4.

asked the Minister for Regional Develop­ment if he will make a statement on the consultation process on the closure of the Knockmore railway line.

(AQO 27/01)

The Assembly Budget of 18 December 2000 did not provide sufficient resources for the retention of services on the Antrim to Knockmore line. Con­sequently, Northern Ireland Railways had to initiate the statutory consultation procedures to discontinue services on the line in accordance with section 60 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

More than 1,000 letters of objection to the proposal were received during the statutory process. Three cases indicated genuine hardship that could not be alleviated by the proposed substitute bus service. Subsequently I commissioned an equality impact assessment on the discontinuation of services on the line. A consultation paper was issued on 31 August to a large range of consultees. The consultation process will remain open for a period of 12 weeks and will close on 23 November.

Can the Minister confirm that the 1,000 letters that were received - from groups such as the Crumlin Community Group, the Upper Ballinderry Group, Crumlin High School and St Joseph's Primary School, Crumlin - demonstrated a high degree of individual hardship, community hardship and social deprivation? Will he agree that a bus substitution scheme will not adequately deal with the general feeling of deprivation that will be brought about by the closure of the scheme? Will the Minister join with me in saying that it should remain open?

I readily join with the Member in concurring that there were a substantial number of replies. Unfortunately I am faced with a resource problem. I have been, and I am, concerned about trying to keep the line open. I ensured that a limited service would remain open in order to bridge the time until closure was likely. I also introduced free fares for the elderly in order to give more people an opportunity to use the line so that we could reassess the issue.

However, none of those things deals with the fact that the resources required to keep the line open are simply not available, and that leaves me in a difficult position. I am doing what I can to ensure that the line remains open and I will make additional bids for resources in order to ensure that it stays open. If that attempt fails, the Assembly will have to vote on whether to retain the line and the existing resources or to sanction closure.

I thank the Minister for the reply to the question. More importantly, I welcome the recent issue of a consultation document on the matter, as it affects my constituents in South Antrim. Will the Minister consider my suggestion that he, as part of the consultation process, make himself available for a meeting? The Member representing Lagan Valley (Mr Close) and I will not disagree about the location, since our two constituencies are directly concerned. Will the Minister meet people who are directly involved in the campaign to keep the line open and hear their concerns?

I went on site the day I announced the extension of the service for approximately 12 months. I would have no difficulty in going back on site again. However, I will leave it for Members to decide the most appropriate location. I would prefer to do so once we have reached the conclusion of the consultation exercise, which has just opened in the past week. It would be improper for me to go along at this point.

Many people will appreciate the Minister's intervention in the issue. The Minister must know that the railway service in Northern Ireland has issued glossy brochures which have highlighted and gloried in the continuation of railway services, especially identifying the Belfast circle line, which takes in Belfast, Lisburn, and Antrim. Surely it is insufficient to have glossy brochures glorying in this if the service were to be removed. The Assembly must take the bull by the horns and allow the money to be allocated to ensure that this service is retained.

I have received extensive lobbying on the issue from a range of public representatives, including the hon Member Dr McCrea, who led delegations, lobbied, campaigned and asked me to go on site, as did others. I am exercised about the issue, but none of this delivers the additional resources to me. I am conscious of the need to respond positively. I want to do so, and I can simply concur with the hon Member's comments and look forward to the unanimous support of the House when I ask for the money to carry out their wishes.

5.

asked the Minister for Regional Develop­ment to detail the current position in regard to the north Down sewage works; and to make a statement.

(AQO 98/01)

A new waste water treatment works, estimated to cost £35 million, is planned to serve the Bangor, Donaghadee and Millisle areas. Two sites have been shortlisted. I have set up a working party comprising representatives of North Down Borough Council and Ards Borough Council to review the suitability of the criteria and processes used in site selection. The first meeting of the working party was held on 10 August, and further meetings are proposed. I hope that the review can be completed in the next few months and a consensus reached between the councils and the Depart­ment. That being the case, it would enable a decision to be made on the site for the proposed new works very early in the new year.

