heavily on what we are doing in the council in terms of supporting employment. We need to take a stronger role, working with the OPW, and I am hopeful we will have interim schemes progressing in the next six months to a year, with a longer term scheme over the next number of years. That comes with the caveat that we have to go through all of the various stages on that. I am also hopeful we will get support in terms of resources from the OPW. We have had positive indications on that so far.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I suppose the difficulty for people listening in and hearing talk of a phased approach over a number of years is that all the evidence indicates there will be an increased prevalence of severe weather events. Any one of those severe weather events could mean the closure of businesses and the loss of employment. In terms of those next steps, is there any blockage within the OPW, the Department or anywhere else that we, as Oireachtas Members, could assist the county council in unblocking?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As Mr. Burns knows, it is the most important one.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Carthy has ten seconds left. He should use them well.
Mr. Robert Burns:
I do not think there is any particular blockage. I have a good relationship with the OPW, Uisce Éireann and other agencies involved. It can be a little frustrating when it does not move ahead but my assurance to the committee and any of the members from Monaghan is that we are looking to take a much more proactive role as a council. If it is the OPW that cannot move ahead, then we will look to move ahead.
We have engaged consultants to do a detailed flood risk. We hope to complete a significant infrastructure project this year, that is, the culvert that leads from the Glen Road over to the Shambles river. We have also repaired bridges and other pieces of infrastructure that are part of that river network, which we are trying to maintain until we get the longer term scheme done. I assure Deputy Carthy that it will take no longer than it needs to.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for their contributions and opening statements. I have a question for Mr. Burns and Mr. Taaffe. The need for a co-ordinated, multi-agency response from the CCMA was mentioned and its negotiations or discussions with Coillte and IFI were cited as examples. I am speaking generally. Following Storm Bert, a report was prepared on Listowel.
There is a lot of concern about upstream of the rivers, and the River Feale and some of its tributaries in particular, where a lot of biodiversity has been lost. White trout is gone as is salmon; they have been decimated in that area. What contribution or improvements can Coillte or IFI make to what Mr. Taaffe referred to as the upstream catchment works and nature-based solutions to deal with run-off? I presume Coillte has been identified with regard to the trenching of forestry, which is a concern, and the lack of horizontal drainage and having more vertical drainage. I am not an engineer but this has been associated with biodiversity loss and with surges of water coming into the basins and going downstream.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In Mr. Taaffe's area.
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
Yes, in our area and with the River Slaney in particular. When it comes to a complex scheme in an environmentally sensitive area such as Enniscorthy, and we have particular painful experience of this, everybody wants a flood scheme, no more so than the residents and townspeople who are directly affected by it, and there is no issue about this. However, when it comes to other organisations, there is no predisposition for a scheme going ahead. They start by saying that if the scheme can deal with their issues, they might say "Yes" to it.. For a strategic flood scheme such as Enniscorthy, which is well up there in terms of priority, it should be a case that the scheme will go ahead and we have to find a solution. It is not a question of if but how we do this.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it Mr. Taaffe's view that upstream catchment works, nature-based solutions and discussions with forestry should be taken into account for all projects?
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If Mr. Taaffe saw a report that did not include this, would he think there was something amiss in it?
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Have the discussions the CCMA has had with Coillte and IFI been as satisfactory as Mr. Burns hoped?
Mr. Robert Burns:
A number of local authorities are more impacted by upland forestry in particular. Coillte is the largest forestry holder but there are other holders of forestry. Upland areas can contribute to flooding without being forested. These concerns have been raised, particularly in relation to Storm Amy and Storm Chandra. The flashy nature of the flooding meant there was not the attenuation. This was complicated by the fact we are looking at single species planting in forested areas, largely coniferous trees. There is not vegetation on the floor that might hold it. There is also the fact that the nature of the planting in rows does not tend to lend to attenuation. It is a consideration.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Have trenching and drainage in these forestry areas been identified as problems?
Mr. Robert Burns:
Issues have been identified by local authorities that are impacted. What is very clear, and I agree with the Deputy, is that there is a need to engage with Coillte and forestry owners, particularly larger forestry owners, when it comes to assessment of risk in catchment areas and protection measures. They cannot be left outside of the conversation.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one more question as I am running out of time. There was an announcement last week about extra funding for eight local authorities. I do not think Kerry was on that list.
Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is down the list of priorities Mr. Burns would probably agree.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I am from just outside the Enniscorthy area so it will not be any surprise that I want to ask our council CEO questions. Will Mr. Taaffe outline the scheme is in the context of planning at the moment? When does he see the two different phases we are all familiar with being lodged for planning permission?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
I thank the Senator. As he is probably aware, the first phase is the replacement of the Seamus Rafter bridge. We have to apply for a marine area consent licence for those works before we go to An Coimisiún Pleanála for planning consent. We expect to lodge the application for the consent licence next month. Then we hope to have the licence in place by the end of the year, which will allow us to go to An Coimisiún Pleanála for planning consent for the first phase in the first quarter of next year. At the moment as the legislation stands, we cannot make a planning application until we have the marine area consent licence in place.
