Some times the pictures tell the story;
Could the tide be on the turn for the oyster farms on
Linsfort beach as the first Public Rally got underway on Saturday 1st
August?
I joined people of all ages from across the county along the
expanse of steel frames and plastic oyster cages at the first public rally. Many were carrying home made
banners and signs, all with the same message ‘Save Linsford
Beach
“Save Linsfort
Beach
The campaign has raised concerns over the impact the oyster
trestles will have on the local area. There is also the concern that the
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine granted ten-year permission for
the trestles, allegedly, “without proper public consultation.
People gathered are upset at what has been done to their beach;
they talked of childhood memories of summer days spent on this beautiful stretch
of golden sands
There are many unanswered questions that people want answers to and the "Save Linsfort Beach" group have put them to Donegal's T D's and Councillors ( see below) but at the rally people were asking.
Why is there NO Paper Trail with Donegal Co Council?
Why was there No Public Consultation?
Why there was No IMPACT study done?
How can the Department give out Ten Year Licences for a
project like this with out Environmental Studies?
How can it be given the go ahead for an Invasive species ‘
The Pacific Oysters’ which have be know to have a negative impact on the marine
environment ie the parasitic protest Bonamia Ostreae, which devastated native
oyster populations in the 1970’s ?
As the tide crept up among the rusting steel rods, the
groups speakers talked to the couple of hundred people gathered and local
politicians also voice their pledge to giving their support and asking the
questions raised by the concerned protesters.
Messages were put in glass bottles and thrown in to the sea
to carry “Save Linsford Beach
Dogs ran round and adults held the hands of future
generations with their buckets and spades who are now being denied a safe clean
beach to enjoy.
As the rally came to an end there is the hope that the
voices and concerns raised will be heard an ‘Truthful’
answers given to the questions raised before
the irreversible is done to this area of outstanding beauty
The following is a copy of the Campaign groups briefing Document sent to all the Councillor's and Donegal T D's.
Re:
Aquaculture Licence and Foreshore Licence for 799
Mr Derek Diver, Crocknagee, Roxtown, Clonmany, Co. Donegal
Mr Derek Diver, Crocknagee, Roxtown, Clonmany, Co. Donegal
We, the members of Save
Linsfort Beach, believe that Aquaculture Licence and Foreshore Licence 799 should
be determined void due to incorrect procedure being followed, as outlined as below.
1.
Breach in Foreshore
Licensing regulations (1933)
Technically
the licence has not fulfilled the licence criteria specifically sections 8.1,
9.1 and 19 of S.I. No. 236/1998 - Aquaculture (Licence Application)
Regulations, 1998 and has contravened the Aarhus Convention specifically:
The
right to participate in environmental decision-making. And the right to review
procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made.
The
correct notification was not followed due to the use of an incorrect public
outlet for public notification (Donegal Democrat see Appendix I).
The Thursday edition of Donegal Democrat, in which the notice appears, which sells 80-100 copies in Inishowen compared to Derry Journal Friday edition’s 2,500-3,000 and similar sales figures for both The Inish Times and The Inishowen Independent.
The Thursday Donegal Democrat is only approved for planning notices for the DED of Manorcunningham in Inishowen. This Foreshore Licence area is not in the DED of Manorcunningham.
The Thursday edition of Donegal Democrat, in which the notice appears, which sells 80-100 copies in Inishowen compared to Derry Journal Friday edition’s 2,500-3,000 and similar sales figures for both The Inish Times and The Inishowen Independent.
The Thursday Donegal Democrat is only approved for planning notices for the DED of Manorcunningham in Inishowen. This Foreshore Licence area is not in the DED of Manorcunningham.
In
addition, it is not a legal requirement to erect site notices, so locals did
not have the opportunity to learn about the proposed development in that way.
By
publishing the notice in a newspaper that has such a small circulation in the
area the right of the general public to be involved was denied, even more so
when some of the points below are taken into consideration.
In
addition, there are
also a number of anomalies to the Public
Notice under the Second schedule of S.I. No. 236/1998 - Aquaculture (Licence
Application) Regulations, 1998, as
follows:
a.
The address of the applicant was not published in
the public notification.
b.
The location of aquaculture site proposed was not
published correctly. The notice read "an area of foreshore in Lough Swilly".
Lough Swilly covers an area of 150km2, and is over 40km long and 8km wide. No
one reading the notice would have any idea where the proposed development would
be located.
c.
The species for cultivation was not published. This is significant because
the Pacific Oyster species being cultivated is highly invasive. (See Appendix
II)
d.
The wrong address for making submissions/observations was put on the
notice, eg Dept. of the Marine and Natural Resources (Coastal Zone
Administration Division), Leeson Lane, Dublin 2 instead of Foreshore
Coordination Unit, Aquaculture and Foreshore Management Division, Dept. of
Agriculture, Food and the Marine, National Seafood Centre, Clonakilty, Co. Cork.