I congratulate the Minister on the work that he has done on this matter. As you know, it has been going on for some years, and I am glad to hear that there has been some progress. Will the Minister issue a progress statement to the concerned residents at the two sites? They have been waiting four to five years to find out exactly what is happening. A progress statement from the Minister would be useful.

I would be happy to consider issuing a progress statement to the residents. I remind the House of the difficulties involved in this complex arena. I was at a meeting of Ards Borough Council on this issue some time ago. Most visits to councils that I undertake involve a range of opinions on a variety of topics. On that particular day, there was one opinion on that topic. The division that the location of the waste water treatment works has caused has been part of the problem in being unable to come to a conclusion.

That was the reason for my establishment of the working party. Obviously I will want to see consensus emerging, and I hope that it will. I will discuss the matter with my officials after the next meeting, and that should occur very shortly. At that point I will be happy to consider an up-to-date statement so that everyone will know exactly where we are and how long it will be before we reach the likely conclusion.

The Minister has touched on it, but my question is a follow-through from the water treatment works itself. Does the Minister agree that the best site for such a water treatment works would be in north Down, and that it would be the most cost-effective option? How will he ensure that the strong opinion of Ards Borough Council and all its residents will be upheld?

I genuinely thank the Member for reinforcing the difficulty that this problem has brought about from day one. Any humour aside, we had, not precisely the same problem, but a similar problem, in Omagh, where there was a dispute and difference about the location of a waste water treatment works. I was reluctant to simply proceed to one site in the face of opposition from some residents. We managed, through a protracted series of meetings, to get broad consensus. I do not think that it is possible in these situations to ever get 100%, but we got very close to it in Omagh. I hope that we can do the same with this plant. The hon Member will understand if I decline his request to state emphatically where the waste water treatment works should be in advance of the working party reporting.

Driving past the north down sewage works at Holywood last night, I noticed that the site is still giving off its less-than-fragrant whiff. What is the current position there, and when will the new works be accepted into service and be fully active so that the people of Holywood can have some respite?

The hon Member will appreciate that not having had advance notification of the question, I do not have a ready-made response. I will ensure that he is written to as a matter of urgency.

6.

asked the Minister for Regional Development if he has any plans to introduce free passage for senior citizens using the Portaferry/Strangford ferry.

(AQO 22/01)

13.

asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what steps will be taken to introduce free travel for senior citizens on the Strangford ferry service; and to make a statement.

(AQO 51/01)

18.

asked the Minister for Regional Development to make it his policy to extend his free fares for the elderly scheme to the Strangford ferry; and to make a statement.

(AQO 58/01)

I will take questions 6, 13 and 18 together, as they all relate to the same issue.

I am very sympathetic to the proposals contained in the questions posed by Mr McCarthy, Mr McGrady, and Mrs Iris Robinson. As part of the Roads Service's review of fares for the ferry service, I will be considering the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel for senior citizens on public transport to include those travelling as foot passengers or passengers in cars on the ferry. I will make a further statement on this matter when the review of fares has been completed.

I am very disappointed at the response, in view of the fact that this should have been included in the free transport for all senior citizens. Furthermore, great concerns are now being expressed by the workforce of that ferry service about the threat to jobs and conditions should it be taken over by the private sector. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the Department's staff on the ferry service will not be sacrificed simply for the dogma of privatisation?

I am surprised that the Member is disappointed that I will consider the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel, which is what he asked me to do. I am surprised that he is disappointed that I have agreed, not only with what Mr McCarthy has asked for, but also with what Mr McGrady has written to me about and with what Mrs Robinson wrote to me and came to see me about. I am surprised that that is the case.

I will consider that feasibility. When the review of fares has been completed I will want to make an announce­ment. I do not want to pre-empt that review. As for the possibility of the ferry going into the private sector, I am the Minister for Regional Development and I have no knowledge of any such acquisition.

Environment

I wish to advise Members that question 13, in the name of Mr Sammy Wilson, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development, and will receive a written answer. Question 17, in the name of Mrs Carmel Hanna, has been withdrawn.

