A DEAL between the Government and the EU, which will prevent Ireland facing fines of €33,000 a day for failing to provide Environmental Impact Assessment on some agriculture projects, has failed to impress the Irish Farmers’ Association.
Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney announced reforms to address the findings of the European Court of Justice on the drainage of wetlands which should have been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
“Our ambition is to meet our compliance requirement with the EU directive and to facilitate reasonable activities by farmers in these areas, while also protecting our valuable environmental heritage,” said the Minister.
“While the court may ultimately impose a fine for the legacy of inaction, the shared understanding that we have secured here with the commission should spare us from the imposition of daily fines of €33,000 per day or up to € 12.5 million per annum,” he said.
Mr Coveney said he was satisfied the regulations now proposed were workable, would minimise the administrative burden on farmers and keep the application process outside the planning system.
Under the deal, the threshold for mandatory EIA for drainage of wetlands has been significantly reduced. The IFA, which had objected strongly to the fact farmers would have to carry out EIA for development and in some cases seek planning permission for farm work, said further changes of the regulations were needed.
“The implementation of the legislation must minimise the hassle and bureaucracy imposed on farmers,” said IFA president John Bryan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label environmental impact assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental impact assessment. Show all posts
Monday, 12 September 2011
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Europe ruling on planning directive welcomed
ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNERS have welcomed a ruling by the European Court of Justice reversing an Irish Supreme Court judgment which they say has serious implications for how Irish planning authorities assess major projects.
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling in the case of the European Commission vs Ireland in which the court found that Ireland had failed to properly implement the EU’s environmental impact assessment directive in the case of major projects.
Solicitor Joe Noonan, acting for the Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (Chase), had argued that Ireland had breached the EU directive in the way it had split the statutory approval functions for major projects between the EPA and An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Noonan had also argued that Ireland had breached the directive by failing to require either the EPA or An Bord Pleanála to perform an assessment of environmental impacts as required.
Under article 2 of the council’s 1985 EIA directive, planning permission can only be given after an assessment is carried out on all significant projects which, because of their nature, size or location, could have significant effects on the environment.
Article 3 of the 1985 EIA directive says any assessment must look at the impact of a project on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage as well as the interaction between any of these subjects.
The European Court of Justice found that Ireland had failed to properly transpose article 3 and had failed to properly implement the requirements of article 2 in cases where the Irish planning authorities and the EPA both have decision-making powers concerning a project.
The court also ruled that Ireland was in breach of the directive by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation, not transposing the EU EIA directive into Irish law and ordered Ireland to pay costs in the case.
Mr Noonan said it was a significant decision and would come into effect immediately. It would apply to any major projects in the pipeline while the consequences of the ruling with regard to any retrospective application would also have to be considered.
The ruling would require consideration by both the Department of the Environment and the Attorney General as it marked a reversal of a 2007 Supreme Court decision which found the State could split the statutory approval functions between the EPA and planning authorities, he said.
The Department of the Environment said the part of the judgment relating to demolition works had been clarified by a 2008 amendment to the 2001 planning and development regulations regarding which aspects of demolition were exempt from planning permission requirements.
A second part of the judgment relating to the transposing article 3 of the 1985 directive had been remedied through the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, said the department in its statement.
“A response to the final substantive element of the judgment regarding split decision-making will require further consideration by the State,” it said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling in the case of the European Commission vs Ireland in which the court found that Ireland had failed to properly implement the EU’s environmental impact assessment directive in the case of major projects.
Solicitor Joe Noonan, acting for the Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (Chase), had argued that Ireland had breached the EU directive in the way it had split the statutory approval functions for major projects between the EPA and An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Noonan had also argued that Ireland had breached the directive by failing to require either the EPA or An Bord Pleanála to perform an assessment of environmental impacts as required.
Under article 2 of the council’s 1985 EIA directive, planning permission can only be given after an assessment is carried out on all significant projects which, because of their nature, size or location, could have significant effects on the environment.
Article 3 of the 1985 EIA directive says any assessment must look at the impact of a project on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage as well as the interaction between any of these subjects.
