Dáil debates

Thursday, 23 October 2014

Topical Issue Debate

Strategic Infrastructure Provision

3:00 pm

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many constituents in Dublin Bay North were astonished recently to learn of a proposal by Fingleton White & Co. Ltd. and the Independent Pipeline Co. Ltd. for a 16 km aviation fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport. The kerosene pipeline route is proposed to pass along the Malahide Road through a densely populated residential region, including East Wall, Fairview, Marino, Clontarf, Donnycarney, Artane, Coolock, Darndale, Ayrfield, Clare Hall and Burnell, along the R139 - the former N32 - and the M1 and up to the airport. The proposal is a major change of route from the 2001 Fingleton White oil pipeline plan of 11.1 km which was to run from the port up East Wall Road, through Ballybough onto Richmond Road and up through Drumcondra and Gracepark Road onto Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road through Whitehall to the airport.

I note the grave concerns and consternation of residents from East Wall, Drumcondra and Whitehall during the planning process on this earlier An Bord Pleanála approved plan, PL 29N. 122692. The same concerns are now shared by my Dublin Bay North constituents.

I understand that no revised version of the 2001 plan has yet been submitted to Dublin City Council but I note that Fingleton White approached An Bord Pleanála in 2009 and 2010 and the board's inspector decided that under section 37B of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006, the new proposal was considered to be strategic infrastructure and that planning applications must be made in the first instance to both Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council. This attempt by the developer to circumvent the democratic local authorities reflects the total lack of consultation by the proposers with residents and public representatives in the densely populated areas now proposed for this kerosene pipeline. With the exception of two poorly publicised briefings in September, none of the dozen or so affected parishes have received information on this proposal. During the earlier 1999 to 2001 planning process significant health and safety issues were raised by residents' groups but amazingly, no environmental impact study was submitted with the proposal. Furthermore, in their brief press releases, the proposers make no mention of an EIS for the current plan.

We are informed that the 200 mm diameter pipeline will be made of continuous welded steel with an outer wall of 12.7 mm and that it will be laid 1.5 m below the road, with 1.2 m of cover. However, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why a much longer route of 4.4 km through densely populated areas is being proposed now rather than simply seeking an extension of the 2001 permission.

With regard to health and safety, in 1999 to 2001 and now, constituents rightly ask why such a pipeline - if needed at all - is not simply brought across open country from Bremore or Drogheda Port down to the airport. A review of accident history in the EU, the US and elsewhere, shows that fuel pipelines can be very hazardous. Even a cursory check on pipelines safety records reveals a disturbing litany of disasters in each decade since the 1960s. In the US there have been many serious oil pipeline incidents on the extensive American oil and gas pipeline networks. In 1976, for example, an oil pipeline ruptured in Los Angeles and killed nine people. Further afield, a 1998 oil pipeline explosion in the Niger delta killed about 1200 people and in 2006 a similar incident outside Lagos killed 200 people. Stricter EU legislation has meant there have been relatively few notable incidents involving oil pipelines in Europe but in 2004 there was a major gas pipeline rupture at Ghislenghein in Belgium where 24 people were killed and 132 seriously injured. It is clear that leak detection systems for oil pipelines arecritical aspects of such infrastructure but in the earlier proposal in this matter and now there is little or no information on such safety mechanisms and standards.

It beggars belief that according to Fingleton White of the six routes allegedly ear-marked by the developers in so called pre­planning discussions the Malahide road route came out as the optimal route. Constituents ask why this pipeline and any such route is needed at all. They correctly point to the presence of the €800 million port tunnel which over the past eight years has diverted heavy commercial traffic, including aviation fuel trucks, out of Dublin Port along the 4.5 km tunnel out past Santry and just 2 km further north along the M1 to Dublin Airport. The port tunnel was planned and developed from 1993 and it is one of the greatest infrastructural projects in the history of the State. Aviation fuel trucks make up 1.5% of the traffic in the tunnel. Maximising its usage of commercial and other vehicles is a core objective of sustainable Dublin transport policy. In both the US and EU legislation there seems to be no safe set-back distance for pipelines from family homes and public facilities.

This kerosene pipeline proposal through densely populated residential districts seems to be a half-baked, ill thought-out, kite-flying exercise by Fingleton White. I believe that no cost-benefit analysis will show that the use of an expensively built and possibly very dangerous oil pipeline through residential areas of Dublin Bay North is more cost-effective and safer for citizens than the existing simple system of oil transport utilising the Dublin Port tunnel which was a key reason for its construction.