1.

asked the Minister of the Environ­ment to comment on the success or otherwise of the Malone conservation area in south Belfast; and to make a statement.

(AQO 76/01)

The Malone conservation area was established in August 2000 in recognition of the area's special townscape merits. Planning policy statement 6, 'Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage', sets out my Department's planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas.

Designation as a conservation area introduces control over the demolition of unlisted buildings in the area. Anyone wishing to demolish a building must first apply to my Department for conservation area consent. It is a criminal offence to carry out such work without consent. Designation as a conservation area also brings with it a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area.

Since designation, this has been the prime consideration for my Department in assessing the acceptability of development proposals in the Malone area. Recent decisions by the Planning Appeals Commission have endorsed the Department's approach and recognised the significance of the conservation area designation in considering development proposals.

Designation of the Malone area has therefore increased the weight attached to conservation of the built heritage in the area. It has also addressed local concerns, expressed prior to designation, regarding the level of uncontrolled demolition. Judged on these terms, I consider at this early stage that the designation has been beneficial in helping to conserve the built heritage of the area.

I know that it is early days, and current information may indicate that it has been beneficial, but I put it to the Minister that there is still a fair amount of raping and pillaging of south Belfast in the developmental sense. Quite a lot of the development is fairly ruthless and tasteless, in its own way.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concerns in the Cleaver area about the plans to destroy 94 Malone Road? How they intend dislodging number 94 from number 96, which is closely attached to it, I do not know. Both are buildings of considerable merit; one is to be replaced with 14 or 16 town houses. The people who live there are not totally against reasonable development, but they are deeply concerned because an adjacent site at 102 Malone Road has approval for what they consider to be reasonably acceptable development. That development has been reviewed, and planning permission has had to be sought again. Is the Minister aware of the serious concern that while the conservation area designation has done a bit, it has not done enough, and is not strong enough against difficult developments?

Many applications for development within the Malone area are currently being assessed. Many of these may be viewed as controversial to some extent because this is a highly desirable residential area in which both the existing residents and developers have a keen interest. In June 2001 the Planning Service received applications for the demolition of the Ulster Teacher's Union building at the junction of Cleaver Park, 94 Malone Road, and the erection of 15 apartments in two blocks linked by a stairwell and overpass, and an associated application for consent to demolish an existing building within the conservation area. There is another application in that area, and these applications are at an early stage in the planning process.

Consultation responses have not been received and the time period for public comment has not yet expired. As one of the applications relates to a listed building consent, the views of the Environment and Heritage Service will be fundamental to the determination of the applications. Opinions, of course, will be placed before Belfast City Council for consultation before any decisions later this year.

Many South Belfast constituents have greatly welcomed the Minister's initiative in introducing the conservation area, but I suppose the implication of Dr McDonnell's question is the problem of houses immediately beyond the boundary as well. Redevelopment has typically involved the replacement of large Edwardian or Victorian family dwellings with large numbers of flats and apartments, with implications of greater car ownership and traffic in the area. Does the Minister therefore accept that in the future the closest possible collaboration between the Planning Service and the Roads Service must be exercised in making decisions about what is sustainable new housing development within that broad area?

We work in conjunction insofar as any application is concerned. Consideration is given and consultation undertaken, and no planning exercise is taken lightly. Planning policy statement 6, 'Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage' sets out my Depart­ment's current planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas. There is a presumption in favour of retaining any building which makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area, while new development proposals should respect townscape and retain the overall integrity of the area. As Members may be aware, work has recently commenced on the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. This will consider the need for specific planning policies for the conservation areas in the plan area, including the Malone area.

2.

asked the Minister of the Environ­ment to detail the planning procedures used by his Department in the application at Giant's Causeway known as the Nook.

(AQO 5/01)

My Department received two planning applications and two related applications for listed building consent for a dwelling at 48 Causeway Road, Bushmills, on 4 May 2001. The dwelling, which is a listed building, is referred to locally as the Nook. These four applications were for two alternative proposals. One involved a change of use of the existing building with minimal modifications to its fabric and structure. The other changed the use of the building and proposed a substantial side extension which almost doubled the floor area of the existing building. The applications were advertised, neighbours were notified in the usual manner and appropriate consultations were carried out.