The European Court of Justice found that Ireland had failed to properly transpose article 3 and had failed to properly implement the requirements of article 2 in cases where the Irish planning authorities and the EPA both have decision-making powers concerning a project.
The court also ruled that Ireland was in breach of the directive by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation, not transposing the EU EIA directive into Irish law and ordered Ireland to pay costs in the case.
Mr Noonan said it was a significant decision and would come into effect immediately. It would apply to any major projects in the pipeline while the consequences of the ruling with regard to any retrospective application would also have to be considered.
The ruling would require consideration by both the Department of the Environment and the Attorney General as it marked a reversal of a 2007 Supreme Court decision which found the State could split the statutory approval functions between the EPA and planning authorities, he said.
The Department of the Environment said the part of the judgment relating to demolition works had been clarified by a 2008 amendment to the 2001 planning and development regulations regarding which aspects of demolition were exempt from planning permission requirements.
A second part of the judgment relating to the transposing article 3 of the 1985 directive had been remedied through the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, said the department in its statement.
“A response to the final substantive element of the judgment regarding split decision-making will require further consideration by the State,” it said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Saturday, 5 July 2008
European court ruling may force change in planning laws
THE GOVERNMENT could be forced to amend planning laws following a landmark ruling by Europe's highest court that found its existing rules fail to protect the environment.
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg yesterday found that weak Irish planning legislation was responsible for the major landslide at Derrybrien, Co Galway, in 2003 that killed 50,000 fish and badly scarred a peat landscape.
It also ruled that a failure to mandate environmental impact assessments before projects begin and a commonly used planning mechanism to grant retention for projects with no planning permission, break EU law.
The ruling by the European Court of Justice dealt with a specific complaint lodged by the European Commission over Ireland's failure to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment at the wind farm project at Derrybrien. It also considered a wider complaint from Brussels that the Government's existing planning rules, regarding impact assessments and retention permission, fail to protect the environment adequately.
Yesterday environmental campaigners in a range of cases said the judgment would refer to the development of a large number of quarries across the State, as well as pig-rearing, peat-extraction and wood-processing enterprises; a hotel in Co Kildare, which received retention permission only after it was built, and a convention centre in west Dublin, where work began without proper planning approval.
Noel O'Connor, a senior executive with the Construction Industry Federation, said the ruling was being studied by his members and the federation executive.
In an initial reaction, he said he believed the ruling appeared to relate only to cases of retention. He said builders' approaches to environmental impact assessments had changed significantly since Derrybrien, and so the impact may not be widespread.
There was an issue about retention "where restoring a site might not be the best solution" to a problem. In some cases, an application for retention was lodged because it was in the best interests of the site, he said, adding that each project was complex with a different set of circumstances.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said there was now a significant issue about environmental impact assessment in relation to infrastructure which should be addressed by An Bord Pleanála.
"I am concerned it is ongoing," he said, adding that residents' groups and community associations across the State may apply to the courts to have planning decisions rescinded and, if appropriate, have compensation made.
The court dismissed arguments advanced by the Government last year that poor construction work by the contractor was to blame for the incident and the size of the wind farm meant an environmental impact assessment was not required.
In its ruling, the court noted that the installation of 46 wind turbines, which at the time represented Ireland's largest wind farm and was one of the biggest in Europe, required an environmental impact assessment under EU law.
The European Commission cited several examples where no environmental assessment had been carried out before construction work began, or where a developer was granted retention permission after starting work without any planning permission.
The "common" use of retention permission may have the effect of "encouraging developers to forgo ascertaining whether intended projects satisfy" EU law. The court ordered Ireland to pay case costs.
If the Government does not amend its legislation to comply with the court's ruling, the commission could apply to the European Court of Justice to have hefty fines levied on the State.
JAMIE SMYTH,TIM O'BRIEN
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg yesterday found that weak Irish planning legislation was responsible for the major landslide at Derrybrien, Co Galway, in 2003 that killed 50,000 fish and badly scarred a peat landscape.
It also ruled that a failure to mandate environmental impact assessments before projects begin and a commonly used planning mechanism to grant retention for projects with no planning permission, break EU law.