For phase 2, we have begun the procurement process for the main consultants to design the main scheme. We expect to have a consultant appointed in the third quarter of this year who will start work on it then. The reality is the consultant will have to go back to square one and look at all of the options again for the main flood scheme and this will take some time.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From our perspective as members of the Oireachtas, is Mr. Taaffe satisfied he has the necessary resources in place to be able to push these two planning applications as key priorities for Wexford County Council?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
Yes, the OPW has funded resources in Wexford County Council up to now. It has agreed to increase these resources because we have gone from the funding of two staff to three staff as of a couple of weeks ago. This is to allow us to accelerate the programme. We also have other flood schemes in the county to deliver and progress. We also have the interim flood defence measures, which we want to do in the coming months. We are satisfied we have the resources. The resources we have looked for we have been granted by the OPW.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In his opening statement Mr. Taaffe mentioned how important dredging will be to the scheme and how important it is to realise the fact that there will be some level of environmental impact on the freshwater pearl mussel, floating river vegetation and lamprey in the River Slaney. A lot of people ask me why we cannot separate the dredging and have it as a separate project, and go ahead and dredge the river. What is the difficulty with doing this?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
The original scheme had a combination of all measures. There was dredging, widening, straightening and hard defences such as concrete walls, stone walls and glass walls. I suspect the solution will be a combination of all of these. Dredging of itself will not alleviate the worst effects of flooding. The issue is that the river is a special area of conservation. There are a number of protected species in the river, such as floating river vegetation, lamprey and the freshwater pearl mussel. This is the dilemma we face in trying to deliver a scheme such as Enniscorthy. We cannot alleviate flooding in Enniscorthy without a combination of all of these works and nature-based solutions. We had proposed compensation to these species as part of the project but it was deemed unacceptable and impermissible under the habitats directive. This is an issue that will have to be addressed. We cannot alleviate the worst effects of the flooding without dredging.
It is important to note that in the most recent flood, we had more than 350 m³ of water a second between the bridges in Enniscorthy. This is 350 tonnes of water every second passing through the existing channel in Enniscorthy. This is why all of these elements will be part of the solution for Enniscorthy. This is something we are looking at with regard to how compatible what we want to do and needs to be done is with the habitats directive and the legislation as it stands.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A last question. I know the council submitted an application for an extra €22 million approximately for roads funding, recognising the damage that was done by Storm Chandra to the roads across County Wexford. Has there been any recent engagement with the officials in the Department of Transport on that or is it still with the Department?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses, and I also think it is appropriate to thank all local authority staff for all of their work at difficult and challenging times. They really do go above and beyond the call of duty.
Previously, this committee was that we could expect eight severe weather incidents in Ireland every year. It may impact on different parts of the country and we have to be ready. The local authorities are the front-line workers in that space. I want to talk about the situation with the impact on roads, which I can certainly see in Wexford and Wicklow. In areas like Coolgreany and Johnstown, or even going into Bearna Chlé in Wicklow, those roads were effectively washed away. On foot of this, Chair, I would ask that we write to seek an update with regard to the applications that have been made as outlined. It is critical for those communities that the work gets done as soon as possible to repair those roads for next year.
As Mr. Taaffe is here for Wexford County Council, I will focus on Wexford. I am conscious that a lot of the focus has been on Enniscorthy but I want to talk specifically about Bunclody. When we are talking about upstream on the Slaney, it has been 60 years since the impact. Mr. Taaffe will be very aware of what happened. The announcement last week by the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, was very welcome but will Mr. Taaffe whether the interim plans will be put in place over the summer months to be ready for this winter? Where are we with regard to the long-term plan for flood defences for Bunclody?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
As the Deputy says, we have been granted the funding that we sought for interim measures in Bunclody. They are primarily along the Ryland Road area in Bunclody. It is the first time they have been flooded since 1965, but with the climate we are living in now, it is only a matter time of before they get flooded again, so that is why we are keen to progress these. We are looking at a number of different measures. These will be a combination of earth banks to prevent the Slaney overflowing onto the N80 national road and then hard defences along the front boundary walls of the houses that were flooded, with flood barriers as well. We will be doing public consultation with the residents on that in the next couple of weeks. Those are the types of work we hope to do over the summer and have them in place for next October.
As Bunclody has not flooded in 60 years, there has been no real consideration of a need for a permanent scheme. Obviously, that has changed now. What we are trying to do is make the interim works that we will be doing over the next number of months into the permanent scheme, with a few add-ons and maybe further analysis. Our focus at the moment is to get those interim works done, which will probably do 75% or 80% of what needs to be done as a permanent solution. After that, we will progress whatever areas need to be addressed. We would be hopeful that the bulk of the solution for Bunclody will actually take place in the next couple of months.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is to give the certainty that, by October, all the measures that have now been funded will be in place.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Great. The other issue our committee has touched on in terms of changing weather events is the challenge of coastal erosion for a number of communities. It is a major challenge, particularly in County Wexford. The Minister of State has increased the level of available funding under the minor works scheme. There has been solid investment in terms of trying to do work and I commend Wexford County Council for the work being done in Cahore. I ask Mr. Taaffe to update us regarding Courtown Harbour and whether an application has been made to look at addressing some of the concerns around coastal protection there.
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
We have worked up a combination of a regeneration scheme, a beach nourishment scheme and a coastal protection scheme for Courtown. That has been lodged for a marine area consent. It is a combination of bringing the beach back to Courtown, with a breakwater and beach nourishment that would also serve as a coastal protection project. It would serve as regeneration and extra space in the centre of Courtown, so it would be of significant amenity value. Rock armour works were done there previously, albeit in the centre of town, so the erosion is now further to the north around the Burrow, which the Deputy would know well. There has been significant erosion there over the last two to three winters. That area is not directly included in the scheme at the moment, so we are looking at that. The works we are proposing to do in Courtown, subject to funding, may well have an impact further north. We are assessing that to make the case for additional funding.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What is the timeframe and what does Mr. Taaffe hope that we as the Oireachtas could do on it?
David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I asked the Tánaiste in the Dáil two weeks about money for roads, given that the storm had affected Monaghan, Wexford and other counties. He said it was being worked on and that it should be in the transport Vote. I have made the point that the money needs to be paid out quickly, not at the end of the year when works cannot be done.
