Likely Landuse Planning Issues Gavin Lawlor MIPI Tom Phillips + Associates

Transcription

1 SEVESO III Likely Landuse Planning Issues Gavin Lawlor MIPI Tom Phillips + Associates Friday, 21 June 2013 Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 Slide 1

2 Presenter Gavin Lawlor Gavin Lawlor, Director of Tom Phillips + Associates, Town Planning Consultants 18 years experience as a Planning Consultant MRUP with a primary degree in Social Science Specialise in Industrial projects, alternative and conventional energy projects, mining, quarries and Pharma projects. Slide 2

3 Most Planners Don t Understand What Lies behind a Seveso designation they Rely on the Technical Advices from the HSA. Slide 3

4 Four Key Segments 1. Experience to Date 2. What s Changing? 3. Likely Impact on LUP Going Forward 4. Issues Arising Seveso II Experience Slide 4

5 1. Experience to Date Long and slow road to where we are today. Slide 5

6 Original Pigeonholing due to Misunderstanding LUP and Major Accident Prevention concept first introduced in Seveso II, Introduced in Ireland in 2000 COMAH Regs and 2000 P&D Act Initially Poorly understood by Planners Thought only to relate to really dangerous projects such as: Nuclear Major Oil & Gas Installations Chemical Manufacting Slide 6

7 .Changed to a Reactionary Approach Now - Simplistic Understanding of Landuse Planning Requirements Reactionary Approach Consultation Distance on some Development Plan Maps Let HSA advise on acceptability of new sites, consultation distances, development in consultation zones HSA provides Technical Advice Take it or Leave it PAs makes decisions PAs rarely go behind HSA advices even if the advices are open to challenge Slide 7

8 Key Issues The Contagion Effect Existing Businesses which were outide COMAH Regs (Seveso II) came within Seveso II amendments Significant new LUP implications (eg Fertilizer Plants). Nearby/ Adjacent Land zoned for development materially affected by imposition of new LUP Risk zones which limit development. Also Places Limitation on Existing Development. Slide 8

9 Key Issues The Precautionary Principle Applies Initial advices re new establishments based on conservative Risk Contour = Large consultation zone Development Plans don t normally show all zones Only outer consultation distance Not always up to date (6 year lifespan of plan) Slide 9

10 Key Issues Reactionary Approach Characterises Seveso in Planning System Location of Seveso sites not plan-led HSA more reactive than proactive in LUP seen as a technical advisor to PAs at Application stage Applications within consultation zones not always referred to HSA by PAs Slide 10

11 2. What s Changing in Seveso III? Slide 11

12 LUP - Seveso II and Seveso III LUP provisions first appeared in Article 12 Directive 96/82/EC as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC LUP in Seveso III - Article 13 Directive 2012/18/EU Seeks to clarify matters (according to the EU) Slide 12

13 Seveso III What Stays the same? Article 13 (1) states Member States (MS) are to take into account Seveso principles in their LUP by controlling: Siting of new establishments Modifications to existing establishments New developments (Residential Uses, transport routes, locations of public use, residential areas) Slide 13

14 What Member States should do New Provisions LUP to take account of: Appropriate safety distances between Seveso establishments and: Residential areas. Buildings and areas of public use. Recreational areas and, as far as possible; Major transport routes Other relevant measures can be taken for areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest Slide 14

15 New Public Consultation Provisions Detailed procedural guarantees for participation in specific individual LUP projects (Article 15) similar guarantees for participation in general plans and programmes Access to justice (at least judicial review) if inadequate consultation is seen to take place on individual projects Operators to provide sufficient information (on request) Coordination possible with consultation procedures under EIA and SEA Directives Slide 15

16 3. Likely Impacts on LUP Going Forward Slide 16

17 Distilling the Key Planning Issues Arising No Definition of Key Changes Open to Challenge Appropriate safety distances The taking of other relevant measures for areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest Slide 17

18 Beefed-up Public Consultation Is existing Public Consultation through Planning Application Process adequate? Does the directive require that the Public s views need to be considered by the HSA? Slide 18

19 Possible Solutions? Minister for EHLG/ EU: Prepare LUP best practice guidance document relating to changes Set prescriptive public consultation requirements Provide a non-technical guide to the process Prepare the Guidance early Slide 19

20 4. Issues Arising - Seveso II Experience Slide 20

21 Learning from the Seveso II experience New establishments likely to fall within the Seveso net and existing lower tier may migrate to upper tier. Implications for the planning status of some existing developments i.e. change may require Planning Permission? Slide 21

22 Learning from the Seveso II experience Closer co-operation between HSA and PAs needed to achieve the following: Deciding on the need to enforce change on existing sites or limit development off site Ensuring all applications are properly vetted More proactive approach to Development Plan Formulation? Slide 22

23 Tom Phillips + Associates Town Planning Consultants Thank You 2-3 Roger s Lane, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2 Ph: Fax: info@tpa.ie Gavin: gavin@tpa.ie Slide 23