The ruling by the European Court of Justice dealt with a specific complaint lodged by the European Commission over Ireland's failure to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment at the wind farm project at Derrybrien. It also considered a wider complaint from Brussels that the Government's existing planning rules, regarding impact assessments and retention permission, fail to protect the environment adequately.
Yesterday environmental campaigners in a range of cases said the judgment would refer to the development of a large number of quarries across the State, as well as pig-rearing, peat-extraction and wood-processing enterprises; a hotel in Co Kildare, which received retention permission only after it was built, and a convention centre in west Dublin, where work began without proper planning approval.
Noel O'Connor, a senior executive with the Construction Industry Federation, said the ruling was being studied by his members and the federation executive.
In an initial reaction, he said he believed the ruling appeared to relate only to cases of retention. He said builders' approaches to environmental impact assessments had changed significantly since Derrybrien, and so the impact may not be widespread.
There was an issue about retention "where restoring a site might not be the best solution" to a problem. In some cases, an application for retention was lodged because it was in the best interests of the site, he said, adding that each project was complex with a different set of circumstances.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said there was now a significant issue about environmental impact assessment in relation to infrastructure which should be addressed by An Bord Pleanála.
"I am concerned it is ongoing," he said, adding that residents' groups and community associations across the State may apply to the courts to have planning decisions rescinded and, if appropriate, have compensation made.
The court dismissed arguments advanced by the Government last year that poor construction work by the contractor was to blame for the incident and the size of the wind farm meant an environmental impact assessment was not required.
In its ruling, the court noted that the installation of 46 wind turbines, which at the time represented Ireland's largest wind farm and was one of the biggest in Europe, required an environmental impact assessment under EU law.
The European Commission cited several examples where no environmental assessment had been carried out before construction work began, or where a developer was granted retention permission after starting work without any planning permission.
The "common" use of retention permission may have the effect of "encouraging developers to forgo ascertaining whether intended projects satisfy" EU law. The court ordered Ireland to pay case costs.
If the Government does not amend its legislation to comply with the court's ruling, the commission could apply to the European Court of Justice to have hefty fines levied on the State.
JAMIE SMYTH,TIM O'BRIEN
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 4 July 2008
Gormley: I’ll close loophole on environmental studies
ENVIRONMENT Minister John Gormley has promised to close a loophole in Irish law that allows developers to begin work on large construction projects before the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as required by EU legislation.
The Green party leader is also expected to bring proposals to cabinet in the next few weeks that will remove the ability of developers to seek retention permission for unauthorised developments that would otherwise have been subject to an EIA.
It follows yesterday’s ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg that the Government had failed to comply with an EU directive by not ensuring that domestic legislation required EIAs to be carried out on all building projects that were likely to have an impact on the environment before actual work began.
The court examined several projects where EIAs were conducted after work had commenced.
They included quarry developments in Offaly, Galway, Waterford, Clare and Monaghan as well as the Citywest Hotel in Saggart, where construction work was carried out on a large conference centre without proper planning permission.
In particular, the court ruled that the Government had not fulfilled its obligations under EU law by failing to check if a proper EIA had been carried out before planning permission was granted for one of the largest wind farms ever built in Ireland at Derrybrien, Co Galway.
The removal of peat at Derrybrien led to a landslide in October 2003, which dislodged 450,000 cubic metres of soil, polluting the Owendalulleegh River and resulting in the death of 50,000 fish.
Although the Government argued the landslide was caused by poor construction methods used by the developer, the court ruled it was due to the absence of an adequate EIA on the site.
Responding to the ruling, Mr Gormley admitted the issue of retention of planning permission had caused him concern since becoming minister for the environment.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The Green party leader is also expected to bring proposals to cabinet in the next few weeks that will remove the ability of developers to seek retention permission for unauthorised developments that would otherwise have been subject to an EIA.
It follows yesterday’s ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg that the Government had failed to comply with an EU directive by not ensuring that domestic legislation required EIAs to be carried out on all building projects that were likely to have an impact on the environment before actual work began.
The court examined several projects where EIAs were conducted after work had commenced.
They included quarry developments in Offaly, Galway, Waterford, Clare and Monaghan as well as the Citywest Hotel in Saggart, where construction work was carried out on a large conference centre without proper planning permission.