On flooding, I will be like my counterpart, Deputy Carthy, and talk about my own county of Monaghan. It is great that Mr. Burns is here today pressing the case for the county. A lot of work has been done on the outskirts of the town. The new bridge at Coolshannagh relieved the flooding at Milltown and other areas. The big one, which Mr. Taaffe mentioned, was the CFRAM study. It looked at the towns and villages around Monaghan. On what is becoming a yearly or perhaps twice yearly basis now in Monaghan town, vehicular access is closed off for two or three days for up to 40 businesses and shops due to flooding on the River Shambles, leaving the centre of the town completely blocked. It is something we need to address. Work has happened - culverts were built with the new Aldi shop when works were done - but it is something that we need to look at. No business or home has actually flooded, which is a godsend, but the town is closed and all through traffic is held up. It is just a complete and utter nightmare for businesses for up to three days while the flood goes away.
Inniskeen got badly affected by Storm Chandra. Bridges were lost and houses flooded. Is the council doing the work on the scheme out of its own funds and hoping to recoup or what is the story? There was a lot of flooding around the Ballybay area. Works were done and the road was raised, which allowed the new fire station to be opened.
Some €3.9 million was allocated to address flooding in Monaghan town in 2010. That was spent on sewerage and other works. When the €3.9 million was announced in 2010, I thought it was great and would solve the problem, but it has not. It has only done some of the work. Working with the interim plan, do we have an idea of how much will be needed to solve the issue of flooding on the River Shambles?
Mr. Robert Burns:
I will address Monaghan town first. It is worth explaining a little bit about the matter. The reason there are complications is that, for the effects of surface water and rainfall, the responsibility is largely with the local authority. When we are talking about rivers, coasts and lakes, responsibility is largely with the OPW. It is about squaring that, which is what we are looking to do in Monaghan town. We will work with the OPW on the areas it is concerned with and then focus on our own.
It is further complicated by Uisce Éireann and that transition. It often has responsibility for combined systems that dealt with surface water management. Those are being unwound and coming back to local authorities. Monaghan is a good example of where local authorities are going to have to shoulder a lot more of the burden of the management of surface water and rainwater.
We are going to have more of it and at times when we do not really want it, and we have more development taking place. That is really what we are trying to resolve in Monaghan town. That is why we have taken the catchment management approach, looking at everything that is happening in the area with rainwater, rivers and so on. We will bring all that in.
The impact on business is significant. Given the town is so concentrated and we do not have alternative routes, this has also made it complicated and is something we have looked at separately. Perhaps resilience within flooding is also having alternative routes on which you can put or transport people. We are looking at potentially accelerating the bypass in Monaghan town, which people would know about, so that is also a practical measure for that.
One of the challenges we had around Monaghan town in Storm Amy was the notifications and warnings. For example, in Monaghan town in early October, we did not get a rainfall warning for several days and it had already rained significantly. We got a wind warning, which can happen with the distribution of it, but that left us on the back foot and we were not able to go ahead.
We learned very quickly from that. We looked at the flow of rivers upstream to try to use that as a local proxy to see what would happen. That is what we have been doing since. We are taking the national and local warning systems and combining them and perhaps there is a piece of work there too. If you have saturation of soils and a water body already saturated, a yellow rainfall warning could have a significant impact for some areas and perhaps less so for others.
That is the interim management. We have to do that because even if we got a scheme up and running, it would be several years and we have to give that comfort to businesses. I am quite confident we will progress the scheme on the interim measures in the next six to 18 months. We are getting more resources from the OPW, which has identified three schemes, namely, Monaghan town, Inniskeen and Ballybay.
Inniskeen was severely impacted in the most recent storm, Storm Chandra. The catchment was inundated with water coming from Lough Muckno but that crossed our boundary and severely impacted County Louth, so many of the issues in Louth were coming out of the catchment. This shows the complexities within the catchment. We have done work to deal with the immediate issues but we have also got funding from the Department of Transport to do an assessment of the flooding there, as well as to repair a bridge.
That is also perhaps a little complication. We have to go to different departments with flooding. It is essentially about flood risk but one is to do with damage to roads and others are to do with properties and businesses and whether there is a cost-benefit element, so that is a challenge. Ballybay is another project where we are looking to progress three of those with the OPW. We are going to be more proactive in getting those tranche 2 projects moving and getting interim and long-term measures done.
Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome all the witnesses here today, especially Mr. Burns, our chief executive from Monaghan County Council. He has a great following in here today with all his TDs rocking up, so well done. He is doing something right.
As regards Monaghan, this has been an ongoing issue, probably since I was a child, and the flooding continues. I am delighted to say Monaghan County Council has done significant work in trying to relieve the flooding there but more still needs to be done. I was interested to hear Mr. Burns speak about another risk assessment being needed before the works can be carried out.
Why will another risk assessment be done when several flood assessments have been done in the past ten years? I have also brought the issue up two or three times on the public accounts committee regarding the OPW, when it has been in front of us, and have questioned why Monaghan has not been prioritised. How many towns in Ireland have floods running through their main street? It may not be affecting homes, but it is affecting the main businesses in the towns and it is something that needs to be addressed. I have been told by the OPW on numerous occasions that it is in tranche 2, which I do not feel is good enough and is not being prioritised to the place it needs to be and that should happen immediately.
It would be fantastic if Mr. Burns could come back on those couple of questions.
Mr. Robert Burns:
On Monaghan town and the flood risk assessment, we have taken the view that the flood risk is a lot more complicated and evolving than we probably thought it was. Because the OPW was more concentrated on another part of the town and less so on the centre of the town, there were essentially parallel assessments going on. The assessments we had done were more about projects. We feel we need to do one that totally encapsulates the catchment and that allows us to engage with not only the OPW but also Uisce Éireann, Inland Fisheries Ireland and so on.
