Seanad debates
Monday, 28 November 2011
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011: Report and Final Stages
7:00 pm
David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
I revert to amendment No. 11 and again make the point that Members previously had a lengthy discussion with the Minister on what was the intention. For example, was the intention to inspect the system or the water discharge coming from it? The Minister stated it was to test the system, which is fine, but part of the problem might pertain to the percolation area. Members are aware that there have been a number of shifts with regard to standards for testing in development plans and within the Environmental Protection Agency. There have been instances in which people whose planning permission on land had elapsed after five years were obliged to reapply for permission and perform another percolation test. While the application may have passed the percolation test in the past, it fails the second time. The problem then is such persons may be obliged to install more expensive filter systems, raised percolation beds and so on. What will happen in cases in which planning permission was granted 30, 40 or 50 years ago, at which time there was no difficulty with the percolation area because it met the standards of the day? What will happen in respect of Senator Ó Domhnaill's example of the problem resting with the percolation area because a house was built on a very small parcel of land? It will create difficulties if it is impossible to remediate the problem without encroaching on someone else's land.
Amendment No. 11 allows for some flexibility by stating, "make a practical effort". This is a reasonable proposal because while these situations are hypothetical, they will arise. As the Minister has stated his intention is to ensure the State is in compliance with the European Union directive and the systems are operational, the entire system also must involve the percolation end of the process. If the fault lies there, it could cause a problem in the context of people's ability to remediate. This is the point being made and the reason I support strongly the amendment tabled. I ask the Minister to respond to the points raised.
No comments