CONSULTATION
ON PROPOSED FORESHORE AND MARINE AREA DEVELOPMENT BILL
**********************************************************************************
Please note that all submissions and comments submitted to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for this purpose may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 to 2003 and/or the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 and may also be published on the Department’s website
**********************************************************************************
Part 1.
The information you provide in this Part will assist the Department in evaluating the information provided in Part 2.
Name: SAVE OUR SEAFRONT
Address: c/o 91 Lower Georges Street, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin
Are you:
□….Private Individual □….NGO
□….Industry/ Commercial Entity □….State Sector / Public Body
x….Local Community Group □….Trade/ Professional Body
□….Higher Education / Research □….Political Body / Representative
□….Other (Please Specify) _______________________________________________
Please indicate the area(s) of your interest in the Foreshore:
□….Current Lease/ Licence Holder □….Electricity Transmission
□….Energy (Wind) □….Energy (Wave)
□….Energy (Tidal) □….Energy (Oil/ Gas)
x….Environmental Protection x….Fisheries/ Aquaculture
x ….Leisure/ Tourism □….Municipal/ Local Authority
x….Shipping/Transport □….Telecommunications
□….Other (Please specify)
**********************************************************************************
Part 2. Questions on Consultation Document
A. Section 3 of Consultation Document - A Proposed Marine Area
1. Given the legislative framework and rights to resources that already exist, would there be a tangible benefit to the establishment in law of a new Marine Area?
The current legal framework that governs the Foreshore, the continental shelf and the EEZ as well as the Petroleum and other Minerals Development act offers minimal opportunity for public consultation and lack transparency.
The awareness in recent years of the impact of development and resource exploitation on our environment is to be welcomed but is not reflected in the current legislation. The establishment of a new Marine Area would be welcomed IF it had at its base a commitment to environmental protection and robust and comprehensive public consultation processes.
2. If yes, what public body might be best placed to act as the consent authority for development within such a Marine Area?
Development in such a Marine Area is, in some instances, of purely local concern but in many instances of national concern. Considering this it would be appropriate to have a combination of consent authorities which include the Local Authorities, An Bord Pleanala and the relevant departments (Marine or Environment.)
Any change in the consent process has to involve a new and improved public consultation process in line with the Aarhus Convention
3. As an alternative to such an approach, should the proposed reforms of the foreshore system be aligned with the existing framework governing the Continental Shelf and EEZ (rather than amalgamating all three)?
The frameworks governing the Foreshore, the Continental Shelf and the EEZ all need reforming and updating to reflect modern technologies, modern understanding of environmental impacts and most importantly to include the EU directives which govern public consultation processes and environmental impact assessments.
However, there are also separate interests to be considered in each of the three areas of the Marine Area.
Therefore new legislation that governs the whole Marine Area will only be useful if it takes into account the needs outlined above.
B. Section 4.1.1 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Strategic Consent System
4. If this option alone were pursued, would the reforms be sufficient to facilitate development of the sort envisaged in Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth?
No. Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth aims to prioritise the wealth in our oceans as a means to national recovery. However, the current licencing arrangements for oil and gas exploration, for example, are such that this sort of development will have no impact on our national recovery and only serves to facilitate multi nationals. Any plan to “harness our ocean wealth” must involve an overhaul of the legislation surrounding oil and gas exploration and fishing.
Any such plan must also be balanced with protecting our environment.
The current proposal only deals with the consent system and not with any plan to develop our natural resources as an aid to national recovery.
5. How can the sequencing between development consent and securing a proprietary right in the foreshore (i.e. a licence or lease) be managed in a way that supports timely and efficient decision making?
Before we try to “support” timely and efficient decision making we must define what “timely and efficient” means.
The current public consultation process is neither timely nor efficient in terms of including the public and stakeholders.
The only way to support a decision making process which is both timely and efficient is to overhaul the whole public consultation process.