In particular, the court ruled that the Government had not fulfilled its obligations under EU law by failing to check if a proper EIA had been carried out before planning permission was granted for one of the largest wind farms ever built in Ireland at Derrybrien, Co Galway.
The removal of peat at Derrybrien led to a landslide in October 2003, which dislodged 450,000 cubic metres of soil, polluting the Owendalulleegh River and resulting in the death of 50,000 fish.
Although the Government argued the landslide was caused by poor construction methods used by the developer, the court ruled it was due to the absence of an adequate EIA on the site.
Responding to the ruling, Mr Gormley admitted the issue of retention of planning permission had caused him concern since becoming minister for the environment.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Planning board seeks Ringsend sewage plant report
AN ENVIRONMENTAL report on plans to extend the modern sewage treatment plant at Ringsend has been ordered by An Bord Pleanála, on grounds the project would be "likely to have significant effects on the environment".
The board has directed Dublin City Council to prepare the environmental impact statement (EIS) in advance of the council's submission of a planning application to extend the plant.
The council has already told the board the extension will have greater visual impact than the original plant and "odour" was likely to be a contentious issue with any development of the facility.
The council has for several years intended to extend the plant, which currently processes the sewage of the equivalent of 1.9 million people, to a capacity of 2.2 million and possibly greater, but has had to delay because of a foul odour problem which has persisted since the plant opened in 2003.
Last December, city manager John Tierney said the odour problem would be eliminated by July, which would allow the plans for the extension, likely to cost in excess of €50 million, to proceed.
The council wrote to An Bord Pleanála late last year stating that it believed an EIS would be required for the development.
In its submission, it said there would be a "higher degree of visual impact" than had been the case with the original sewage plant because there would be an intensification of facilities on the same site. The submission also states that odour control has been a major issue with the existing plant and would be one of the most contentious aspects of the proposed extension.
In his report, the board's inspector said the council could have conducted an EIS without asking the board, but he said it was his recommendation that an EIS should be prepared.
The development was likely to have significant effects on the environment because of its size, capacity and "other cumulation effects including that of the adjoining waste-to-energy facility [Poolbeg incinerator] The council yesterday said it had not decided when it would submit an application to the board for the
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The board has directed Dublin City Council to prepare the environmental impact statement (EIS) in advance of the council's submission of a planning application to extend the plant.
The council has already told the board the extension will have greater visual impact than the original plant and "odour" was likely to be a contentious issue with any development of the facility.
The council has for several years intended to extend the plant, which currently processes the sewage of the equivalent of 1.9 million people, to a capacity of 2.2 million and possibly greater, but has had to delay because of a foul odour problem which has persisted since the plant opened in 2003.
Last December, city manager John Tierney said the odour problem would be eliminated by July, which would allow the plans for the extension, likely to cost in excess of €50 million, to proceed.
The council wrote to An Bord Pleanála late last year stating that it believed an EIS would be required for the development.
In its submission, it said there would be a "higher degree of visual impact" than had been the case with the original sewage plant because there would be an intensification of facilities on the same site. The submission also states that odour control has been a major issue with the existing plant and would be one of the most contentious aspects of the proposed extension.
In his report, the board's inspector said the council could have conducted an EIS without asking the board, but he said it was his recommendation that an EIS should be prepared.
The development was likely to have significant effects on the environment because of its size, capacity and "other cumulation effects including that of the adjoining waste-to-energy facility [Poolbeg incinerator] The council yesterday said it had not decided when it would submit an application to the board for the
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 18 February 2008
Environment impact studies probed
Ireland's failure to insist on environmental impact assessments before major development projects are carried out, will be scrutinised by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The European Commission brought an action against Ireland in May 2006, claiming that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under the 1985 Impact Assessment Directive. The Commission complained that Ireland did not require checks to be carried out before major projects begin and allows environmental impact assessments to be carried out after work has already started.
The Commission stated that the system in Ireland - which allows developers to seek retention permission for unauthorised developments - undermined the preventive objectives of the directive.