It is to be prudent; it is an abundance of caution. I am also conscious that doing this might perhaps delay it. However, I would be very concerned if we took a step now and invested significantly and found that it did not deal with all the risks, so this is a measure we thought was necessary to be doubly sure about the works we are doing. From that point forward, we are very confident we could progress it.
On the tranche 2, the OPW has acknowledged that any projects around the country that are in there are not progressing right now. My understanding is it is more to do with a resource constraint to get them moving ahead to do all the development work on it. That is why when it comes to Monaghan, we will be looking to take the lead by trying to convert those tranche 2 projects into interim measures but also work in partnership with the OPW on the longer term schemes. If it is a matter of the OPW not being able to move on it, perhaps we will be able to do that ourselves.
Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have just one more question for the other witnesses today. Are there any other town centres that are flooded like Monaghan?
Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Maybe Monaghan and Enniscorthy should be prioritised, while they are in the middle of the towns.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ballinasloe is the same.
Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is Ballinasloe as well but Monaghan is first, as I mentioned it.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank everyone who has spoken today.
I have listened to how everyone is dealing with their councils but from a local authority perspective, and I do not mind who answers this, how important has it been that major infrastructure projects in coastal areas are designed in a way that does not impede future flood defence? How would that co-ordination have taken place? For example, in Uisce Éireann, when applying for anything that would be done for a future flood defence, what would be the internal workings of the council for that?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
That is a multifaceted issue. First, there is the planning process. The planning process for any new private development would be assessed by various arms of the local authority, Uisce Éireann and other State bodies to make sure they are compatible with sustainable drainage guidelines and are not going to impact downstream. There would be an assessment process commensurate with the size of the proposed development. Local authorities have a good handle on that and good policies in place. They work with design teams to ensure the proper assessment is done.
Coastal defences are the same issue. The big issue with coastal defences is that wherever you introduce hard defences on a coastline, you have a detrimental impact at the other end of it and that is not something that is widely understood by property owners in particular. You can make coastal erosion worse to the adjacent landowner by protecting your area. There has to be a full assessment of that. That is why there is a very cautious approach taken when it comes to designing flood defences, because of the unintended consequences.
There are assessments. We would work closely with Uisce Éireann on new schemes and new drainage schemes. There is always the issue of combined systems, where you try to combine surface water and foul water to try to extract that out. As Mr. Burns said, one of them is Uisce Éireann's responsibility and one of them is ours. There are issues there about separating those out and making sure that is co-ordinated when schemes are being designed.
It is an ongoing process both in terms of what we do in our developments but also in the private sector.
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
To add to that, maybe it is an opportunity to highlight the real, significant advances I have seen in my time in the local authority in the past ten or 15 years. I mentioned the Ballinasloe flood scheme in 2009. It was a record flood event and something that had not been seen before. At that time, the OPW had just commenced the CFRAM mapping, the catchment-based flood risk assessment mapping process.
Prior to that, there were not really much documented flood risk assessments done across the country. That flood risk mapping that has been done has identified the high-risk areas. It has largely been embedded into the development plans of all the local authorities and all the development plans have flood risk assessments.
Whether it is an Uisce Éireann project or a private development, we go to the development plan, the flood risk assessment, the CFRAM maps and so on. It is very informative, to make sure that what the Deputy is raising is considered in regard to future flood protection.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Perfect. I thank Mr. Finn. Would the witnesses agree it is generally best practice to have early co-ordination between local authorities and utility providers, depending on which are involved, and flood response bodies to avoid future duplication and, in some cases, a doubling of the cost to the Exchequer? One of the most frustrating things for the public when a brand-new road is constructed is to see it dug up two months later for a cycle track or the laying of a pipe along it. The witnesses are saying the CFRAM maps and related assessments are being engaged on by local authorities not just for flood relief but also across multiple utilities. Is that currently the protocol?
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
On the question on the assessment of flood implications and various projects, when a project goes through the planning process the development plan is the policy that informs it locally. Very often, that does catch it. I have seen great advances in the last ten or 15 years, which is a short period, regarding the consideration of flood risk and climate change. It is about considering not only the flood risk that presents now but also the future flood risk in regard to climate change, sea level change and so on.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Finn. I really appreciate that.
My last question is on nature-based solutions, which other members have mentioned. What have the witnesses found through their research – somebody else also mentioned this – to be the most successful solutions internationally that they would like to see implemented across Ireland?
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
I am no expert in nature-based solutions but there is no doubt, particularly where water comes off mountain ranges, that we have to learn how to hold water in its natural catchment areas better than we do at the moment. The days of draining land for the sake of it are gone and we have to realise that. We are operating in a climate change context daily. In this regard, take the case of Bunclody. It had not flooded since 1965 but flooded again and will flood again. Yes, we have to do more and get better in this regard. I do not think we should overegg the approach by saying we are going to solve all our problems through nature-based solutions. We are not, but they are definitely an integral part. We need to get better at using and understanding our land. In Enniscorthy, a major part of the problem was that the land was saturated. Whatever fell as rain went straight into the river.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is low cost.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thought Mr. Burns might have brought in Fingal with his experience. I could bring him up to Howth and Baldoyle.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Come back, come back.
Mr. Robert Burns:
I will be on safer ground.
On nature-based solutions, as I believe Mr. Taaffe said, there needs to be caution around thinking there is a silver bullet here, that somehow there is something that can be built that will hold the water or slow it down. It is probably less dramatic than that. It is probably about embracing nature and using nature to support the approach. I will give an example of a project we are working on in Monaghan. It shows how different projects are connected. At Slieve Beagh, a very sensitive upland area in the north of the county that straddles the Border, we are doing a very significant rewilding project, but that is also a rewetting project and an attempt to slow down the movement of water from that catchment into the Blackwater and give us that breathing space so that when we do have severe flooding, the catchment upstream can hold the water. It is not necessarily a structure that is being built. It is, perhaps, about restoring nature to allow what I have described to happen. Another example relates to deforestation. A planned approach to reforestation, maybe using mixed forests or deciduous forests as a way of holding or absorbing water, could be considered. I do not know if there is any quick fix. A range of solutions is required. Nature-based approaches are probably a little more long term and considered than traditional engineering solutions.
Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to bioengineering for the Fingal-Baldoyle area, the OPW is putting in the bollards. In conjunction with the work on the 3D printing of bollards, there is work being done by a company in Galway on a mesh that encourages marine growth. I realise the witnesses are talking about upstream issues but there are studies that prove a combination of heavy marine growth, including of seaweed and of oysters, which clean the water, mitigate coastal damage. If the witnesses have any influence in Fingal, will they make sure what I describe is done?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to follow on from that point. I was glad to hear it mentioned. We hear about continuous-cover forestry from a biodiversity perspective, as opposed to the clear-felling approach. Continuous cover, even beneath the ground, benefits greatly. Even during the storms, we saw the danger of monoculture. Trees of the same size went over, as opposed to those situated where there was planting diversity. The example given of the rewetting of peatlands was a useful example. I am focusing a little on mitigation and trying to think of the general lessons we can draw out on nature-based solutions. They should not be an add-on at the end but part of the big framing at the beginning.
I was struck by the point made on the need for catchment planning rather than a piecemeal approach. It is the same with coastal defences. If you are just doing one stretch, you are pushing on the problem, which would not occur with big-picture planning. I am wondering whether there are sufficient resources available to carry out bigger projects. When representatives of the OPW were before us, they said a certain project would require 100 interventions if a nature-based approach were taken. I do not know if that means 100 trees or 100 areas of planting, but perhaps the right approach is sometimes to have a bigger intervention that serves a wider catchment. Could the witnesses comment on that?
On the mitigation aspect, returning to planning, I was struck by what was said about hard surfaces. We see a rise in low-maintenance gardens, even at domestic level. What can we do to shift away from using hard surfaces?
The witnesses mentioned the move-on in east Galway. We are aware that one of the issues there was planning permission on floodplains. Although this is now being treated differently, Mr. Finn might comment on how it created many problems. There was a huge push for planning permission on what turned out to be, and could have been predicted to be, floodplains.
We often see tree removal and nature removal as part of the works, yet we know trees are among the key elements in flood protection. Has there been any shift towards greater protection against tree removal, or even measures used in other countries? It is not really replacement planning, because you cannot replace a 100-year-old tree with a five- or ten-year-old tree. In some countries, however, Japanese root binding is used. The authorities move 50-, 60- or 100-year-old trees and replant them. That is possible and done in a number of countries, but in Ireland it always seems the insurance company says to cut the tree and it gets cut. Is there a shift in this regard?
I have a question on the insurance aspect. I am a little concerned when I hear the constant reference to the one-in-100-year standard, which seems to be what the insurance companies use. Despite this, we are seeing events that occurred once every 50 years occur every ten years or so. I am worried that the insurance companies are setting a hypothetical standard that will not be met. Maybe we need to be pressing them a little on what is the creation of an almost artificial bar. We know that insurance companies drive a lot of tree removal. Is there a need for a bit of co-ordinated pressure on the insurance industry in a more realistic engagement?
Lastly, on Uisce Éireann, is there any danger that the committee should be watching out for as a more fragmented approach emerges?
Mr. Robert Burns:
I will come in on this. Some of my colleagues might also be able to answer on some of the areas, so I will just give a general response.
The catchment approach seems obvious, but it has not always been the approach. The multi-agency approach that Mr. Taaffe and I were talking about actually allows it to happen. It involves considering county-wide approaches, but also approaches that go way past counties, covering regions. Rivers flow in different directions and do not respect county boundaries.
On nature-based solutions and resources, there is a lot more movement in this space, which is good to see.
There are two schemes at the moment. One is working regionally in the north-western region, where there is funding for nature-based solutions and decarbonising zones, which is a very good idea. There is funding for development measures and schemes. The Department of housing is developing another scheme through the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO. It is working with the Department at the moment on bringing more nature-based solutions into local authorities. There are resources coming along with that. We are very much looking forward to that. The drive for nature-based solutions is coming from a multitude of directions, such as biodiversity, climate and flood risk. It is probably its time now. We had talked about it before.
On hard surfaces and the urban experience, I will leave that to Ms Walsh.
Regarding tree removal, it depends what type of storm it is. If it is a windstorm, we will see trees as being the cause of this or perhaps being viewed in a negative light. It is a concern after windstorms that perhaps more trees are not felled, as they may need to be, afterwards. We have identified this in County Monaghan in the sector. A lot of local authorities have tree management strategies in place that look at trees in that holistic way. They offer a lot of positive things, be it aesthetics, flood risk management, air pollution benefits and all of that.
I am not sure if I have a clear answer on insurance. It is probably something that needs to be considered here. Our role, perhaps, is dealing with the flood management and showing that schemes have been designed to whatever standard.
Regarding Uisce Éireann, it is a concern. The more I look at it, water networks and natural waters cannot be easily separated. There are a lot of grey areas or nuances between the two. The surface water management element of Uisce Éireann is doing the combined systems. When we have single service systems around foul water and surface water, we need to carefully think about how that gets managed and treated. I will hand it over to the others if they wish to comment.