Therefore, if a member of the public did make a written submission, it would go
to the wrong address. With only a short period left for observations, this
correspondence may not reach the correct address on time.
e.
Ref: Public Notice under the Fourth Schedule of S.I. No. 236/1998 –
Aquaculture (Licence Application) Regulations, 1998. The location of proposed
aquaculture was not published, only vague information, in contravention of
point 4 of the second schedule. How could the public make an observation about
such a large area without a specific location?
f.
Under S.I. No. 236/1998 - Aquaculture (Licence Application) Regulations,
1998 4. (c) Developments on the foreshore require planning permission in
addition to a Foreshore Lease/Licence/Permission. Donegal county Council have
confirmed that no permission has been sought or granted for the material change
of use from a private residence pedestrian access to a commercial access
including use of fill to provide a roadway and destruction of existing sand
dunes. And also no permission has been granted for use of the foreshore and
beach as an egress route. Thus, the planning conditions as set out by Donegal
County Council, the Department of the Environment and Local Government were not
met and the granting of the application is thus deemed to be void and illegal
under current legislation. A clear breach in planning law is evident.
2.
Access and
Planning
The access point to the site as outlined in Figure 2 of the licence is
through the grounds of a private dwelling. Planning was not obtained for the
creation of a roadway onto the foreshore and a change of use for the lands in
question from dwelling to commercial access.
According to the criteria for the granting of licences as stated by
Minister Coveney:
“3.10. The Licensee shall ensure that tractors (or other vehicles)
accessing and leaving the site adhere strictly to approved access and egress
routes as specified in Schedule 1 attached.”
In addition:
“9.4. The Licensee shall at all times hold all necessary licences,
consents, permissions, permits or authorisations associated with any activities
of the Licensee in connection with the licensed area.”
3.
No Environmental
Impact Study
Section 6 of the
Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997- states that Aquaculture licence applications
may be subject to environmental assessments under the Natural Habitats
Regulations if located within or close to Natura 2000 conservation sites.
This site is
within 500ft of the Natura 2000 area. Only an EIA was carried out according to
the public notice, being so close this application should have required a full
EIS due to its likely significant effects directly and indirectly on the
environment with impact on the following:
(i) human beings;(ii) flora;(iii) fauna;(iv)
soil;(v) water;(vii) air;(viii) climate;(ix) the landscape;(x) the interaction
between the beings and things listed in subparagraphs (i) to (ix);(xi) material
assets;(xii) the cultural heritage;
There are a
multitude of implications on all of the above caused by this aquaculture
licence and the general public and interested parties would have been notified
if as required a complete EIS had been carried out.
The Foreshore
Act 1933 (2009 Amendment) 4 specifically states that the Minister can only
waive the requirement for an EIS in exceptional circumstances.
4.
Implications
“3.9. The Licensee shall ensure that any
aquaculture or other activity conducted under this licence does not adversely
affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 network (if applicable) through the
deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species and/or through disturbance
of the species for which the area has been designated in so far as such a
disturbance may be significant in relation to the stated conservation objectives
of the site concerned.”
Further to the above, we
would like to make the following additional points based on criteria for granting
of licences as stated by Minister Coveney.
a. The limited magnitude and extent of the direct impacts arising from the
proposed aquaculture activity
What are the criteria and
decision matrix which determines the magnitude and impact of licences?
The level of public support
for ‘Save Linsfort Beach’ would indicate that the magnitude and impact of this
development is significant (over 2,500 people have signed a petition against
this Licence).
The scale of disruption is
felt throughout the whole West Inishowen coast community and, also importantly,
by the sizeable number of tourists who frequent the beach during summer months.
With limited other
amenities in the area beaches such as Linsfort Beach/Stragill Strand are key
products in the regional tourism offering. This stretch of coast is also
located along both the Wild Atlantic Way and the Inishowen 100 Tourism Routes.
This is also of particular
significance because the species being cultivated is the Pacific Oyster which
is known to be invasive and displaces the native Oyster. The native Oyster is
already in decline in Lough Swilly and introducing more Pacific Oysters to the
Lough will have a direct impact and accelerate the decline. The Marine
Institute has published a research paper (Tully & Clarke, Irish Fisheries
Investigations, No 24 2012) which, inter alia, states:
“Management of threats to
native oyster beds will also be important in optimising recovery potential.
These include freshwater drainage which may increase freshwater volume flow
through estuaries, urban development and associated changes in microbiological
and viral status of water and introduction or management of non-native species,
which pose a threat to oyster, such as the Slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata)
and Pacific oyster. Competition with introduced species, such as Pacific
oyster, is a realised threat to the maintenance of native oyster beds as shown
here in L. Swilly. The surveys showed that large areas of previous native
oyster bed had high densities of Pacific oyster in some areas to the exclusion
of native oyster. An intensive commercial fishery for Pacific oysters was
sustained in 2010 and 2011 in areas of the Lough showing that, locally, biomass
of this species was high. This is a recent development stimulated by higher
market prices for Pacific oysters but also because high catches are possible.