The European Commission alleged that 'particular deficiencies' in relation to environmental impact assessments for a wind farm at Derrybrien, Co Galway, amounted to 'a manifest breach of the directive'.
www.buckplanning.ie
The European Commission brought an action against Ireland in May 2006, claiming that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under the 1985 Impact Assessment Directive. The Commission complained that Ireland did not require checks to be carried out before major projects begin and allows environmental impact assessments to be carried out after work has already started.
The Commission stated that the system in Ireland - which allows developers to seek retention permission for unauthorised developments - undermined the preventive objectives of the directive.
The European Commission alleged that 'particular deficiencies' in relation to environmental impact assessments for a wind farm at Derrybrien, Co Galway, amounted to 'a manifest breach of the directive'.
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
CLOSURE OF PEAT POWERED PLANTS WELCOMED
The environmental group Friends of the Irish Environment today welcomed the closure of the two peat powered electricity generation stations at Shannonbridge and Lanesborough. The group which had previously brought an unsuccessful petition to the European Commission and a Judicial Review in the Irish Courts against the plants, said today that 'Burning peat as a fuel is three times as polluting as burning natural gas - and the carbon released by harvesting is 6 times as great per hectare as felling a tropical forest.
No EIA was required of the IPC licences for these plants. The Government should seek to convert these plants to biomass which is permitted by their licenses and use the existing terms of the Rural Development Plan to turn the damaged bogs into wilderness and amenity.
In view of what we know about climate change now, there is no doubt peat powered electricity generation is a doomed technology.
No EIA was required of the IPC licences for these plants. The Government should seek to convert these plants to biomass which is permitted by their licenses and use the existing terms of the Rural Development Plan to turn the damaged bogs into wilderness and amenity.
In view of what we know about climate change now, there is no doubt peat powered electricity generation is a doomed technology.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Discovery of rare pearl mussel delays golf course expansion
The discovery of endangered freshwater pearl mussels in a mountain stream has delayed plans by a Co Carlow golf club to upgrade its course from nine to 18 holes.
Members of the club, in the village of Borris, had agreed plans to extend the course and applied to the Department of Agriculture for a licence to fell trees. But the area has now been designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by Minister of State Mary Wallace, who has decided "no [tree] felling licence can be granted for this site at this time".
Carlow County Council had already granted planning permission for the development. Mary White, deputy leader of the Green Party, and newly-elected TD for the area, said it was "regrettable that the county council did not foresee that SAC status might be a stumbling block".
The nine-hole golf club operates on land leased from the Kavanagh family - owners of Borris House, ancestral home of the McMorrough Kavanaghs, High Kings of Leinster - and is set in over 650 acres of walled private park and woodlands. The course provides panoramic views of Mount Leinster and the Blackstairs.
The club had agreed to lease a further parcel of land and drawn up plans for a new course design that involved clearing an area of woodland. Honorary secretary Pat O'Neill said "the club spent €45,000 to carry out an environmental impact study to determine the impact on badgers, otters, bats and other wildlife".
He explained that divers had discovered some 400 pearl mussels in one of two mountain streams that flow through the land and "experts believe the pearl mussels are 100 years old but not breeding".
According to the Heritage Council of Ireland, the pearl mussel, which can live for 120 years, is facing extinction due to deteriorating water quality, despite being a protected species under Irish wildlife legislation and the EU habitats directive.
Mr O'Neill said the club will resubmit a request to the Department of Agriculture for a tree-felling licence. Mr O'Neill added that under the revised design proposal, "trees will not be felled in the area close to the stream".
Michael Parsons
© 2007 The Irish Times
Members of the club, in the village of Borris, had agreed plans to extend the course and applied to the Department of Agriculture for a licence to fell trees. But the area has now been designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by Minister of State Mary Wallace, who has decided "no [tree] felling licence can be granted for this site at this time".
Carlow County Council had already granted planning permission for the development. Mary White, deputy leader of the Green Party, and newly-elected TD for the area, said it was "regrettable that the county council did not foresee that SAC status might be a stumbling block".
The nine-hole golf club operates on land leased from the Kavanagh family - owners of Borris House, ancestral home of the McMorrough Kavanaghs, High Kings of Leinster - and is set in over 650 acres of walled private park and woodlands. The course provides panoramic views of Mount Leinster and the Blackstairs.
