|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kick in teeth for local democracy Irish Examiner The outcome of the Bord Pleanála decision on the proposed
incinerator at Ringaskiddy, which gave approval to Indaver Ireland
to proceed with the country’s first toxic waste plant, is a perplexing
one. With hindsight, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
those who objected to the project, and they represented about 25,000
people in the area, were engaged involuntarily in a cosmetic exercise. To any reasonable person it would seem logical that the
recommendation of Bord Pleanála’s senior inspector who presided over
the lengthy oral hearing would ultimately prevail. Over the course
of four weeks, he had heard the arguments put forward by both sides
and his final report was produced from an independent and objective
perspective. In this instance, the inspector’s recommendation was
that permission be denied to the company and he supported that conclusion
with 14 damning reasons. Those reasons are an indictment of An Bord
Pleanála in giving approval to allow the incinerator’s construction
and they justify the vocal and resolute opposition of the residents
of Ringaskiddy and its hinterland. Among them was a crucial point made by the senior inspector,
Philip Jones. It was that the board was not satisfied on the basis
of evidence submitted to it, and heard at the oral hearing, that the
incinerator would not pose significant risks to public safety if there
was a major accident, particularly because the emergency infrastructure
was inadequate and the site was at the end of a peninsula. There is not one redeemable feature in his list of reasons
which the board, by any stretch of the imagination, could possibly
consider the construction of the incinerator at Ringaskiddy. Indeed,
the inspector categorically lays out why permission should be refused
for a project he maintains is contrary to national policy in relation
to hazardous waste management. Inexplicably, a full meeting of An Bord Pleanála rejected
his recommendation by nine votes to one and thereby poses the question
as to why the process of an oral hearing, with its attendant expense
for all concerned, was necessary in the first place. One of the reasons
why the board arrived at its decision was because, under the terms
of the Waste Management Act, they were precluded from taking into
account matters relating to the risk of environmental pollution. To exclude such an important element from consideration
by the national planning authority is baffling. What is even more
so is the fact that under the same waste management legislation any
possible detrimental effects on the health of the population in the
contiguous area was excluded. Without any doubt, waste management presents a national
problem which must be faced, but pleading national policy to try to
resolve it under conditions which are blatantly unsuitable, is clearly
not the answer. On another front, the approval by the board is, inherently,
a denial of local democracy. The residents of Ringaskiddy vociferously
rejected the incinerator and a majority of their elected representatives
twice voted against it at Cork County Council. Their fears and arguments are re-echoed in the inspector’s
report and it is incomprehensible that they should be considered subordinate
to something described as government policy. It is unacceptable that any so-called national policy
can be superior to the possibility of a threat to so many people’s
lives, no matter how remote that possibility may be. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cork
Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment |