Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37a:

In page 68, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Activities for which an application for a MAC shall not be considered

77.A MAC shall not be granted for any development of the maritime area where such development consists of:

(a) an installation for the production of energy by harnessing the power of the wind, within 12 nautical miles of the nearest point of the high water mark, that has—

(i) more than 5 turbines, or

(ii) a total output of more than 5 megawatts;

(b) a development consisting of—

(i) prospecting for—

(I) minerals (within the meaning of the Minerals Development Act 1940) in accordance with a licence under section 9 or 22 of that Act, or

(II) minerals (within the meaning of the Minerals Development Act 2017) in accordance with a licence under section 65 or 102 of that Act,

(ii) working (within the meaning of the Minerals Development Act 1940) of such minerals in accordance with a licence under section 9 or 22 of that Act,

(iii) working (within the meaning of the Minerals Development Act 2017) of such minerals in accordance with a licence under section 65 or 102 of that Act;

(c) a development consisting, or for the purposes, of—

(i) a terminal, building or installation ancillary to a natural gas storage facility (either above or below the surface of the water or seabed) the storage capacity of which would exceed 1mscm, or

(ii) a terminal, building or installation ancillary to a terminal that is used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas, and ancillary services.”.

Our proposed amendment seeks not to allow consideration for a maritime area consent, and consequently for any development consent at all, in respect of three types of activities we think maritime area consents should not be given for. I will go in reverse order. We do not believe that liquefied natural gas, LNG, infrastructure of any description should get maritime area consents because we are supposed to be tackling climate change. We know we must reduce fossil fuel use, and it runs counter to that requirement to entertain the possibility of building new infrastructure to bring liquefied natural gas into this country. We still rely on natural gas, obviously, but to build new infrastructure to import LNG would run counter to the stated commitment of the Government, and indeed of all parties, to reduce fossil fuel use and to combat climate change. Therefore, we think such proposals should simply not be considered for maritime area consents.

Similarly, anything to do with the extraction of fossil fuels should not be considered for maritime consents. One of the issues that concerned my community in recent years was the move by Providence Resources to try to drill for oil and gas close to the shore, on the Kish Bank, which is only 6 km to 10 km offshore. There were huge concerns about that potential development on many levels. In addition to local environmental and community concerns, there was also the major issue of the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. In that regard, we should not in any way be facilitating further exploration for or extraction of fossil fuels which damage the environment. We do not believe that any such developments should be considered for maritime area consents.

Finally, and perhaps more controversially, but we believe this is in line with the practice in rest of Europe, we are proposing not to consider major industrial offshore wind developments closer to the shore than 12 nautical miles, the traditional foreshore distance, on the grounds that the undoubted general pattern across Europe is to move these big industrial wind farms off to a reasonable distance from the coast. One document I saw from the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy in Germany stated the average distance for a major industrial development of wind farms in Germany is about 53 km. I also read a document produced by the Crown Estate, the body which represents the British Crown. It was an interesting publication about the development of offshore wind in the UK and the plans there in this regard. The base assumption there, in respect of looking at the costs of developing offshore wind farms, was that they would be developed 60 km offshore. That was the Crown Estate central scenario for looking at costs.

It is interesting information when we consider the relevant projects we are worried about getting in under the wire of the marine protected areas. I refer to those areas that should be there and where there are plans for developments, for example, on the Kish Bank in my area and for the Codling Wind Park project further down the Wicklow coast, that are only 6 km to 10 km offshore. Such projects would have a huge impact on those areas. We are talking about objects that are significantly higher than the two Poolbeg chimney stacks, and approximately 60 or 70 of these enormous things will be located in close proximity to the shore. They will impact on fishermen and on a sensitive landscape and seascape that is important on many levels for the community and for Dublin Bay generally as a tourist amenity and precious marine environment. We should be following best practice in Europe, which is to push that scale of industrial development further out to sea to ensure it does not have those negative impacts.

I say that as someone who believes that we must urgently develop offshore renewable resources. We must, though, have a buffer zone in place that is similar to the sorts of distances that are now becoming the norm across Europe. I am sure the Minister of State will say that developments are allowed closer to shore in other parts of Europe, but the general pattern is they are being pushed further out to sea. As I said, the document produced by the Crown Estate in Britain used a distance of 60 km as its base assumption, which is roughly ten times further out than the sort of thing being entertained right along our east coast. Therefore, what we are seeking in this sense is a win-win situation. We need offshore wind developments, but we must also protect sensitive coastal environments and the communities, the stakeholders and the people who make a living in those areas. We must also protect the marine biology and biodiversity of those nearshore sites. That is the logic of this amendment. I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say in response.

See this speech in context