The club had agreed to lease a further parcel of land and drawn up plans for a new course design that involved clearing an area of woodland. Honorary secretary Pat O'Neill said "the club spent €45,000 to carry out an environmental impact study to determine the impact on badgers, otters, bats and other wildlife".
He explained that divers had discovered some 400 pearl mussels in one of two mountain streams that flow through the land and "experts believe the pearl mussels are 100 years old but not breeding".
According to the Heritage Council of Ireland, the pearl mussel, which can live for 120 years, is facing extinction due to deteriorating water quality, despite being a protected species under Irish wildlife legislation and the EU habitats directive.
Mr O'Neill said the club will resubmit a request to the Department of Agriculture for a tree-felling licence. Mr O'Neill added that under the revised design proposal, "trees will not be felled in the area close to the stream".
Michael Parsons
© 2007 The Irish Times
Monday, 16 April 2007
Pedestrian bridge over the River Moy gets green-light
A CONTENTIOUS plan to construct a pedestrian-bridge over the River Moy at the Salmon Weir, Ballina, was given the green-light at a Ballina Town Council Meeting last week.
Members of the Ballina Salmon Anglers watched from the public gallery as the plan was approved following some heated debate.
Noel Burke, Senior Engineer, outlined plans to build a cablestay structure, designed to resemble a fishingrod. He said that the original plan had seen the bridge being built over the existing salmon-weir, but that the North Western Fisheries Board had refused permission.
The decision was then made to locate the bridge to the north of the salmon weir, following consultation with local salmon anglers.
Mr Burke also revealed to the chamber that he had received a fax from a group based in West Cork called Friends of the Irish Environment, who are opposed to the construction of the bridge. He said that the group was threatening legal action as an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) had not been completed.
Mr Burke told the chamber that as the bridge would be less than 100m in length, there was no obligation for an EIS to be undertaken: “The fax contains a large number of inaccuracies. I am satisfied that the statutory requirements were fulfilled in relation to the Part 8 Planning Process. We have a small window of opportunity in late July, August and September for construction to commence and I recommend that the Council proceed as advised.”
Cllr Michelle Mulherin welcomed the plans and paid tribute to the Ballina Salmon Anglers: “I am glad that common sense prevailed at the end of the day. This started as a contentious matter but a compromise was reached. Our greatest natural assest is the river, and Bord Failte have recognised the tourist potential of this bridge by offering to fund the project to the tune of €900,000.”
Cllr Johnny O’Malley spoke of his disappointment regarding the position of the bridge: “It is my view that people are going to be continually asking why this bridge was not built over the existing weir, which is an eyesore at the
moment.” Cllr O’Malley then paraphrased Shakespeare, and Charles Haughey, and said that the “salmon anglers have done the town some service”.
Cllr Padraig Moore was scathing when he spoke about the intransigence of the North Western Fisheries Board: “I would like to express my utter disgust with the Fisheries Board. They have closed off access to the Ridgepool, and have ensured that only those with money can get permits to fish there. They have destroyed this project, and what we have here is what is half-best for this town.”
Cllr Tommy Cooke was incensed about the paperwork that he had been handed at the last minute: “It’s just not good enough. I am expected to read through a load of documents here tonight, which may lead me to regret the decision that I make. Councillors seem to be viewed as mere fodder, there is very little regard for us as we are thought to have such limited intelligence.”
Mayor Mark Winters told Cllr Cooke that documents had been received from interested parties at the last minute and said: “All of these faxes were received today and yesterday. The officials are not at fault here. We are all in the same position.”
“Maybe I’m stupid. I would ask the members in the public gallery to come up here and try to read through the stuff up here and do your business at the same time. It’s an impossibility,” Cllr Cooke responded.
Cllr Wille Nolan assured the chamber that he did not concur with Cllr Cooke: “I don’t think of myself as fodder, and I can understand the proposal. I certainly welcome and endorse this project as I have been told that it will not interfere with salmon angling.”