Currently a public consultation process can involve as little as a notice in a paper, a library or a public building, a short period of 21 days for non-experts to understand the full implications of an application, and a narrow definition of stake holders.
The Aarhus Convention proclaims that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of citizens, that individuals should have access to information concerning the environment and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Access to remedial measures and redress should also be provided.
In line with this convention a full public inquiry would seem appropriate for all developments in the foreshore. A comprehensive inquiry would mean that real efficiency and timeliness would be achieved.
The plans for a new strategic consent system propose An Bord Pleanala as the operators of consent for strategic infrastructure.
While including An Bord Pleanala in the process of consent on the foreshore is to be welcomed, the proposal is problematic, as there is currently no appeals process for a decision from ABP, this would need to be established.
The definition of “strategic infrastructure” as defined in the planning acts is too narrow. Much of what is defined as “non-strategic infrastructure” can be part of a plan for strategic infrastructure. So, for example, a seismic survey within the foreshore is considered “non strategic”. If such a seismic survey reveals the possibility of oil/gas deposits it could indeed lead to “strategic development”. This false dichotomy between strategic and non strategic needs to be eliminated to guard against project splitting as defined in ECJ case C-227/01.
6. Would the availability of a lease/licence option as described be sufficient?
No
C. Section 4.1.2 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Consent System for Mid-Level Projects
7. Is the requirement for EIA the appropriate threshold by which to determine whether ABP is the consent authority?
As per point 5 above if ABP is to become a first line consent authority there needs to be an appeals body for decisions.
The current requirement for an EIAbeing dependent on “strategic” or “non strategic” development is not adequate.
8. What alternative threshold could apply?
All development within the foreshore should be subject to planning permission. This planning permission could come from the local authorities in the case of a development which is only of local concern or ABP when of national concern.
How we define “local” or “national” needs to be examined.
In both cases a public consultation process and an appeals process need to be developed.
D. Section 4.1.3 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Consent for Foreshore Developments adjoining Land
9. Should this option be pursued as a stand-alone change, or in addition to either or both of the options set at out at 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 above?
The involvement of Local Authorities in the consent process for the foreshore should only be when the proposed development is only of local concern this should never mean that a Public Consultation process or an EIA requirement could be avoided.
E. Section 4.3 of Consultation Document – Proposed Exemptions (from a property perspective)
10. Could other activities requiring a foreshore licence be included in the above approach?
Non-commercial activities
Other foraging (other than seaweed)
While it might be useful to exclude some of these activities from needing a foreshore licence, there should be public consultation processes in place if commercial activities, however small, are to take place on our foreshore.
11. What conditions would need to be attached to safeguard the Department’s role on behalf of the State as property owner?
In order to protect the people’s interests in the foreshore, the Minister, as the property owner on behalf of the people, would need to continue to play a role in the process of proposed activity on the foreshore even if the activity were exempt from a foreshore licence.
However, giving the Minister the sole power to update and review the classes of activity covered by these exemptions without the involvement of the public would be unacceptable.
F. Section 5 of Consultation Document – Ownership of the Foreshore and Estate Management
12. If the foreshore function is to be divided among a number of public bodies, should a single body perform the property management function on behalf of the State?
While it is probably in the interests of democracy to have a number of public bodies involved in the foreshore function it is of vital importance that the public are aware of all the agencies involved, their different responsibilities and how they overlap.
13. Should the assessment of applications for development consent be made by the same authority that has the power to grant a proprietary interest in the foreshore?
The assessment of applications for development consent should be made by the public and the stakeholders in conjunction with the public bodies involved in the foreshore function.
14. Under what process should decisions regarding whether or not to grant an interest or right
in the foreshore (i.e. a licence or a lease) be made?
Best practice in terms of decision making with regards to our foreshore must include a robust and comprehensive public consultation process. This process needs to ensure the involvement of ALL stakeholders, from the individual beach walker to the commercial fishing enterprise, it needs to allow the time for the stake holders to understand the full ramifications of the proposed development and needs to allow for full public inquiries when it comes to actual “strategic development”.