The applications were appraised with regard to all relevant development plans and policy documents including planning policy statement 6, 'Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage', planning policy 1, 'General Principles: A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland' the North East Area Plan. Given the location of the development proposal and the issues raised with me in the course of considering the planning applications, I took a close interest in their consideration and made the final decision myself.

As a result, I determined that the application should be approved, and my Department issued approvals, both for a full planning and listed building consent on Friday 10 August 2001. I am satisfied that the applications were processed consistent with all standard procedures, that all the necessary consultations were carried out and that the advice of consultees was considered and taken into account.

All objections and representations were fully considered. The proposals were thoroughly appraised with regard to all development plan and policy documents, and all relevant material considerations were properly assessed.

Does the Minister agree that the intention expressed by the National Trust in its autumn/ winter magazine to seek a judicial review of the Department of the Environment's policy on this matter and on the application is a waste of National Trust resources, given the procedures that the Minister has so carefully outlined to the House? Will the Minister assure the House that in all future applications at the Giant's Causeway, the Department of the Environment will not become the "meat in the sandwich" of a commercial bidding war for valuable sites in that area?

The Department of the Environment takes objective decisions on all such applications. I understand that the National Trust has publicly stated that it will seek a judicial review of my decision. However, it has not yet sought leave of the courts to do so. In the circumstances, Members will understand that I do not wish to comment further on this matter.

The Minister will be aware that such are the feelings about the application, as evidenced by the judicial review threat, that several concerned parties are considering taking this matter further under the human rights legislation, as the current legislation does not provide for third-party appeals and is a violation of their human rights.

What is your question?

It is not repetitive, unlike some. Has the Minister or the Department of the Environment sought legal advice on whether the current legislation for planning appeals, which does not provide for third- party appeals, is in contravention of the human rights legislation?

With regard to third-party appeals, I understand from the Alconbury case in England that the planning authority was not against human rights issues. However, that has not yet been proven.

In determining the applications I satisfied myself of the scale, character and detailed design and layout of the proposed development; and that the topography of the surrounding area and the character of the site and its curtilage were such that the proposals could be satisfactorily integrated into their surroundings without having a detrimental impact on the Giant's Causeway or its setting.

I also satisfied myself that the whole development - including the proposed extension - would be in keeping with the existing building and the surrounding area; and that the proposed change of use would secure the upkeep and survival of this important listed building and would preserve its character and architecture for historic interest.

The decision has been made. The Department may be subject to a judicial review, and if that happens, so be it.

I asked whether the Minister had sought any advice -

Mr McCartney, you have asked your question.

3.

asked the Minister of the Environ­ment to detail what progress has been made towards the designation of the Mournes as a national park; and to make a statement.

(AQO 49/01)

My officials have prepared a report on national parks and on areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The issues covered, including the involvement of local communities and the need to resource any manage­ment bodies, are complex and require careful consideration. I am considering the report and I will be sending it to the Committee for the Environment soon. I look forward to receiving its views and I will issue a statement on the way forward when I have the benefit of those views.

In view of the proposals under consideration I have no plans at present to designate a national park in the Mournes. However, the Mournes will continue to benefit from the protection given by their status as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

As the Minister knows, the Mournes were designated an area of outstanding natural beauty many years ago. That is not the problem. The problem is that the demands of farmers, fishermen, small industries, commercial enterprises, rural dwellers, day trippers and full-time tourists are having an enormous impact on the Mournes, and if we get peace the problem will be exacerbated.

Does the Minister agree that it is unnecessary to fulfil a programme of other areas of outstanding natural beauty before addressing the issue of creating a new, unique- to-Northern Ireland type of national park to which the Mourne Heritage Trust is already committed as represent­ative of these dimensions? Can he not progress the matter further and more quickly? As time goes on the damage is being done.

I can understand Mr McGrady's annoyance. He has pursued this issue several times and it is not an easy one to resolve. I hope to make an announcement on the way forward before the end of the year.