Cllr Mary Kelly was the only councillor to voice a concern about the lack of an EIS: “I have been told that an EIS could cost anything up to •60,000 and I am concerned that this is the reason that an EIS has not been commissioned. We are talking about an area of special conservation here. One third of the annual salmon catch for the Moy comes from this stretch of water and I wonder if this project will be to the detriment of the river.”
Mr Burke told Cllr Kelly that an independent review of the decision not to do an EIS had been done, and the decision had been sanctioned: “We are not in the business of destroying our river,” he added.
Mr Burke said: “Moving this bridge is a small price to pay as this bridge will open up the river side walk for locals and tourists alike. We have a small window of opportunity for work to commence on this brdge, and I am asking the members of this council to Failte Ireland will be funding this project to the tune of •900,000.”
Colette Browne
© Western People
Members of the Ballina Salmon Anglers watched from the public gallery as the plan was approved following some heated debate.
Noel Burke, Senior Engineer, outlined plans to build a cablestay structure, designed to resemble a fishingrod. He said that the original plan had seen the bridge being built over the existing salmon-weir, but that the North Western Fisheries Board had refused permission.
The decision was then made to locate the bridge to the north of the salmon weir, following consultation with local salmon anglers.
Mr Burke also revealed to the chamber that he had received a fax from a group based in West Cork called Friends of the Irish Environment, who are opposed to the construction of the bridge. He said that the group was threatening legal action as an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) had not been completed.
Mr Burke told the chamber that as the bridge would be less than 100m in length, there was no obligation for an EIS to be undertaken: “The fax contains a large number of inaccuracies. I am satisfied that the statutory requirements were fulfilled in relation to the Part 8 Planning Process. We have a small window of opportunity in late July, August and September for construction to commence and I recommend that the Council proceed as advised.”
Cllr Michelle Mulherin welcomed the plans and paid tribute to the Ballina Salmon Anglers: “I am glad that common sense prevailed at the end of the day. This started as a contentious matter but a compromise was reached. Our greatest natural assest is the river, and Bord Failte have recognised the tourist potential of this bridge by offering to fund the project to the tune of €900,000.”
Cllr Johnny O’Malley spoke of his disappointment regarding the position of the bridge: “It is my view that people are going to be continually asking why this bridge was not built over the existing weir, which is an eyesore at the
moment.” Cllr O’Malley then paraphrased Shakespeare, and Charles Haughey, and said that the “salmon anglers have done the town some service”.
Cllr Padraig Moore was scathing when he spoke about the intransigence of the North Western Fisheries Board: “I would like to express my utter disgust with the Fisheries Board. They have closed off access to the Ridgepool, and have ensured that only those with money can get permits to fish there. They have destroyed this project, and what we have here is what is half-best for this town.”
Cllr Tommy Cooke was incensed about the paperwork that he had been handed at the last minute: “It’s just not good enough. I am expected to read through a load of documents here tonight, which may lead me to regret the decision that I make. Councillors seem to be viewed as mere fodder, there is very little regard for us as we are thought to have such limited intelligence.”
Mayor Mark Winters told Cllr Cooke that documents had been received from interested parties at the last minute and said: “All of these faxes were received today and yesterday. The officials are not at fault here. We are all in the same position.”
“Maybe I’m stupid. I would ask the members in the public gallery to come up here and try to read through the stuff up here and do your business at the same time. It’s an impossibility,” Cllr Cooke responded.
Cllr Wille Nolan assured the chamber that he did not concur with Cllr Cooke: “I don’t think of myself as fodder, and I can understand the proposal. I certainly welcome and endorse this project as I have been told that it will not interfere with salmon angling.”
Cllr Mary Kelly was the only councillor to voice a concern about the lack of an EIS: “I have been told that an EIS could cost anything up to •60,000 and I am concerned that this is the reason that an EIS has not been commissioned. We are talking about an area of special conservation here. One third of the annual salmon catch for the Moy comes from this stretch of water and I wonder if this project will be to the detriment of the river.”
Mr Burke told Cllr Kelly that an independent review of the decision not to do an EIS had been done, and the decision had been sanctioned: “We are not in the business of destroying our river,” he added.