Ms Teresa Walsh:
By way of demonstration with regard to nature-based solutions, more attention has certainly come to them and there is more awareness of them within local authorities, communities, and indeed contractors and developers. When we looked at the Whitechurch scheme first, there was not much scope within that particular scheme for nature-based solutions. However, when went onto our second scheme - a €20 million project for the River Poddle that we are doing in conjunction with the OPW and Dublin City Council - we reduced the hard engineering element in that scheme by 70% at detailed design stage. We had more space to play with in that scheme as we had Tymon Park - a 120-acre park - open to us to use the lakes as a storage area. A wealth of engineering was done there to bring about that contained space for flood alleviation without destroying the whole park and the playing pitches in its environs. It is an important park in a very built-up urban area.
We also introduced an integrated constructed wetland, ICW, there which will improve the water quality, and indeed, helps with flood attenuation. Due to the success of that and the biodiversity it brought into the park, in conjunction with the OPW, we put in another four ICWs on the River Dodder and the River Griffeen. We are starting to see results there. We have done a number of studies.
The other issue that we talked about was permeable surfaces in urban areas. This can be difficult. In South Dublin County Council, we have developed a sustainable urban drainage systems guide for residents, and for developers and contractors, to maximise their use of permeable surfaces. For example, when somebody wants their driveway paved, we would get away from that. For new schemes that we are developing, we are working very closely with large developers in the likes of the Clonburris strategic development zone, SDZ, to use sustainable urban drainage systems, SUDs, in those developments. At planning stage and pre-planning stage, we would be in conversations with them to maximise that. There is very good practice out there. It has been recognised. Other developments and developers have been out to see that in action. We will offer an open invite out to anybody who wants to see that.
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
This may relate to Deputy Heneghan's question earlier in terms of the information we have to hand now. When developments were undertaken going back 20 years or more, the information was not to hand. Developments may have happened in inappropriate areas without that information. The information has been developed now. I mentioned the CFRAMS mapping and the catchment-based flood risk assessments. That information has been embedded into our development plans across local authorities. When we amend or renew our development plan, any zoning that is undertaken would include an assessment of the flood risk of the area. Generally speaking, no land will be zoned for developments if there is a flood risk in the area. Where land is allowed to be zoned, as part of any proposed development there would be a flood risk assessment incorporated into that development. That has been an important step to make sure that where development happens, it happens at appropriate locations. In our development plan, there are a lot of development standards around sustainable drainage systems. For example, if it is a greenfield site, there is a need to ensure that post the developments it still works as a greenfield site, and any rainfall that falls in that development site location would be retained and dealt with within that development.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a couple of questions. I will let members back in during the second round.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I recommend that Japanese root binding be considered.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will pick that back up.
I have a couple of questions. In reading Mr. Taaffe's report, he said it is important to point out that the council - Wexford County Council - is of the opinion that the above issues have been adequately dealt with in the proposal. That kind of implies that Wexford County Council's view in the round is that the scheme was the right scheme. Is that correct? Am I reading that right?
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I accept all of that. I will explain what I am trying to get at. If the council's scheme was the right scheme then, what is to prevent this all happening again? It may have made some minor changes, but if it is still the right scheme what will prevent the council from going back through a new process, but ending up in the same position whereby it cannot proceed with the scheme?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
That is the issue that faces us. There is a very real threat of that. No matter what we do, we are going to impact on protected species in the SAC. For example, we proposed compensation measures, but they were deemed impermissible by the consultant who analysed the scheme on behalf of the Minister. The reality of it is that we are going to have to grapple with the same issues again. The imperative reasons of overriding public interest, IROPI, process allows us to deal with some of the measures that may be deemed impermissible under the habitats directive. That is quite is a long process. That involves the EU Commission and the State designating it as IROPI-----
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is kind of an exception that the council does not want to be using.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I read Ms Walsh's report. There was talk of a judicial review. Such reviews seem to be substantial. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. What was that about?
Ms Teresa Walsh:
Initially, the judicial review was taken by a Tidy Towns group. It was around ecology - the protection of otters in the scheme. The High Court upheld the planning application. It was then referred to the Supreme Court on a technicality around the granting of a development consent of indefinite duration, which was the section 177AE planning that we used.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How did it get referred to the Supreme Court? Who did the referral?
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The original appeal party.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The project is a public good. It seems a bit counterproductive that it is ending up with the Supreme Court ruling on a flood defence scheme. What am I missing?
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. My next question is about Ballinasloe. There is a fair bit of reference to 2009. When did the county council finally form the view that Ballinasloe needed a scheme? Was it long after that? Was it in the catchment flood risk assessment and management CFRAM, programme because 2009 is quite a while ago as regards flooding?
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
That is a good question. In 2009, although Ballinasloe is referenced here, there was extensive flooding across the country and significant flooding across the whole of County Galway and down the west coast. Ballinasloe is just one example of a town that was affected by that. Early on, working closely with the OPW at that time, the CFRAM mapping was just commencing but we came to the conclusion together with the OPW that we did not need to wait for the CFRAM mapping to identify there was a real need for a flood defence scheme in Ballinasloe, particularly in the part of Ballinasloe I mentioned, Derrymullan. At the same time, there was a minor works scheme under the OPW, although value-wise it was well above the threshold. We brought that scheme through the planning process locally as a Part 8 development. The tendering was managed by Galway County Council. We worked with the local community in the area on access to land and consent for land. The scheme was delivered within one or two years after that flood event and it has kicked in many times since then during many flood events. It has protected the population.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The question is when did the county council decide Ballinasloe needed a broader scheme?
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
The broader scheme protects the areas that are most vulnerable to flood events. The lower risk flood events are the ones every 20 or 50 years but there is always a risk to Ballinasloe such as the flooding event in 2009. It is probably a more medium risk and the scheme has been developed. The CFRAM mapping first identified the areas. A lot of information is needed about the area including the ecology and hydrology of the area to be able to do the design. Perhaps Mr. Prendergast will come in about the consultants working on Ballinasloe.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is outside the CFRAM process.
