Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise a local issue, namely the proposed Clontarf flood barrier, which will have a citywide impact.

In September 2005, Dublin City Council's Clontarf promenade steering committee considered different options for the flood defence-arterial water main works and chose option 5, comprising walls and bunds containing water mains. No public representatives, residents' groups or business groups were represented on this committee. However, the environmental impact statement, EIS, states the main stakeholders were present. The minutes of the meeting indicate that council officials realised, even at that point, the need to provide clear images and drawings for the public consultation process. This recommendation was not pursued, however.

A consultation evening was held in St. Anthony's Parish Church in Clontarf on 12 June 2006 to deal with the scope of the information to be included in the EIS. Residents' groups were invited to the meeting. According to a council e-mail of Tuesday, 11 October 2006, the public consultation process on the flood defences-arterial water mains did not commence until 3 December 2007. Accordingly, this meeting cannot be considered to have been part of that process. Indeed, the EIS had not even been completed at that stage.

In November 2007, all residents' groups were written to informing them that Dublin City Council was about to apply to An Bord Pleanála for planning permission through the submission of an EIS, as yet unseen by residents, businesses or local representatives. The letter also informed them a period of public consultation would take place and that full details of the project would be on public display for eight weeks in Dublin City Council's civic office, Marino library, none of which are in the Clontarf area itself, and on the council's website. On 3 December 2007, this submission and public consultation was further advertised in the Irish Independent and this date was the commencement of the public consultation period.

One day later, on 4 December 2007, Dublin City Council applied to An Bord Pleanála for permission for the works as outlined in the EIS and first advertised to the public one day previously. Subsequently, in July 2008 planning permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála.

There is no evidence of any involvement of either public representatives, residents or local businesses, prior to a decision being made in September 2005, that the preferred option for the works was for bunds-walls rather than four other options under consideration. Although the council has accepted the height recommendation changed after plans were first presented to local councillors in 2006, this was not communicated and no supplemental presentation was made detailing the alterations or the reasons held by the council for departing from the original proposal. Prior to the planning application being made to An Bord Pleanála in December 2007, no public representatives or residents groups had sight of a completed environmental impact statement, EIS, or had an opportunity to provide feedback or comment on it. The EIS was made available on 3 December - the application was made to An Bord Pleanála on 4 December. As a result, the only opportunity these stakeholders had to make an input into the process was that afforded them by the An Bord Pleanála system at a cost of €50. Although the EIS was made available after the application had been made to An Bord Pleanála, it was never available at any public location in Clontarf. My point is that the process was deficient from the beginning.

I wish to bring the Minister of State's attention to another matter. The development is in close proximity to a number of special protection areas and a special area of conservation, namely, north Dublin Bay. I direct the Minister of State to Article 6(3) of the habitats directive and the guidance provided by the Commission, those being, EC (2000), EC (2002) and EC (2006). Any plan or project that may have a significant effect on a special area of conservation shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. This appropriate assessment should include, where appropriate, obtaining the opinion of the general public and must comply with the requirements as set forth by the directive and clarified by the Commission's guidance notes and the European Court of Justice, ECJ, cases C-127/02 and C-418/04.

The EIS on the works in question does not comply with the requirements of the directive and relevant explanatory documents, since no appropriate assessment was undertaken. In taking the decision under An Bord Pleanála reference 29N.JA0008, the competent authority - Dublin City Council - has failed to take account of the appropriate assessment of the implications of the development for the designated Natura 2000 site in light of the site's conservation objectives and has not made certain that the development will not affect the integrity of the site.

Like the council, will the Minister of State accept that the consultation process was deficient? Will he accept the documentation that I will provide him for his officials to examine? Will his officials examine the relevant European legislation and the ECJ cases I have outlined? I will be as quick as possible in the four minutes allowed to me.

See this speech in context