Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis an Teachta as ucht an cheist seo a ardú liom anseo tráthnóna. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an fhreagra a dtabharfaidh mé beagáinín soiléiriú ar an gceist. Mholfainn don Teachta comhairle a thabhairt don duine úd an cheist seo a phlé leis an lucht pleanála agus le muintir na Roinne chomh luath agus is féidir.

I thank the Deputy for raising this question and I am happy to respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As Deputy McCormack will be aware, special areas of conservation, SACs, are proposed for designation under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations. These regulations provide a mechanism for designation and protection of important ecological areas in Ireland as part of Natura 2000 — a network of protected sites throughout the European Union. These sites protect Europe's most important and rare nature.

There is a open and objective system of appeal for any landowner if he or she objects to his or her land being designated. In fact, I and my colleague, former Deputy Síle de Valera, were involved in introducing this. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government operates a two-tier objection process. The first stage, an informal assessment of the objection, is carried out by departmental staff. This assessment will usually require a site visit. If an objector is dissatisfied with the outcome of this assessment he or she may have the case referred to an independent appeals advisory board for a formal hearing. This board consists of representation of both landowner and conservationist interests and will review the scientific merits of the inclusion of the land within the SAC. On completion of the assessment the board makes a recommendation to the Minister.

The SAC site in question, the Connemara Bog Complex, was first proposed for designation in March 1997. These proposals were advertised in the local press and landowners identified by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, were notified directly in writing. In September 1997, the gentleman referred to lodged a written objection to the inclusion of his lands within the SAC. However, it was not possible to process his objection as he requested extensive information in advance, which was neither available nor appropriate.

As a result of an agreement between the Government and farming organisations in 2004, in the context of the national partnership talks, the Connemara Bog Complex SAC was one of 26 sites re-proposed for designation in December 2006. As in 1997, these proposals were advertised in the local press and known landowners were notified directly in writing.

The gentleman in question again submitted a written objection to the inclusion of his lands in the SAC. Despite extensive correspondence and meetings with senior Department staff, it again was not possible for the Department to secure his unqualified agreement to process the objection. Following a written warning on the 23 August 2007, the gentleman did not agree to an unconditional assessment of his land and therefore his objection was closed in September. He was verbally notified of this and will be notified in writing in the coming days.

Ireland's designation process must be completed in order to complete its list of SACs and provide finalised boundaries for all SAC sites. Ireland could incur large EU fines should we be unable to finalise objections in a timely manner. In this context, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has given commitments to the European Commission that outstanding objections will be processed without any unnecessary delays. Against this background, the Department must strictly adhere to the normal procedures for dealing with objectors who are unwilling to co-operate with the objections process. In such cases objections are deemed to be closed.

Under certain circumstances it is possible for development to be carried out within an SAC provided this development does not have an impact on the scientific integrity of the site. This is vital information as there is a major misunderstanding with regard to this point. The Department is always happy to discuss proposed developments and activities with landowners. In other words, if an activity does not have an impact on the SAC, although I accept the Deputy's point about the quarry, it is possible to get permission. It is open for the gentleman in question to apply to the local authority for planning permission for the development. The Department would then be referred to for input as a statutory consultee. However, it is also open to him to discuss with local Department staff the details of his proposed development and the type of works that would be acceptable in an SAC.

As the Deputy is aware, there are many misunderstandings about SACs. A proposed development is not automatically refused just because it is in an SAC. In addition, just because an activity for which one has permission is to be carried out in an SAC and is a notifiable action, this does not necessarily mean it is refused if one notifies it. Thus, I suggest that the Deputy's constituent, who is also a constituent of mine, engage with the relevant authorities to try to resolve the matter and to find a way forward that does not affect the SAC but maintains its integrity while allowing him to continue his activities. I think that is what the Deputy is looking for. I encourage the constituent to follow the process clearly outlined in the reply from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

See this speech in context