O’Sullivan (2001) did not
report Pacific oysters in L. Swilly suggesting that Pacific oyster has,
recently, expanded in the Lough. Successful control of that expansion will be
important for the recovery and maintenance of native oyster.”
The Department of Marine
environmental screening document refers to the adjoining Natura 2000 site and
makes reference to the invasive nature of the pacific oyster and recommends the
use of sterile triploid oysters yet there is no stipulation anywhere that these
must be grown to help protect the native oyster population.
In addition, seals, basking
sharks, salmon and dolphins are regular visitors along this shore of Lough
Swilly.
b. The low population density of the surrounding area
The site is one of five
beaches/public bathing areas used by the residents of Buncrana and west
Inishowen (pop. Approx.. 10000) and visitors from Derry (pop. 250,000) and tourists
from around the world.
The Licence has resulted in
an immediate negative impact on the marine/coastal tourism offering of the Buncrana
and West Inishowen area by restricting and monopolising the use of one the key
and most valuable natural resources of the area, to a single private
individual.
c. The low visual impact of the proposed aquaculture activity
42 acres of metal cages is
a huge visual impact on a beautiful unspoilt beach. The negative industrial
appearance and disruptive visual impact of the site during periods of low tide
is difficult to reconcile with the above statement. Introducing dangerous industrial
structures into a pristine natural vista immediately reduces the value and role
of vistas in the area for use as a resource for tourism and, in particular, the
‘Wild Atlantic Way’ product. (See
Appendix III)
d. The minimal impact on recreational use of the adjoining foreshore
The site encompasses five
beaches/bathing areas used by the residents of Buncrana and West Inishowen
(pop. circa 10,000) and Co. Derry. In this area of Inishowen the only amenities
families and the general public can use are local beaches, generations of
families have been using this beach. "Bathing Waters are an important
amenity, valuable for both their tourism and recreational potential. It is important that they are afforded the
appropriate protections in accordance with legislation, including the European
Union's Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC)"
The Licence has resulted in
an immediate restriction for coastal recreation and, in effect, monopolises the
use of one of the key, and most valuable natural resources of the area, to a
single private individual. The beach is part of a coastal walkway from Buncrana
and is featured in books and TV productions that have focused on the value of
the sites’ natural beauty, aesthetic qualities and history including Mount
Peter the ancient site of a promontory fort. Kayakers and swimmers based at
Ned’s Point also frequent the entire area up as far as Curragh Hole. (See
Appendix IV)
We are asking the Minister
to revoke this licence.
NB:
7.3. Subject to the Act,
the Minister may revoke or amend the licence if : -
(a) he considers that it is
in the public interest to do so,
(b) he is satisfied that
there has been a breach of any condition specified in the
licence e.g., operating
outside the licensed area,
(c) the licensed area to
which the licence relates is not being properly maintained,
(d) water quality results
or general performance in the licensed area do not meet the
standards set by the Minister or the competent
State authority.
Revocation
of this licence will:
·
Support sustainable jobs in the Recreation and
Tourism Industry by maintaining the intrinsic qualities and character of the
area, which is the product that attracts tourists.
·
Ensure aquaculture is conducted in appropriate
locations. Already 100s of acres have granted
in Lough Swilly, South of Inch Island, as well as all of Lough Foyle, and
Trawbreaga Bay. Is all of the coastline of Inishowen (its’ single biggest asset)
to be licenced as commercial and industrial space? Is a public amenity to be
monopolised for the benefit of the few?
Concluding
Remarks
‘Boom
and Bust’ Planning
During the ’boom’, Ireland
used light touch regulation in the building sector to pursue development goals
to the detriment of strategic long term planning. The resulting ghost estates
have shown that development undertaken for short term objectives is not
sustainable.
This Licence is in an
inappropriate site, it is not a question of jobs or aquaculture but a question
of siting the development in an appropriate place.
Lessons should be learnt
from past mistakes in other developing industries and, although it is
acknowledged that national aquaculture targets must be met, it is important
that they be met in an appropriate manner, ie a manner which does not
negatively affect a community’s ability to develop and sustain sustainable jobs
through tourism.
Meeting short term goals in
aquaculture because of short term issues in the French market, and national job
creation targets, does not enable a community to provide its citizens with a
viable and/or sustainable future.
With an election in the
near future, this development will become a ‘door step’ issue (over 2,500
people have signed the petition and the Facebook page has a huge audience
reach) unless immediate action is taken to void and revoke this licence.
Prepared
by ‘Save Linsfort Beach’
Contacts:
Sharon Porter,email@sharonporter.co.uk
Sue Doherty,smjdoh50@gmail.com
Darren Bradley darrenbradley@outlook.com
Facebook
page: www.facebook.com/savelinsfortbeach
Online
Petition at Change.org: www.tiny.cc/savelinsfortbeach