Mr. Tom Prendergast:
It was included in tranche 1 of the CFRAM programme. That is what kick-started the scheme. Derrymullan went ahead because there was urgency around that part with the higher risk to the area. What the Cathaoirleach is getting at is that it then waited until tranche 1 and was included with all the other projects in tranche 1.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was the trigger.
My next question is open to all the witnesses but is particularly for Mr. Taaffe. Would they support the inclusion of flood adaptation schemes like these as part of critical infrastructure for delivery to try to streamline some of this? What is their view on that?
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The OPW was here last week and was of the same view.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. We will move to round two. We have three minutes for anyone who wants to come back in.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will come back to South Dublin County Council. Ms Walsh mentioned that there was limited scope for nature-based solutions at the outset of the Whitechurch stream project. I appreciate that the stream area is narrow. There is private land on either side of it and so on. However, further upstream, is the area built on? Are there no flood plains there? Is it because it is in another council area? Is it Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown? Were there reasons there was limited scope for it?
Ms Teresa Walsh:
Geographically and topographically, it was limited but where we could, we did. Going back to a comment about the removal of trees, we had to remove a lot of trees but we had a protocol of two-for-one planting every time we removed trees in the making of this scheme. For bank erosion protection, we also used flex MSE, which is a living green river bank that is resistant to erosion, instead of concrete walls or rock armour. We piloted that on the Whitechurch scheme. We introduced swales along the roadside areas where we could but in general it was quite limited in Whitechurch. The Poddle gave us more scope and when we come to the Camac scheme, which is just at design stage at the moment, we will definitely have more scope for nature-based solutions.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My next question is a broader one for the panel. It was mentioned that access to private property can be an issue in these schemes. Is that something other local authorities experience when dealing with this? Is there a legislative intervention we could bring forward to ensure that when councils are trying to plan these things they could get preliminary access or something like that, so asking for permission does not delay projects unnecessarily? Is there something we can do about that?
Ms Teresa Walsh:
In general, we try to do it by consent and from the majority of private landowners on this scheme and on some of the other schemes, we got consent and that speeded it up considerably. We can also go in using our powers under the emergency Acts. Where we had to, we did that but it can take time.
Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does anyone else have a comment?
Mr. Uinsinn Finn:
There are two planning processes that schemes can go through. They can go through a Part 8 or Part 10 planning process but we need to get landowners' consent separately. The Arterial Drainage Act, which gives powers to the OPW and the Minister, has built into it permission to go onto land, as well as a compensation event that could be more streamlined for that. As part of developing flood alleviation or defence schemes, it is important to consider which planning process to go through because some are better suited to some types of schemes and the Arterial Drainage Act might be better suited to other schemes, especially around the right to access property.
When developing infrastructure in general, it is important to work with landowners because sometimes the owners of the land the council wants to impact on are not affected by the flooding events. The flooding might be somewhere else. That is why we do the consultation. We do early consultation on all these schemes so we get input from stakeholders at an early stage to try to bring them with us on the scheme. The community approach in Ballinasloe that I mentioned is a good example of bringing the community together because the community has a great influence on the landowners.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will go to Senator Noonan and Deputy Malcolm Byrne. The Order of Business vote will be in the Dáil at 2.42 p.m. so I ask members to keep their contributions concise.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses.
I will ask about a general issue. I was listening to Mr. Taaffe's comment that the days of draining land for the sake of it are gone. I agree but yet, we are still using the mechanism of the Arterial Drainage Act. A commitment had been given under the water action plan to review that. That is on top of the absence of phase 2 of the land use review. They are significant policy areas that need to be given consideration in order to scale up the issues we have been talking about this afternoon. Will he make a general comment on the issue of rezoning land, the absence of information, especially around the land-use review, and now the added opportunities and challenges arising from the nature restoration plan that has to be developed by the State? How are the local authorities and the CCMA addressing those issues? Is the CCMA pressing the OPW about the Arterial Drainage Act in particular? How will it affect its planning of future development plans, given the plan cycle is now ten years?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
There is good co-ordination in the CFRAM process with flood risk mapping and the mapping of known flood events. It is now quite a streamlined process and planning authorities and sections in each local authority are familiar with the process. There is another layer on top of it, which involves justification tests and analysis for development proposals when they come in. That process is working well. It is also well understood so I hope the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. That is a good news story.
On flood schemes, there is no doubt but that with the legislative avenues available for the development of flood schemes, when tied in with environmental requirements, it is difficult.
