Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 562: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in view of the change of special area of conservation status in relation to a contentious site where planning permission is being sought for a waste management facility in Whitestown, County Wicklow, the practice used to evaluate the scientific considerations for this change; if he has satisfied himself that the law was fully compiled with; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26806/05]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As indicated in the reply to Question No. 1410 of 28 September 2005, the position in this matter is as follows.

The boundaries of this candidate special area of conservation, SAC, were re-examined by my Department, for two reasons.

First, there was a revised national approach to the designation of marginal areas along rivers, introduced in August 2004, following an agreement with the farm organisations under Sustaining Progress. A nationwide survey to revise SAC boundaries along rivers was undertaken. The relevant section of the agreement reached with the farm organisations under Sustaining Progress reads as follows: The Department will implement a revised approach to designation of marginal areas along rivers. The revised SAC will include bank-side only to 2.5 m from the river bank. If embankments or other features are present which will curtail direct run-off, the margin can be further reduced accordingly. Where special features are present, for example associated wildlife habitat or flood plain, they will continue to be included.

An objection was lodged by ecological consultants in November 2004, on behalf of a landowner, relating to the location referred to in the Deputy's question. The objection was considered by my Department following standard procedures. It was assessed by staff of the National Parks and Wildlife Service of my Department, who visited the site. They found that one relatively small field in the area under appeal did not form part of the flood plain of the Carrigower River, as it is was raised above the river by a number of metres and held no habitat of interest. It was concluded that this specific piece of land did not meet the scientific criteria for inclusion in the SAC in the first instance. This gave rise to a minor boundary adjustment, excluding less than one acre from the SAC.

In contrast, the low-lying fields beside the river, which were also under appeal, are being retained in the SAC as my Department's staff were satisfied that they form part of the flood plain of the Carrigower River. This means that an area about 100 m wide is retained within the SAC here, rather than the 2.5 m wide strip that would be justified if there was no flood plain here. The specific decisions on this appeal conform with the revised national approach to designation of marginal areas along rivers.