Board hearing into Meath incinerator 'tainted'

An oral hearing into plans for a €100 million incinerator in Co Meath was "tainted" and Bord Pleanála may even have compromised…

An oral hearing into plans for a €100 million incinerator in Co Meath was "tainted" and Bord Pleanála may even have compromised a related Supreme Court case, it was alleged at the opening of the hearing into the project yesterday.

Speaking in Drogheda at the start of a Bord Pleanála inquiry into Indaver Ireland's plans for an incinerator with capacity to take 200,000 tonnes of waste per year, appellant Stephen Ward said there was concern that the board may be restricting the evidence brought by opponents of the plan.

He was told by hearing inspector Mary Cunneen that there would be no restriction on evidence produced.

Mr Ward referred specifically to a letter from the board issued on February 26th last, in which appellants were advised it would be helpful if their testimony did not overly concentrate on material already given to the board in respect of a previously approved smaller incinerator with a capacity of 150,000 tonnes.

READ MORE

The letter produced by Mr Ward read: "Finally, as planning permission and a waste licence have already been granted in respect of a similar development at the site [planning reference numbers] it would be helpful to conduct the hearing, were the parties to focus on issues specifically pertaining to the currently proposed development including any material changes in circumstances which have occurred in the interim period."

Mr Ward insisted the letter raised very serious concerns about the bringing of evidence and the format of the inquiry. He said the previously proposed incinerator had not been approved, as a case against it was still with the Supreme Court. And he suggested the letter "has prejudiced that [Supreme Court] hearing".

He told Ms Cunneen, "you yourself referred to a previous application", which he said was inappropriate as what was before yesterday's hearing was a completely new application, not a variation of a previous one.

"An Bord Pleanála have prejudiced to a certain degree the Supreme Court outcome," he told the inquiry.

In response, Ms Cunneen said that while her "aim is to ask parties to focus on those aspects of the development which differ" from the previously proposed development, she had no intention of restricting or limiting the evidence brought by the parties.

Concern, however, was also expressed by a number of politicians present including the Louth TDs Arthur Morgan of Sinn Féin and Fine Gael environment spokesman Fergus O'Dowd. Both men asked about the site selection process, as the evidence would be the same in both incinerator applications but there would be a difference in site selection, particularly in assessing traffic volumes, for a large facility and that for a smaller facility.

The inquiry continues today during which the evidence of opponents is expected to be heard. On Thursday the inquiry is expected to hear cross examination of the witnesses for each side.