The critical infrastructure legislation could be an opportunity to unblock the delivery of complex schemes like the Enniscorthy scheme. We hit a brick wall when we looked at the legislation. A lot of complex flood schemes around the country are in SACs or areas with other protections. They do not sit well together. That is one way of putting it. That is an area that needs to be looked at.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I join with my colleagues in thanking the councils the witnesses represent for the work they do in difficult times. I would like to hear Mr. Taaffe's thoughts as to any key specific legislative changes that would help to advance the Enniscorthy flood scheme. I heard what he said earlier about marine area consents and the fact that this process runs separately from the planning process rather than concurrently. Are there any other specific changes the committee should hear about today?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
If those processes could be run in parallel, it would certainly shorten the consent process for An Coimisiún Pleanála and marine area consents. While this is probably more relevant to Enniscorthy than other schemes, as we see it, the benefit of the Arterial Drainage Act is that it provides for the power to enter lands for site investigation purposes and for the completion of the scheme. Land owners might not like that but, at the end of the day, it is something we have to do. We have to be able to get onto lands following consultation with a view to bringing as many people as possible with us, which is what we try to do. We have now taken the view that the Enniscorthy scheme would be best delivered through a route involving An Coimisiún Pleanála and the Planning and Development Act. The downside to that is that we do not have the power to enter the lands we need to enter. That results in particular delays in respect of site investigation works. You cannot progress the design until you get consent to go in and undertake site investigations. You cannot apply for planning permission until you have those pieces tied off. There is a bit of a gap there that needs to be addressed. If that could be addressed under the Critical Infrastructure Bill, even if just for site investigation purposes, it would allow schemes to progress through design and planning, with the area of compensation to be looked at afterwards. In an ideal world, it would be perfect if we could get the benefits of the Arterial Drainage Act without that more rigid approach to the habitats directive that comes with it.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one quick follow-up. With regard to the upstream analysis being undertaken at the moment and the fact that the scheme has to be designed to reflect the reality on the ground, which is that more water is coming down off the mountains, through Bunclody and into Enniscorthy, will that require a funding stream separate from the package that is already in place? If new works are to be done upstream, will new money be needed?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
I do not believe so. I believe it can all be integrated into a solution for Enniscorthy. Whatever we do upstream has to be done through a catchment approach. In our brief for the design consultants for phase 2, the need for nature-based solutions across the entire catchment is writ large. Our understanding is that assessment will be funded via that design process.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses. The issue of some flood defence projects being categorised as critical infrastructure is something we might take note of. In this case, that might even apply to some of the coastal protection works. Our committee might consider that issue. I will come back to Mr. Taaffe on the issue of balancing nature-based solutions with the challenges around access and critical infrastructure. Castletown and the Ahare river immediately sprang to mind. The Ahare River and Biodiversity Group is doing a lot of good work in the area. There are challenges in balancing nature-based solutions with the demands of locals for access. Will Mr. Taaffe talk about that specific project and the learnings we could gain from it?
Mr. Eddie Taaffe:
The Ahare river is effectively a river built across a marsh that used to be drained by local landowners who would go in and cut a channel. Unfortunately, as a result of environmental considerations, that is no longer possible so the road does flood. We have introduced a warning system. The detour is actually not that long in overall terms. It is about 1 km. However, it is still a road safety issue. Unfortunately, some motorists think the warning system is only advisory, decide to drive through and then get stuck in the flood waters. This happened again during Storm Chandra. There is a risk there. It is about balancing that risk to motorists, who unfortunately will not take heed of our warning signs and take the short detour and who then drive through flood waters and get stuck. We can be thankful it was nothing more than that this time. It is a question of society versus biodiversity at the coalface. It is a perfect example of that.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It strikes me that, when entire cities in other parts of the world are looking at having to relocate, having to take a 1 km detour is a very small issue. I will ask about the need to reform the Arterial Drainage Act. Given some of what we have heard about the Critical Infrastructure Bill, I am a little bit concerned that the nuanced plans at local level that have been spoken about, which are based on local knowledge as to implications and patterns of usage, might be bypassed. There is also a danger that other critical infrastructure that is not flood defences could exacerbate problems. There have long been calls for the Arterial Drainage Act to be addressed. Is addressing that issue important?
On the publication of the land use report, we have not seen that report yet but it would allow for a bit of joined-up thinking. How important are those two pieces? On the water framework directive, what are the councils' capacity to engage with that directive, which relates to the quality of water? How does engaging with that directive and strengthening its application work out in practice?
The last thing I was going to speak about was the recommendation on Japanese root binding. It is about seeing a 50-year-old or 100-year-old tree as an asset that cannot simply be replaced by a new tree and relocating it or taking other measures that do not simply amount to cutting it down. Tree management was mentioned. Will the witnesses clarify whether that could be part of it?
Mr. Robert Burns:
I might come in first. In the discussions here, we have very clearly seen the tension between the need to progress works that need to be done for the overall public good and the need to bring the community with you, to understand local concerns and to factor in local knowledge. The Senator mentioned the water framework directive. That is another interesting dimension because it involves looking at water quality, which is part of all of this and cannot be separated out. Some of the methods being used to progress water quality projects could be used to address flood risks.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I may come in for one second to avoid having to come back in again, will the witnesses also address the concern this committee has about the number of rivers that get named as being heavily modified? Is there scope for reversal? Will the witnesses touch on that as they discuss these issues?
Mr. Robert Burns:
There are such rivers but there are also pristine bodies, such as blue dot water bodies, that are being adversely impacted. It slides down. We are generally on a pathway that is not positive. What I was saying is that there are solutions already in place. For example, group water schemes are sometimes used as the project director or project delivery partner for more community-focused projects. We are working with communities. These projects are framed less as climate measures or flood defences than as drinking water protection. That becomes the driving motivation. All of the other things, such as protecting riparian riverbanks and dealing with flood risks, ultimately must not compromise the drinking water for the community. In rural communities in places like Monaghan, 50% of the drinking water comes from rural supplies. That catchment also presents the flood risks that need to be protect against because they can adversely impact drinking water.
On arterial drainage, again, and this probably speaks to Mr. Taaffe's point, any kind of change could have an unintended consequence that might actually adversely impact on our ability to do it. However, we have moved to the point where it is more about working with communities and bringing them along with us and, perhaps, that the hard, more aggressive approaches to drainage within our rural communities is changing. That is changing within communities and, indeed, the agricultural community would have generally accepted that probably is not a sustainable approach either. I do not think it is just local authorities or the State or agencies talking to people about the need to get something done. There is a conversation that is going on.
Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Burns very much. On behalf of both committees, I thank everyone for coming in to take part in this discussion. The four projects are effectively representative projects that members of this committee have identified as being the key projects they want to see progressed as emblematic of flood adaptation measures. We will be seeking to get the witnesses back in a year's time in order to get an update on what, hopefully, will be good progress. Work is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. We will hopefully have good progress reports on the various projects. If it is okay with everyone, we will be publishing the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank everyone for attending. We will suspend for two minutes to allow our witnesses to leave and we will then go into private session.