A fundamental part of the process needs to include an EIA in line with European law.
15. Apart from the public interest, what other considerations should be taken into account?
As stated above, public interest, environment, wildlife, special areas of conservation, heritage, culture and national interest are the fundamental considerations that need to be taken into account.
16. Should proprietary decisions require a separate public participation process?
Public participation in all consents on the foreshore is paramount.
**********************************************************************************
Section 3.
Any other observations.
Save Our Seafront became aware of the foreshore licencing process with regards to Providence Resources application to explore for oil within the foreshore of Dublin. In following the process, we noted some very glaring problems with the current process:
1. The public consultation made no effort to effectively consult with the public
2. There was no statutory time in which the Minister had to make a decision
3. The Local Authorites affected were not consulted with.
4. Environmental impacts were not sufficiently considered
5. There is no planning body involved in the decision making process
6. There was no EIA required as the project was not deemed to be a “strategic development” despite the fact the project was an integral part of a greater plan to extract oil in Dublin waters
7. The concerns of over 350 objection to the licence being granted did not seem to be taken into account as the public inquiry that was asked for in these objections was not granted
8. The key issue for people, which was ignored, was that there should be A TOTAL BAN ON ALL OIL/GAS EXPLORATION/ EXTRACTION WITHIN 25 KMS. OF THE SHORELINE, as is the case in Norway and other countries. This should be a central part of the above Bill.
A reforming of the process surrounding the granting of foreshore licences is very much to be welcomed but we will do a disservice to democracy and best practice if these reforms do not address the concerns of environmental protection and public participation in this regard.
Replies should be returned by 1 March 2013, by email or by post:
Foreshore Consultation
Marine Planning and Foreshore Section
Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
Newtown Road
Wexford
Email: foreshore@environ.ie
ON PROPOSED FORESHORE AND MARINE AREA DEVELOPMENT BILL
**********************************************************************************
Please note that all submissions and comments submitted to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for this purpose may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 to 2003 and/or the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 and may also be published on the Department’s website
**********************************************************************************
Part 1.
The information you provide in this Part will assist the Department in evaluating the information provided in Part 2.
Name: SAVE OUR SEAFRONT
Address: c/o 91 Lower Georges Street, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin
Are you:
□….Private Individual □….NGO
□….Industry/ Commercial Entity □….State Sector / Public Body
x….Local Community Group □….Trade/ Professional Body
□….Higher Education / Research □….Political Body / Representative
□….Other (Please Specify) _______________________________________________
Please indicate the area(s) of your interest in the Foreshore:
□….Current Lease/ Licence Holder □….Electricity Transmission
□….Energy (Wind) □….Energy (Wave)
□….Energy (Tidal) □….Energy (Oil/ Gas)
x….Environmental Protection x….Fisheries/ Aquaculture
x ….Leisure/ Tourism □….Municipal/ Local Authority
x….Shipping/Transport □….Telecommunications
□….Other (Please specify)
**********************************************************************************
Part 2. Questions on Consultation Document
A. Section 3 of Consultation Document - A Proposed Marine Area
1. Given the legislative framework and rights to resources that already exist, would there be a tangible benefit to the establishment in law of a new Marine Area?
The current legal framework that governs the Foreshore, the continental shelf and the EEZ as well as the Petroleum and other Minerals Development act offers minimal opportunity for public consultation and lack transparency.
The awareness in recent years of the impact of development and resource exploitation on our environment is to be welcomed but is not reflected in the current legislation. The establishment of a new Marine Area would be welcomed IF it had at its base a commitment to environmental protection and robust and comprehensive public consultation processes.
2. If yes, what public body might be best placed to act as the consent authority for development within such a Marine Area?
