Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

239. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government if he will provide a list of the cases in which imperative reasons of overriding public interest were invoked for infrastructural projects; if he will provide a note on the mechanisms of the provision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12427/22]

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To date, my Department has been notified of two projects subject to imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive:

- A water treatment plant upgrade at Lough Talt, Co. Sligo, (Sligo County Council Planning Reference Number PL18/20), which case has been determined, and

- The proposed extension of Galway Harbour, which is an ongoing application before An Bord Pleanála (Reference Number 61.PA0003).

In accordance with Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the EU Habitats Directive, Member States must consider the possible nature conversation implications on any plan or project on the Natura 2000 site network before any decision is made to allow that plan or project to proceed i.e. to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) process.  Article 6(3) provides for the strict protection of sites.  Article 6(4) provides for a derogation from this strict protection in certain restricted circumstances.

There are four stages to the AA process, namely:

- Screening for AA;

- AA;

- Ascertain the effects of the plan or project on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site;

- Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI). 

In Stage 4, consideration is given by a competent authority, notwithstanding a determination that a proposed development will adversely affect the integrity of a European site, and in the absence of alternative solutions, that consent should nevertheless be given for the proposed development for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.  Grounds for 'IROPI' include, in general, those of a social or economic nature. 

Where it is considered that IROPI applies to an infrastructural project, a statement of case should be prepared by the competent authority and referred to my Department for my consideration, pursuant to section 177AA of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, as appropriate.

The statement should specify;

- the considerations that led to the assessment by the competent authority that the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of a European site,

- the reasons for the forming of the view by the competent authority that there are no alternative solutions (including the option of not giving consent for the proposed development),

- the reasons for the forming of the view by the competent authority that imperative reasons of overriding public interest apply to the proposed development,

- compensatory measures that are being proposed as necessary to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 including, if appropriate, the provision of compensatory habitat and the conditions to which any consent for proposed development shall be subject requiring that the compensatory measures are carried out.

In relation to a European site that does not host a priority natural habitat type or priority species, the imperative reasons of overriding public interest may include those of a social or economic nature.  In relation to a European site that hosts a priority natural habitat type or priority species, the only imperative reasons of overriding public interest that may be considered are those relating to human health, public safety, beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment, or, only having obtained an opinion from the European Commission, other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

The Minister's role in the IROPI process is to consider whether the compensatory measures proposed as part of the development are sufficient to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected, and this may involve consultation with the European Commission if, as mentioned above, the development relates to a European site that hosts a priority habitat type or species.  Once the Minister issues a notice to the competent authority with respect to whether compensatory measures are sufficient or not, the competent authority will then determine the planning application.  If it is considered that the compensatory measures proposed are insufficient, then the competent authority must refuse permission for the development.