Careful consideration needs to be given to what type of park might be established here, and what its practical implications might be. We are not taking about publicly- owned land nor vast areas of remote countryside so careful consideration needs to be given to the admin­istration of any proposed park and the relationships with any existing or future local government structures.

Regarding the request of the Member for South Down (Mr McGrady) for the designation of the Mournes as a national park, would the Minister agree that a Province-wide study should be carried out with the aim of determining whether several areas should be designated as national parks? In addition, would he consider the need for an impartial advisory committee, representing a wide range of interested groups, to oversee the project?

We have beautiful countryside throughout Northern Ireland, but I do not think that it would be feasible to designate all parts of Northern Ireland as a national park. There are areas of outstanding natural beauty, which have been recognised. However, in some parts of the Province people object to areas of outstanding natural beauty being designated. The fear is that there may be further planning obstacles when these people make planning applications. However, I can assure the Member that these issues do not go unrecognised, and they will be pursued in the course of time.

In relation to the Mournes, would the Minister agree that the great concern of a number of local people is that planning permissions are still being given - in this area of natural beauty - and that there is no third-party appeal system to allow people to have their human rights upheld?

Will the Minister answer the question asked by the honourable and learned gentleman for North Down, Mr McCartney? Will he confirm that his Department received legal advice that indicated that, as things stand, his Department does not have the necessary procedures in place to successfully stave off any challenge that would be made under the human rights legislation?

My Department pursues all areas before it approves or refuses an application. The matter of third-party appeals is a difficult one. We have discussed it. At the present time, to introduce third-party appeals would prolong the situation within the planning system. Quite often we are knocked for having such a long planning approval process. The situation - and I think it was Alconbury that the Member referred to - is that it has not been found that the planning system was against -[Interruption].

This is a different issue.

This is not a different issue, Mr McCartney.

I have read that case very closely.

As it is understood by the Department and myself, what we are doing insofar as planning is concerned, and without the present third-party appeals, is well within human rights legislation and is acceptable.

4.

asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads for the first six months of this year and to indicate if projected road safety targets are expected to be met for 2001.

(AQO 109/01)

There were 67 people killed and 789 people seriously injured on Northern Ireland's roads between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2001. During the same period last year 81 people died and 826 were seriously injured. Provisional figures indicate that by 9 September 2001, 96 people had died compared with 109 by the same date last year. Figures for serious injuries after June 2001 are not yet available.

While I welcome the lower number of serious road casualties so far, it is not possible to predict what the final outcome will be for the full year.

I sincerely hope that the level of road casualties will continue to decline, and I urge all road users to contribute to that by behaving responsibly on our roads at all times.

I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the reduction in casualties. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the professionalism of their current television advertising campaign relating to road safety issues. Can the Minister assure the House that the campaign will be closely monitored for impact, and intensified if necessary? Will the Minister ensure that the message about death and injury on our roads is transmitted by all relevant means and targeted at young people in the hope that Northern Ireland will cease to be a place where so many young road users regularly lose their lives in accidents that are totally avoidable?

This is one of the issues that my Department and I take very personally. Road safety is a big issue and we will pursue it as far as we possibly can. I can assure the Member and the House that we will go to whatever lengths we can, within the system, to ensure that road tragedy eases considerably. We would love to see it cease completely, but it is no use pretending that that is possible.

The Department of the Environment focuses many of its publicity and education efforts on young drivers. In the United Kingdom the 17-to-24 age group represents 11% of driving licence holders but is involved in 25% of fatal and serious injury collisions. The 17-to-20 age group is 10 times more likely to be killed in a road crash than 35 to 54-year-olds. Sadly, it seems that young men are the main offenders when it comes to excessive speeding, drinking and driving, and failure to wear seat belts. While recent campaigns target young men in particular, the message I want to get through is equally relevant to other road users, young and old, male and female.

Does the Minister agree that road safety issues are often raised when people make objections to planning applications? These objectors often feel that their right of appeal has been withheld because of the current planning laws. I give the Minister his third opportunity of the day to tell the House whether or not his Department has received legal opinion that indicates that, given the current absence of third-party planning appeals, the Minister is not complying with human rights legislation.