Development in such a Marine Area is, in some instances, of purely local concern but in many instances of national concern. Considering this it would be appropriate to have a combination of consent authorities which include the Local Authorities, An Bord Pleanala and the relevant departments (Marine or Environment.)
Any change in the consent process has to involve a new and improved public consultation process in line with the Aarhus Convention
3. As an alternative to such an approach, should the proposed reforms of the foreshore system be aligned with the existing framework governing the Continental Shelf and EEZ (rather than amalgamating all three)?
The frameworks governing the Foreshore, the Continental Shelf and the EEZ all need reforming and updating to reflect modern technologies, modern understanding of environmental impacts and most importantly to include the EU directives which govern public consultation processes and environmental impact assessments.
However, there are also separate interests to be considered in each of the three areas of the Marine Area.
Therefore new legislation that governs the whole Marine Area will only be useful if it takes into account the needs outlined above.
B. Section 4.1.1 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Strategic Consent System
4. If this option alone were pursued, would the reforms be sufficient to facilitate development of the sort envisaged in Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth?
No. Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth aims to prioritise the wealth in our oceans as a means to national recovery. However, the current licencing arrangements for oil and gas exploration, for example, are such that this sort of development will have no impact on our national recovery and only serves to facilitate multi nationals. Any plan to “harness our ocean wealth” must involve an overhaul of the legislation surrounding oil and gas exploration and fishing.
Any such plan must also be balanced with protecting our environment.
The current proposal only deals with the consent system and not with any plan to develop our natural resources as an aid to national recovery.
5. How can the sequencing between development consent and securing a proprietary right in the foreshore (i.e. a licence or lease) be managed in a way that supports timely and efficient decision making?
Before we try to “support” timely and efficient decision making we must define what “timely and efficient” means.
The current public consultation process is neither timely nor efficient in terms of including the public and stakeholders.
The only way to support a decision making process which is both timely and efficient is to overhaul the whole public consultation process.
Currently a public consultation process can involve as little as a notice in a paper, a library or a public building, a short period of 21 days for non-experts to understand the full implications of an application, and a narrow definition of stake holders.
The Aarhus Convention proclaims that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of citizens, that individuals should have access to information concerning the environment and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Access to remedial measures and redress should also be provided.
In line with this convention a full public inquiry would seem appropriate for all developments in the foreshore. A comprehensive inquiry would mean that real efficiency and timeliness would be achieved.
The plans for a new strategic consent system propose An Bord Pleanala as the operators of consent for strategic infrastructure.
While including An Bord Pleanala in the process of consent on the foreshore is to be welcomed, the proposal is problematic, as there is currently no appeals process for a decision from ABP, this would need to be established.
The definition of “strategic infrastructure” as defined in the planning acts is too narrow. Much of what is defined as “non-strategic infrastructure” can be part of a plan for strategic infrastructure. So, for example, a seismic survey within the foreshore is considered “non strategic”. If such a seismic survey reveals the possibility of oil/gas deposits it could indeed lead to “strategic development”. This false dichotomy between strategic and non strategic needs to be eliminated to guard against project splitting as defined in ECJ case C-227/01.
6. Would the availability of a lease/licence option as described be sufficient?
No
C. Section 4.1.2 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Consent System for Mid-Level Projects
7. Is the requirement for EIA the appropriate threshold by which to determine whether ABP is the consent authority?
As per point 5 above if ABP is to become a first line consent authority there needs to be an appeals body for decisions.
The current requirement for an EIAbeing dependent on “strategic” or “non strategic” development is not adequate.
8. What alternative threshold could apply?
All development within the foreshore should be subject to planning permission. This planning permission could come from the local authorities in the case of a development which is only of local concern or ABP when of national concern.
How we define “local” or “national” needs to be examined.
In both cases a public consultation process and an appeals process need to be developed.
