DÁIL ÉIREANN AN COMHCHOISTE UM EALAÍONA, OIDHREACHT, GNÓTHAÍ RÉIGIÚNACHA, TUAITHE AGUS GAELTACHTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON ARTS, HERITAGE, REGIONAL, RURAL AND GAEL- TACHT AFFAIRS Dé Céadaoin, 18 Eanáir 2017 Wednesday, 18 January 2017 The Joint Committee met at0 9 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Ciarán Cannon, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, Deputy Michael Collins, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív. In attendance: Deputy Noel Grealish and Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh. DEPUTY PEADAR TÓIBÍN IN THE CHAIR. 1 JAHRRGA Business of Joint Committee Chairman: I advise members to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the sound equipment and will interfere with the broadcasting of their mellifluous voices. Apologies have been received from Deputy Niamh Smyth. I propose we go into private session to deal with a number of matters. Is that agreed? The joint committee went into private session at 9.15 a.m. and resumed in public session at 9.45 a.m. Sustaining Viable Rural Communities: Discussion (Resumed) Chairman: By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protect- ed by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If, however, they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Opening statements and other documents submitted to the committee may be published on its website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. This is one of a series of meetings the committee is holding to consider the particular issues involved and the development of regions throughout the State. I ask Mr. Fitzgerald to make his opening statement. Mr. John Fitzgerald: I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee. We had largely understood the subject matter in our appearance would mainly be the N59, on which we are working with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In the past few days and again this morning we received notification that various members wanted to speak about different roads. I have not been briefed on all of them and I am not sure if the issues are being raised in the context of our role with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, but we are happy to discuss them with the committee. We thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss the N59 road project. With a broad range of functions, including in the areas of rural affairs and regional development, the Department is fully cognisant of the importance of the project to the western region and keen to assist in whatever way it can to ensure it is delivered in a way that is compliant with national and European Law. The N59 stretches from south of Sligo town, through County Mayo and Connemara, to Galway city, but the portion in which we are interested today is the portion in County Galway stretching from Oughterard to Clifden. The project encompasses two separate but related de- velopment projects – the Oughterard to Maam Cross and the Maam Cross to Clifden projects. 2 18 JANUARY 2017 The development of the Oughterard to Maam Cross section of the N59 was approved by An Bord Pleanála in December 2013. The board made its decision at the time subject to certain conditions. The Department’s involvement at this stage of the road project is very unusual. In the normal course of events, when an application is approved by a planning authority, whether it be a county council or An Bord Pleanála, following consideration of observations made by a range of statutory consultees under planning law, including the Department and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, such a development is free to proceed without further reference to the Department. In this instance, however, the role of the Department post-consent arises from an unusual condition attached to the planning permission imposed by An Bord Pleanála. It provides, “Prior to the commencement of construction, the Construction Stage Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and all method statements will be finalised by the construction stage contractor and will be subject to the approval of Galway County Council and the Agreement of NPWS and IFI”. This condition was proposed by Galway County Council at the second oral hearing during the planning process. It is our understanding such a condition was included to ensure, inter alia, that the project would proceed in a manner consistent with Ireland’s legal obligations under the habitats directive which all public authorities, including Galway County Council, are required to fulfil. Eight method statements have been submitted by Galway County Council to the Depart- ment. Unfortunately, it has not always been possible for the Department to approve the method statements submitted for a range of reasons, including because they had not been approved by the council in the first instance prior to submission, inconsistencies in data presented or because of the omission of or uncertainty attached to key information. On such occasions, the council was requested to provide the outstanding information or revise and resubmit the method state- ments in accordance with the terms of the planning permission. To date, two of these have been approved by the Department. To ensure a more unified approach to the development, on this Department’s initiative, senior officials from the Department and the then Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government met the chief executive and other senior officials of Galway County Council on 27 April last to discuss the project. The purpose of the meeting was to see how the project could proceed as quickly as possible in compliance with Irish law, European nature directives, the council’s obligations and, in particular, having regard to the freshwater pearl mussel, of which there is a significant and important population in the Owenriff river. The freshwater pearl mussel is protected and is an extremely sensitive species that is dy- ing out in many places. As Ireland has a large proportion of the European population of these mussels, the Commission has paid particular attention to activities here that might be harmful. Indeed, following the An Bord Pleanála decision of December 2013, the Commission contacted Ireland and raised concerns about the impact of the project on the pearl mussel. We understand that a number of complaints related to the board’s decision were made to the Commission as well. Since 2006, an ongoing legal process has been under way with the Commission. Thus far, Ireland has managed to prevent an escalation to a full case before the European Court of Justice. In this instance, primary responsibility for complying with the European nature law lies with Galway County Council as the developer and, as such, the need to ensure compliance with European law was fully endorsed by all at the meeting. It was agreed that the Department would work with the county council to see how best the project could proceed. This approach was subsequently endorsed on 15 June last year at a meeting chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Kyne, and attended by Oireachtas representatives from west Galway, officials of Galway County Council 3 JAHRRGA and officials of our Department. On 16 September 2016, officials from the Department travelled to Galway to meet council officials to see what practical steps could be taken to move on the project. It was agreed that the best approach would be to progress the road project section by section. The idea behind this was to allow the development to advance by progressing the less sensitive sections of the road quickly. In parallel, it was agreed to continue to explore how best to deal with the more chal- lenging sections. At that meeting, the Department gave a commitment that it would review and respond to method statements submitted to us within ten days of receipt. We understand that the local authority is making arrangements for the preparation of a method statement for the Maam Cross to Bunakill section now. This is approximately 5 km from Maam Cross to the edge of the pearl mussel catchment. While this is still awaited from the council, at this point the Department does not envisage any significant problems advanc- ing that part of the road. In the meantime, it is also understood that Galway County Council is considering upgrading the surface of the other sections of the road. We understand that this is not being put forward by the council as a long term solution but rather is intended to improve the road on an interim basis while the council charts the best way forward to develop the entire route. At this point, it is largely a matter for the council to decide how best to progress the re- mainder of the road project. The Department has engaged with, and has provided advice to, the developer, that is, Gal- way County Council, throughout the pre-planning stage for the Maam Cross-to-Clifden section of the road project.