That question is not relevant and the Minister may prefer not to answer it.

There seems to be an element of doubt and concern in three recent references to me in relation to our legal standing. In order to clarify the matter, I will ensure that the three Members concerned receive a written answer from my Department.

5.

asked the Minister of the Environ­ment to detail what action he is taking following Her Majesty's Government's initiative to develop a strategy for the conservation, protection and management of nationally important marine wildlife through a regional seas pilot scheme.

(AQO 96/01)

It is widely accepted that current practice for managing the marine environment in the European Union is unsustainable. An alternative approach was put forward in the recent review of marine nature conservation issued by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Rather than apply uniform policies throughout EU waters, this regional seas approach would operate within defined and reasonably uniform areas. Its purpose would be to address the results of each of the activities affecting the marine ecosystem and develop tailored management regimes. My Department is co-operating with the Countryside Council for Wales on the potential of this approach and the sustainable management of fisheries in the Irish Sea. It is also considering an approach from England's North West Coastal Forum to explore other aspects of regional seas management using the Irish Sea as a pilot area. Both studies will address wildlife issues.

Can the Minister say whether the review of marine nature conservation (RMNC) has considered the draft specification for the regional seas scheme and if the Irish Sea has been chosen as a candidate area for the pilot scheme? If so, is that not a good reason for the Department to accelerate the establishment of a coastal forum rather than put it on the long finger?

When speaking about a coastal forum, I refer to the North West Coastal Forum's regional seas pilot study. I understand that this project proposes bringing existing Great Britain partnerships together with partners in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. It seeks to improve the planning and management of the Irish Sea and give a holistic approach to resource management issues. The Irish Sea would no doubt be an ideal location for testing this regional seas approach.

I have consulted with colleagues in other Departments about the merits of the concept of establishing a Northern Ireland coastal forum. Integrated coastal zone management is another issue on which the European Union is keen to see progress. In the light of these factors, I have asked my officials to arrange for a scoping study to be carried out to examine the issues that such a body would address, its potential membership and the resources it would require. I am not sure if I have answered the Member's question, but that is the information that I have.

6.

asked the Minister of the Environ­ment to detail the action taken by his Department to reduce the ecological effects of zebra mussels on flora and fauna in Lough Erne.

(AQO 91/01)

Now that zebra mussels have become established in Lough Erne, I am afraid that there are no practical measures that can be taken to reduce their ecological effects there. My Department is working with the support of an interdepartmental zebra mussel control group on an awareness-raising campaign to stop their spread to other lakes. This is important, given the impossibility of removing zebra mussels once they have become established.

The Minister will agree that this is a disastrous situation for the Erne system. Can he assure the Assembly that appropriate action will be taken to counteract the spread of the mussels to other parts of Northern Ireland? Every weekend trailers and boats travel to all parts of the Province from the Erne system. What does the Department intend to do about that?

Being a member of the community in the Fermanagh area near Lough Erne, I am conversant with what is taking place. Sadly, the zebra mussels have taken hold there. The interdepartmental group runs an awareness campaign aimed at limiting the spread of zebra mussels, and it is planning further research into their impact and into potential control measures.

The leaflet 'Zebra Mussels in Northern Ireland' published in June 2000 highlights the potential problem to users and anglers and outlines precautions that must be taken to prevent the spread of this nuisance to other waterways in Northern Ireland. These leaflets have been widely distributed through boating and angling outlets.

A zebra mussel newsletter was published in June 2001 which provides information on their impact in Lough Erne to date. The public awareness campaign is specifically targeted at the most vulnerable lakes, including Lough Melvin, Lough Neagh and several clusters of small lakes. Unfortunately, this problem has gripped Lough Erne, and we do not want it to spread to any other lake in Northern Ireland. I advise people to pay attention to the documentation that has been issued on the control of zebra mussels, because once they arrive they are difficult, if not impossible, to exclude. I encourage people to take great precautions with the keels of boats and ensure that they hose them off before taking them to different waters.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>