Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

It was done quite recently, within the last week or so.

Moving from the background documentation to the proposed resolution, which is to be considered by the joint committee, the resolution is the consent required for the prison development at Thornton Hall to proceed. It is, in layman's terms, the planning permission for the prison. It follows the format prescribed by section 26 of the Prisons Act 2007, including the requirement to list the main measures taken to avoid, reduce or offset any possible significant adverse effects of the development on the environment. It also details some small but, for some people concerned, potentially significant alterations to the original proposals that I have made in response to concerns expressed during the public consultation process and sets out the conditions that are to be complied with in the construction of the prison. Certain matters of concern raised are also being addressed by the Irish Prison Service in the good neighbour mission statement and operational implementation plan, and a draft has been prepared and will be finalised in consultation with local interests.

Before turning to the details of the issues being addressed, I repeat that while the resolution is the planning permission, it must still be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas before it takes effect. If the necessary resolution is passed, I will introduce a two section Bill to confirm that resolution and give it statutory effect.

Prisons by and large do not have significant adverse impact on the general environment. At one stage there was a view that a prison development fell completely outside that category of development that would require an environmental impact assessment. The Prisons Act 2007, however, takes a much more proactive approach and requires an EIA in the case of every prison development that falls within the scope of that Act.

Any large scale development, whether it be a prison or housing estate, will affect those living in the immediate proximity of the site and, therefore, some impact is likely. It is clear from the EIA that the overall environmental impact is not significant from a national or regional perspective, but it is also true that a number of individual residents, particularly those adjoining the main site, will be affected. Considerable efforts have been made to minimise and mitigate the impact of the development on them. For example, there is extensive use of tree screening and except for one building — the control centre — all the buildings are of two stories or less. The EIA goes into considerable detail on the mitigation measures proposed to minimise impact both during the construction and operational phase. Notwithstanding that, the public consultation process and the rapporteur's report identified very specific concerns and further measures are being taken to address those concerns.

The small numbers of people living in the immediate proximity of the prison are affected and further alterations are proposed in the resolution to mitigate the effect on them. In particular, the existing planting area which is 10 m in depth and runs around the outer boundary will be increased in key areas by extending it by another 4 m to 10 m in depth and planting a number of mature trees to greatly enhance the screening effect for those residencies adjoining the main site. Mature trees will provide immediate greater height and greenery to screen the perimeter wall. This will require the main security wall to be moved further back from the boundary in some areas. In addition, 3 m timber fencing will be installed around the car parks on the west side of the site, the parking level will be lowered and light fixtures will be kept below the height of the fence to ensure that the noise and light impact on adjoining residences is minimised. Visually conditioned concrete will also be used on the sections of the wall most visible to the public.

From the outset, the major concern of the local residents has related to the possible use of the R130, a secondary route, as the main access route to the new development. The relevant section of the R130 is a straight stretch of approximately 1.5 km in length. It passes by a local national school. While technically the R130 would support the traffic required for the development, concerns were expressed about the implications for the safety of children. Recognising that these concerns were strongly held and in an effort to minimise the impact of the development on the local community, additional lands were purchased to allow a dedicated access road to be provided running from the former N2 main road direct to the main facility. It had been intended to use the R130 in the very initial phase to allow this new access route to be completed as quickly as possible. Once the new access route had been constructed complete with an underpass, all traffic to the development would use it and there would be no need to avail of the R130. In the light of submissions received by the rapporteur, it is now proposed that the construction of this new access route should be prioritised and that no heavy construction vehicles will be allowed to use the R130 through Coolquay even during the construction of this new access route. This is in recognition of the fact that there were genuine concerns locally about heavy construction traffic passing a school even if it was only for a limited period. Some concerns were also expressed about certain emergency exits being used by service and delivery vehicles and this is being addressed in the draft resolution by ensuring that the emergency exits will never be used for deliveries or service vehicles.

The resolution includes a number of conditions. The first is a statement that the development to be constructed must be as described in the EIA and planning notice. As I have already mentioned, a major concern was the use of roads and the resolution imposes conditions requiring the new access route to be constructed first and makes it clear that heavy construction, delivery or removal vehicles must use the new access route and not the existing R130. The perimeter wall is in itself an important mitigating feature, reducing the effect of noise and dust on those living in the area. Therefore, while general construction work will begin, it is intended that the construction of the perimeter wall will be one of the first priorities. The resolution also requires that a construction environmental management plan must be drawn up by the primary contractor before construction work begins and it must address the mitigation measures already identified in the EIA.

While not directly relevant to the issue of development consent for the prison complex, I mention the question of a new Garda station for the area and the position regarding the Central Mental Hospital. A new Garda station is to be provided for the area. The Garda Commissioner has agreed that its construction will be given priority. The new Garda station will serve the local community and will be accessible to the public from the existing R130 road rather than through the prison site. As well as providing added local security, it will deal with any criminal offences committed within the prison complex. The construction of the Garda station is not covered by this development consent procedure and will be subject to the normal process set out in Part 9 of the 2001 regulations.

From the maps and drawing, Members will note that approximately 20 acres of the original Thornton Hall site have been excluded from the proposed prison development and have been reserved as a possible site for the construction of a new Central Mental Hospital. That project is a matter for the HSE and the Department of Health and Children. The resolution on the prison development has no effect one way or the other on the future of the Central Mental Hospital. I understand that no concrete plans have as yet been drawn up for a new Central Mental Hospital on this site and that any such proposal will be subject to the normal requirements to obtain planning permission from the local authority.

We are in a position today to take a major progressive step forward in improving the prison system. It will not only improve the life of prisoners and prison staff but will ensure we have adequate secure and safe accommodation for the future with a real, tangible hope for improved rehabilitation work with prisoners. Once development consent has been granted we will be in a position to finalise and sign the contract.

There has already been a tender competition for a public private partnership to design, finance, build and maintain the prison complex at Thornton Hall. A number of consortia were formed and a preferred bidder has been selected. Negotiations are at advanced stage and the aim is to finalise matters after the decision has been made about development consent. While I have no reason to believe negotiations will not be successfully concluded, I emphasise that I am determined to get the best value for money and if the preferred bidder does not meet the necessary requirements, then other options can be pursued.

See this speech in context