Mr Burke said: “Moving this bridge is a small price to pay as this bridge will open up the river side walk for locals and tourists alike. We have a small window of opportunity for work to commence on this brdge, and I am asking the members of this council to Failte Ireland will be funding this project to the tune of •900,000.”
Colette Browne
© Western People
Sunday, 12 November 2006
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Irish Planning
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a procedure for:
- systematic examination of the likely significant effects on the environment of a proposed development;
- ensuring that adequate consideration is given to any such effects; and
- avoiding, reducing or offsetting any significant adverse effects.
The process begins with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the developer. Active public involvement in the assessment of the EIS is encouraged. The assessment procedure is carried out by the planning authority as part of the processing of the relevant planning application and by An Bord Pleanála in the event of an appeal. The EIA procedure is designed to ensure that measures to improve a proposal can be taken at the earliest opportunity.
Generally, large scale developments, including agriculture, food industry, chemical industry, infrastructure and urban developments require an EIA. In some cases, EIA is mandatory irrespective of the size of the project. In most cases, however, a threshold is set and if this is exceeded, the project must be subject to EIA. Even if thresholds are not exceeded, the planning authority (or An Bord Pleanála in the case of a planning appeal) must require the preparation of an EIS if it considers that the project would have significant effects on the environment. The full list of projects and threshold limits are set out in Schedule 5 to the Planning and Development Regulations.
So, how does EIA work? A developer prepares an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is submitted with the planning application for assessment as part of the planning authority’s consideration of the application. (Note: It is not possible to apply for outline permission in EIA cases because of the type of detailed information required in an EIS). The newspaper and site notices relating to the planning application must refer to the EIS. The EIS is available for inspection and purchase at the offices of the planning authority.
What is an EIS? An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should contain an analysis of the likely effects, good and bad, of a project on the environment. It will set out any measures to be taken to avoid or moderate any adverse environmental effects and should identify decisions already taken by the developer for this purpose.
What does an EIS include? It includes:
- a description of the proposed development;
- an outline of alternatives (e.g. processes or locations) studied by the developer;
- data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which it is likely to have on the environment; and
- a description of these effects by reference to many factors such as people, flora, fauna, soil, water, air, landscape, cultural heritage, etc.
Where significant adverse effects are identified, the statement must also include a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce or remedy these effects. The EIS must contain a non-technical summary so that it can be understood by the lay person.
Preparing an EIS. EIS’s are almost always complex documents, sometimes of a highly technical nature. It will almost certainly be necessary to engage experts in various fields when preparing an EIS. Those proposing to prepare an EIS are generally advised by planning authorities to contact them for pre-application consultations if a proposal involves preparation of an EIS. These discussions can help scope the EIS, i.e. help identify which aspects should be covered, the amount of detail required and relevant agencies who should be consulted e.g. EPA, The Heritage Council, etc. Careful scoping can ensure that an EIS addresses all important issues, and will help avoid requests for further information, which could delay a planning decision.
The EPA has published Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. Regard must be had to EPA Guidelines when preparing an EIS (www.epa.ie).
How long does the EIA process take? As we have seen, a planning authority must decide an application with an EIS within 8 weeks of its receipt, or where further information has been requested from the applicant, within 8 weeks of receipt of that information.
How will I know an EIS has been submitted? Where an EIS is to accompany an application for planning permission, the press notice and site notice must include a reference to the EIS. The weekly list of planning applications published by planning authorities must also identify any case which involves an EIS.
Where can I see an EIS? An EIS is available for public inspection, free of charge, at the offices of the planning authority during office hours, from the date of receipt of the EIS (where a copy or any part can be obtained). Where the decision of the planning authority is appealed to An Bord Pleanála, the EIS will also be available at the offices of the Board. Observations and submissions for applications with an EIS are made in the same way as with normal planning applications.
Appeals and EIS: When an appeal is made to the Board, and the Board considers the project would have significant effects on the environment, it must require the developer to prepare an EIS, where the planning authority did not look for one. The processing of the appeal will be held in abeyance until the EIS, and any other information requested, has been received. Public notice of receipt of the EIS will be given by the Board. The EIS will be available for inspection or purchase at the Board’s offices and also at the offices of the planning authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)