Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take to ensure wastewater treatment infrastructure here is fit for purpose and that local authorities have the necessary funds to upgrade the infrastructure within the timeframe outlined in European Union law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18105/09]

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The capital provision for water services infrastructure in 2009 is €500 million, which represents an increase of 1% on last year's outturn and reflects the Government's ongoing commitment to the sector. In the period since 2000, the Exchequer has spent €2.5 billion on the provision of wastewater infrastructure, with 144 major schemes completed. These schemes include the construction of very large wastewater treatment plants in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Drogheda and Dundalk. New wastewater treatment facilities were also provided in many other smaller urban areas. The increase in wastewater treatment capacity over the same period was equivalent to the needs of a population of 3.6 million.

Compliance with the general requirements of the EU urban wastewater treatment directive in respect of secondary wastewater treatment has also increased significantly over the past decade, rising from a compliance level of 25% in 2000 to some 92% at present. All of the remaining schemes are included in the water services investment programme 2007-09.

The wastewater schemes included in the programme are based primarily on regular assessments of needs, undertaken by water services authorities at my Department's request. Water services authorities will be asked to undertake updated assessments of needs in the middle of this year and these will be used as a key input to a review of the water services investment programme. Priority objectives for the new programme will include the need to deliver infrastructure required to expand and improve our wastewater treatment capacity in order to ensure the highest emission standards from our municipal wastewater treatment plants, to anticipate future economic and social development needs and to maintain progress towards compliance with the requirements of the urban wastewater treatment directive.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recently visited Dublin City Council's wastewater treatment plant, on which a great deal of money was spent. Does the allocation of €500 million also relate to wastewater treatment? In the context of current capacity to deal with wastewater treatment, how many further plants will it be necessary to construct? When will these plants be delivered?

Section 49 of the Planning and Development Act contains a provision which allows local authorities to require developers to build infrastructure. As far as I am aware, local authorities have used this provision only in respect of transport infrastructure. Has the Minister considered asking them to use it to require those responsible for major developments to either build some of the required infrastructure or to fund its construction? The latter would have to be done specifically and not by means of a general levy.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy inquired with regard to the capital provision of €500 million. In the context of the water services investment programme, some 150 schemes are currently in progress. Of these, 90 are wastewater schemes. It is expected that 40 schemes will be completed this year. Of these, 30 are wastewater schemes. It is anticipated that construction will commence on some 50 new schemes. However, when these schemes were originally planned, some €560 million was made available. As the Deputy is aware, the amount had to be reduced but we continue to make good progress. It is anticipated that such progress will continue into 2010 and beyond. Up to 160 schemes will be in progress at the end of this year.

As a result of our EU commitments, we were obliged to move rapidly in respect of the provision of wastewater treatment plants. Since 2000, the Exchequer has spent €2.5 billion on the provision of wastewater infrastructure alone and some 144 major schemes have been completed in the interim. These schemes include the construction of very large wastewater treatment plants in Dublin - to which the Deputy referred and with which I am extremely familiar - Cork, Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Drogheda and Dundalk. New wastewater treatment facilities were also provided in many other smaller urban areas. In addition, some 105 wastewater schemes were provided under the serviced land initiative. The latter has been discontinued in light of the changed housing market.

Good progress has been made. The Deputy's point with regard to the delivery of infrastructure was highlighted elsewhere in recent times. Proposals on how we might invest pension funds in respect of the provision of infrastructure would give rise to a number of advantages. Wastewater treatment plants were specifically mentioned in this regard. The advantage of such investment is that it is off balance sheet and there is a great deal to be said for it.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Tuffy referred to the wastewater treatment plant in Ringsend, with which the Minister and I are extremely familiar. With regard to the proposals to extend the plant, is it planned to engage in a new tendering process or is it envisaged that the same failed consortium will continue to operate the plant? Is the Minister of the view that there might be a change in respect of how the contractual agreement might be arrived at? The scenario relating to the construction of the existing plant was bizarre because the company involved failed to deliver a suitable facility and to provide an efficient and adequate service for the city. However, it was rewarded when the Minister signed a document which allowed it to be paid €38 million or €39 million, even though it had failed to honour its contractual agreement.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not quite as straightforward as that. I am very familiar with this plant. I live very close to it. In fact, if Pigeon House Road is the starting point, I live on the same road. The problem is that both parties, Dublin City Council and the contractors, were blaming each other. The contractors were blaming Dublin City Council because in their own document they did not give adequate information and, likewise, we had criticism of the contractors. The net result was that the people we represent were caught in the middle and were faced with this dreadful odour.

It is correct that I invested money to deal with the problem. The odour problem has improved substantially on the basis of my own nose, but it returns intermittently.

Regarding the expansion, that is a matter for Dublin City Council. I understand the planning permission is extant and that it can go ahead and expand but on what contractual basis I cannot tell the Deputy at this stage because that is a matter for the local authority. I agree with the Deputy, however, that valuable lessons must be learned from what I can only describe as a debacle on the last occasion that should not be repeated and which, unfortunately, has given the whole idea a bad name to the extent that there are communities throughout the country that do not want a sewage treatment plant in their area.

I supported the idea, as did all the local representatives, of getting away from "NIMBYism" and having a sewage treatment plant that gives us a clean bay. That is one of the measures I supported.

An aspect I am very disturbed about is the fact that as a councillor and a local authority member I tabled an amendment which called for tertiary treatment and was supported by all of the council members at the time. This was a reserved function and despite that, and the fact that the plan was amended by the councillors, it was ignored by the management. In my view that is an affront to local democracy and completely unacceptable.