Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Níl ach triúr Teachtaí Dála as Gaillimh here agus tú féin, a Chathaoirligh, sa Chamber anois. It is with a certain reluctance that I raise this matter on the Adjournment. I had tried by various diplomatic means and telephone calls to resolve the problem but I seemed to be getting deeper into the problem rather than solving it. I am glad to see opposite the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, who may be able to assist.

I had contacted the Department about this and got a great deal of conflicting information. Last week I was told that this man's appeal against proposed designation of a quarry area in south Connemara was closed on 23 August last. That could not be possible because I have here a letter dated 23 August which the man received on 27 August, stating that in order to progress his request to have the lands removed from the SAC a scientific assessment of the lands in question must be carried out and, in another sentence nearer the end, asking him to confirm his agreement to an inspection by contacting the office by 4 September 2007.

The man replied to the Department by letter on 30 August 2007, stating that he would give Mr. O'Donnell and his assistant permission to enter his lands, but that he must be informed of when they would come. The man finally got a letter on 11 September acknowledging receipt of his letter of 30 August and stating that the issues he had raised were currently under consideration and the NPWS would write to him in due course. That would clearly indicate to me that the file could not have been closed on 23 August because there was ongoing correspondence between the NPWS and the land and quarry owner.

A letter received by the client in October 1997 stated that where restrictions arise compensation will be paid and wished to emphasis that a service is not anti-development, and that the service would not object to the man's proposals to renovate some existing house on his property — which he does not intend to do — and has no desire to interfere with the working of his quarry. That seems clear to me. As this quarry was pre-1963, its owner must have it registered under section 261. He fulfilled this requirement and has his quarry registered. It is No. 81 on the register in Galway County Council. A letter from Galway County Council to the land and quarry owner on 16 September 2007 stated that the planning authority deemed his quarry to be unauthorised solely on the basis that it was in an SAC.

It is clear to me that this should be an ongoing case. The owner of the quarry has made many efforts to have this matter resolved, including a meeting in the National Parks and Wildlife Service office in Letterfrack on 11 May last with Mr. O'Donnell, and the Minister would be familiar with that also. The man left that meeting thinking that the matter was resolved but here we are, six months later, and the matter is not resolved. I hope there can be a solution to this problem.

I want to pose a few questions that the Minister might be able to answer. Although it is not his brief, it was formerly his and he might be able to answer the questions anyway. Why was this man's quarry included in the SAC designation when it was not necessary to be protected by designation for any scientific or vegetation value included in the Wildlife Act? Why were all other quarries in Connemara either not included in, or taken out of, the SAC by virtue of the fact that they were operating quarries which were deemed to have no scientific value, and this quarry — from my knowledge of it — has certainly no scientific value?

When the National Parks and Wildlife Service sent proposals to Europe for designation of SACs, the reason given for not using CPOs on privately owned lands was there would be active consultation with individual landowners, compromise to be reached with landowners and compensation to be paid if the landowner was compromised.

The owner of this quarry and his family have suffered considerable stress and financial hardship as a result of this ongoing problem. There seems to be no solution to the problem of withdrawing this man's quarry from designation as a SAC so that he could continue to supply material to Galway County Council, as he had done prior to its being designated as an SAC. Ba mhaith liom freagra ar an gceist seo a fháil ón Aire ar son an fear as Ghaeltacht Conamara agus a chlann.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.