Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 195: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether it is unfair to ask non-residential residents of Achill Island to pay €3 million towards the long awaited sewage scheme in Achill in view of the fact that persons will have to pay this between them; his further views on whether Achill should not be asked to pay 50% of the costs, as it cannot be compared to a large urban area or town, under the polluter pays principle; if he will intervene in this situation and ensure that the scheme goes ahead without putting the future of the local businesses at risk; the resolution his Department has to enable this to proceed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30442/05]

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 670: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether it is unfair to ask the non-residential residents of Achill Island to pay €3 million towards the long awaited sewage scheme in Achill; his further views on whether Achill should not be asked to pay 50% of the cost; if steps will be taken to ensure that the scheme goes ahead without putting the future of local businesses at risk; the resolution his Department has to enable this to proceed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30611/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 195 and 670 together.

In common with all projects funded under my Department's water services investment programme, the Achill Sound scheme is subject to water services pricing, polluter pays policy. Local authorities must ensure that the design and scale of individual schemes takes account of the implications of the pricing policy framework. In broad terms, this involves my Department funding the capital costs associated with the provision of services to meet the requirements of the existing domestic population. The additional marginal capital cost of servicing non-domestic consumers, and providing for future development, is recovered by the local authority from all non-domestic consumers in its functional area, i.e. on a county-wide basis, through a combination of water charges on commercial consumers and planning levies on future development. Only significant large scale consumers who reserve a specific proportion of the overall capacity of a scheme are required to make a direct contribution to the capital cost of the scheme up-front. It is unlikely that there are any such consumers in this case.

My Department is awaiting submission by Mayo County Council of a revised water services pricing policy report that will determine the appropriate apportionment of the capital costs in this case in accordance with the policy framework. Until this report is submitted and approved, any estimate of the likely contribution required from the non-domestic sector is purely speculative.

With regard to commencement of works, the position is that the scheme has been approved for construction under my Department's water services investment programme 2004-06. I have already cleared Mayo County Council's tender recommendations for the scheme and its further advancement is now a matter for the council.