3:10 pm

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for helping to raise awareness of the issue. I am taking this Topical Issue matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly. The Department has no involvement with this project, nor has the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I understand from newspaper reports that a company called the Independent Pipeline Company, which is backed by a County Laois-based engineering concern, Fingleton White and Dublin-based fuel transporters Reynolds Logistics, intends to submit planning applications to both Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council in the coming weeks for an aviation fuel pipeline between Dublin Port and Dublin Airport. In effect, the proposal is a private development. As the proposed pipeline would traverse the functional areas of two planning authorities, planning applications are required to be submitted to the two concerned planning authorities.

The role of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, with regard to the planning system is primarily to provide and update the legislative and policy framework, including the provision of policy guidance to the planning authorities, including An Bord Pleanála, so that they can carry out their prescribed planning functions. This legislative framework comprises the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2014 and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2013. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, has issued a large number of policy guidance documents in the form of planning guidelines under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act, to which planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are obliged to have regard in the exercise of their planning functions.

Therefore, in this particular case, if and when planning applications are lodged in respect of the proposed aviation fuel pipeline, the decision as to whether to grant planning permission, with or without conditions, will be a matter for the relevant planning authorities in the first instance. Given the scale of the proposed project, it will be a requirement that consultation with relevant statutory bodies and with the public is carried out as part of the planning application process. When ultimately making their decisions on the planning applications under section 34 of the Planning and Development Act, the planning authorities concerned will be required to consider the overall proper planning and sustainable development of the area, having regard to among other things, the provisions of the respective local development plans, any submissions or observations received on the planning applications and, where relevant, any relevant policy of the Government.

In addition, the requirements of the environmental impact assessment directive and the habitats directive, which have been transposed in our planning legislation, must also be considered. Accordingly, any environmental impacts of the project will be fully assessed, while also having regard to any inputs in this connection from the consultation process with relevant statutory bodies and the public.

The possibility of lodging an appeal against any decision of a planning authority is, of course, a fundamental feature of the planning system. The applicant or developer, as well as any person who made a submission on the original planning application, may appeal the decision of a planning authority to An Bord Pleanála, the independent statutory appeals board. In such instance, An Bord Pleanála is required to review the entire case and ultimately reaches its own determination on the matter, in line with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, who contacted me to apologise for being unable to be here. The Minister of State's reply with regard to the consultation process is unsatisfactory. My constituents believe that this project is of major significance to strategic infrastructure, whatever its planning connotation and that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, should both be consulted directly. It seems incredible that we learn about this major plan from press releases rather than from engagement with the Government and with the local authorities.

What power has the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government with regard to environmental impact statements? This is a major infrastructural project costing at least €20 million and possibly more which will involve the promoters being given way-leave along the major traffic arteries of Dublin city. What power has the Minister to insist that an environmental impact statement would be produced?

In the previous instalment of this madcap proposal in 1991 to 2001, the Health and Safety Authority said that Ireland had no legislation covering aviation fuel pipelines and that the HSE and the HSA had no statutory remit with regard to the safety standards of the proposal. I do not believe this situation has changed. Are regulations in place to govern aviation fuel pipelines? I imagine legislation would have been drafted if we had discovered oil off the south-west coast. Hopefully there will be oil discoveries in the future off the coast of Connacht and Munster. There is a significant lacuna in such legislation.

Is it not incumbent on the Minister to bring forward legislation before this can even be considered? The Malahide Road is an impossible location because it is such a busy key artery in the north city and Dublin Bay North. It is unconscionable to hold it up for a year or more. The Dublin Port tunnel was specifically built for this purpose and aviation fuel trucks make up only 1.5% of the traffic. Surely we do not need this madcap half-baked proposal.

3:20 pm

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact environmental impact statements are part of the planning process. They have been transposed into legislation. The proposed construction of the fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport is a private development. It will be required to go through the full rigours of the planning process. Consideration of a planning application will require consideration of the overall proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Local development plans will have to be taken into account.

I commend the Deputy on raising awareness about this. People complain about the public consultation aspect of our planning process. It is extremely important that people know what developments are taking place in their area so they can make a submission and make their views known. The planning authority will take all submissions into consideration and deliberate on them. The planning process is not necessarily there to help the developer. It is also there for the public, but the public must engage with it. I understand the Deputy is raising awareness about this.