91997E1726

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/97 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Southport sea wall

1. Can the Commission confirm that it verified that the UK complied with the provisions of Directive 92/43 ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) (Habitats Directive) and Directive 85/337 ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) (Environmental Impact Assessment) in authorizing this project?

2. In doing so, was it satisfied that the alternative of 'natural sea defences' (i.e. allowing embryonic sand dunes to develop) was given sufficient consideration?

3. When the Commission carried out an on-site inspection, why did it not involve those persons and organizations that had originally submitted the complaint to it concerning the conformity of the project with European legislation, as it has done on many previous site inspections (e.g. on the Bootle docks coal dust problem within the same local authority), even if this is not a legal requirement?

4. When it authorized the project, why did the Commission not have the courtesy to inform the original complainants immediately?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1997)

The Commission can confirm that before approving the funding of part of the Southport sea wall scheme, it did ascertain that the project would not infringe the two directives mentioned in the question. Since no significant effects were established, the question as to alternative solutions under Article 6 of the habitats Directive did not arise. Those who had complained to the Commission on the sea wall project were informed later of the Commission's approval of funding. The Commission is aware that a delay of three and a half months to inform the association is too long. As such, concrete steps have been taken to improve the administrative procedure so as to ensure timely distribution of relevant information.

Concerning the visit to the site by representatives of the Commission, the Honourable Member should note that this was an informal visit undertaken at the request of the local council. The Commission's interest in undertaking such a visit was only to establish visually, at first hand, the area of coast and precise location of the proposed project. No people or organisations associated with the compaint were met during the visit because the Commission was already in receipt of subtantial correspondence and material relating to the potential environmental impact from the complainants and understood fully their concerns in regard to the proposed development.