D. Section 4.1.3 of Consultation Document – A Streamlined Consent for Foreshore Developments adjoining Land
9. Should this option be pursued as a stand-alone change, or in addition to either or both of the options set at out at 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 above?
The involvement of Local Authorities in the consent process for the foreshore should only be when the proposed development is only of local concern this should never mean that a Public Consultation process or an EIA requirement could be avoided.
E. Section 4.3 of Consultation Document – Proposed Exemptions (from a property perspective)
10. Could other activities requiring a foreshore licence be included in the above approach?
Non-commercial activities
Other foraging (other than seaweed)
While it might be useful to exclude some of these activities from needing a foreshore licence, there should be public consultation processes in place if commercial activities, however small, are to take place on our foreshore.
11. What conditions would need to be attached to safeguard the Department’s role on behalf of the State as property owner?
In order to protect the people’s interests in the foreshore, the Minister, as the property owner on behalf of the people, would need to continue to play a role in the process of proposed activity on the foreshore even if the activity were exempt from a foreshore licence.
However, giving the Minister the sole power to update and review the classes of activity covered by these exemptions without the involvement of the public would be unacceptable.
F. Section 5 of Consultation Document – Ownership of the Foreshore and Estate Management
12. If the foreshore function is to be divided among a number of public bodies, should a single body perform the property management function on behalf of the State?
While it is probably in the interests of democracy to have a number of public bodies involved in the foreshore function it is of vital importance that the public are aware of all the agencies involved, their different responsibilities and how they overlap.
13. Should the assessment of applications for development consent be made by the same authority that has the power to grant a proprietary interest in the foreshore?
The assessment of applications for development consent should be made by the public and the stakeholders in conjunction with the public bodies involved in the foreshore function.
14. Under what process should decisions regarding whether or not to grant an interest or right
in the foreshore (i.e. a licence or a lease) be made?
Best practice in terms of decision making with regards to our foreshore must include a robust and comprehensive public consultation process. This process needs to ensure the involvement of ALL stakeholders, from the individual beach walker to the commercial fishing enterprise, it needs to allow the time for the stake holders to understand the full ramifications of the proposed development and needs to allow for full public inquiries when it comes to actual “strategic development”.
A fundamental part of the process needs to include an EIA in line with European law.
15. Apart from the public interest, what other considerations should be taken into account?
As stated above, public interest, environment, wildlife, special areas of conservation, heritage, culture and national interest are the fundamental considerations that need to be taken into account.
16. Should proprietary decisions require a separate public participation process?
Public participation in all consents on the foreshore is paramount.
**********************************************************************************
Section 3.
Any other observations.
Save Our Seafront became aware of the foreshore licencing process with regards to Providence Resources application to explore for oil within the foreshore of Dublin. In following the process, we noted some very glaring problems with the current process:
1. The public consultation made no effort to effectively consult with the public
2. There was no statutory time in which the Minister had to make a decision
3. The Local Authorites affected were not consulted with.
4. Environmental impacts were not sufficiently considered
5. There is no planning body involved in the decision making process
6. There was no EIA required as the project was not deemed to be a “strategic development” despite the fact the project was an integral part of a greater plan to extract oil in Dublin waters
7. The concerns of over 350 objection to the licence being granted did not seem to be taken into account as the public inquiry that was asked for in these objections was not granted
8. The key issue for people, which was ignored, was that there should be A TOTAL BAN ON ALL OIL/GAS EXPLORATION/ EXTRACTION WITHIN 25 KMS. OF THE SHORELINE, as is the case in Norway and other countries. This should be a central part of the above Bill.
A reforming of the process surrounding the granting of foreshore licences is very much to be welcomed but we will do a disservice to democracy and best practice if these reforms do not address the concerns of environmental protection and public participation in this regard.
Replies should be returned by 1 March 2013, by email or by post:
Foreshore Consultation
Marine Planning and Foreshore Section
Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
Newtown Road
Wexford
Email: foreshore@environ.ie
