THE DEVELOPER of a €250 million waste-to-energy plant proposed for west Dublin has moved to reassure the State's top bloodstock figures and local communities that the technology involved would have no adverse effects on human or animal health.
At the opening of a Bord Pleanála hearing yesterday, the developer acknowledged 276 "objections and observations" including "objections raised in relation to the possible adverse consequences of the project on the bloodstock industry in Co Kildare".
The proposed facility would be located on a 14-hectare site at Behan's Quarry south of Rathcoole, on the Kildare/Dublin border.
Among the bloodstock interests granted observer status at the hearing - which allows them to attend and raise issues of concern - are some of Ireland's best-known bloodstock industry names.
These include Goffs plc, Kill International Equestrian Centre, The Irish Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, Naas racecourse and Cavan Developments Bloodstock.
The proposal was outlined at the planning hearing yesterday by senior counsel James Connolly, for the developer Energy Answers International. He said it was anticipated, in relation to the bloodstock industry, that reference would be made to a previous refusal of planning permission by An Bord Pleanála for a project in Co Tipperary.
But he said the Rosegreen project, a proposed meat and bone meal incinerator plant that drew concerted opposition from bloodstock interests, was very different. Rosegreen, he said, featured an intake high in organic material from abattoir waste; utilised anaerobic digestion; was based on a regional road; was in the vicinity of a high number of stud and racing stables; and was "unprecedented in size in Europe". None of these factors applied to the Rathcoole project, he said.
Outlining a list of expert Irish and international witnesses who would be brought forward over the course of the next three hearing days, Mr Connolly said the company would show there "is no scientific basis for concern".
He said it was misleading to refer to the project as an "incinerator". In fact it was "much more than a waste-to-energy process and far more advanced than simple incineration".
However, the comments did little to reassure a number of protesters who had been picketing the inquiry from early yesterday morning. Outside the hearing Deborah McDermott of Raid (Rathcoole Against Incinerator Dioxins) said that, as a mother of three and a chemist, she was completely opposed to the project. "Dioxins are carcinogenic", she said.
Also among the protesters was Fine Gael Senator Frances Fitzgerald who said the proposal "would make incineration the cornerstone of our waste management policy". Ms Fitzgerald said she had written to the Minister for the Environment asking him to reiterate the new Government policy, and ensure that Bord Pleanála took note of it.
Local councillor Therese Ridge said she was concerned about the effects of the plant on the local Holy Family school. Parents and teachers were united in their opposition to the proposal, she said.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label airport oral hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label airport oral hearing. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Airport extension work set to start
A FINGAL County Councillor has criticised the amount of money spent by Fingal County Council during the An Bord Pleanála Oral hearing into the planned second runway at Dublin Airport.
The council revealed that the cost of consultants and legal expertise for the hearing was e153,193.
A council spokesperson also said that e9,497 was spent on administration costs such as room hire, photocopying and other secretarial expenses.
Planning permission for a second runway at Dublin Airport was granted by the council on April 12, 2006 and was subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
The oral hearing in relation to the parallel runway commenced on September 26 and finished on October 12, 2006.
The council spokesperson said that due to the complexities of the case it was decided to engage senior legal counsel to act on its behalf.
“Two senior planners, one senior staff officer, three senior legal agents and two clerical officers were also involved in the preparation for, and attendance at the oral hearing which lasted 12 days,” the spokesperson said.
“The work involved is considered to be part of the normal duties of the staff involved.”
However, the spokesperson also acknowledged that the preparation and work involved in the oral hearing impacted on the work schedule of personnel involved which meant the delay in the preparation of local area plans and other major studies.
Cllr Daly sad she was shocked at the amount of expenditure involved on behalf of the council.
“We are taking about public money being spent on what was basically a private planning application,” said Cllr Daly.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous when you think of the expense that concerned members of the public had to personally bear to ensure that the concerns of the local community were heard at the oral hearing.
“I’m talking about time taken off from work and the retention of legal expertise, all of which cost ordinary people money.”
Cllr Day added that she would like more detail from the council as to how the participation of council personnel actually impacted on other council projects and local plans.
“I’d really like to know in monetary terms how much all this really cost taxpayers, having all these council staff tied up,” she said.
However, when informed of Cllr Daly’s remarks, Gilbert Power, Fingal Director of Services and Planning, expressed surprise at the description of the project as “basically a private planning application”.
“The subject of the oral hearing was a strategic national project which justifies a significant input from the council, not just to ensure that the project is developed in a proper and sustainable way but also to ensure that the concerns of the local communities were addressed in so far as possible,” he said.
Northside People
www.buckplanning.ie
The council revealed that the cost of consultants and legal expertise for the hearing was e153,193.
A council spokesperson also said that e9,497 was spent on administration costs such as room hire, photocopying and other secretarial expenses.
Planning permission for a second runway at Dublin Airport was granted by the council on April 12, 2006 and was subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
The oral hearing in relation to the parallel runway commenced on September 26 and finished on October 12, 2006.
The council spokesperson said that due to the complexities of the case it was decided to engage senior legal counsel to act on its behalf.
“Two senior planners, one senior staff officer, three senior legal agents and two clerical officers were also involved in the preparation for, and attendance at the oral hearing which lasted 12 days,” the spokesperson said.
“The work involved is considered to be part of the normal duties of the staff involved.”
However, the spokesperson also acknowledged that the preparation and work involved in the oral hearing impacted on the work schedule of personnel involved which meant the delay in the preparation of local area plans and other major studies.
Cllr Daly sad she was shocked at the amount of expenditure involved on behalf of the council.
“We are taking about public money being spent on what was basically a private planning application,” said Cllr Daly.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous when you think of the expense that concerned members of the public had to personally bear to ensure that the concerns of the local community were heard at the oral hearing.
“I’m talking about time taken off from work and the retention of legal expertise, all of which cost ordinary people money.”
Cllr Day added that she would like more detail from the council as to how the participation of council personnel actually impacted on other council projects and local plans.
“I’d really like to know in monetary terms how much all this really cost taxpayers, having all these council staff tied up,” she said.
However, when informed of Cllr Daly’s remarks, Gilbert Power, Fingal Director of Services and Planning, expressed surprise at the description of the project as “basically a private planning application”.
“The subject of the oral hearing was a strategic national project which justifies a significant input from the council, not just to ensure that the project is developed in a proper and sustainable way but also to ensure that the concerns of the local communities were addressed in so far as possible,” he said.
Northside People
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 23 April 2007
revor Sargent addresses Terminal 2 oral hearing.
Green Party Leader, Trevor Sargent, made an oral observation at the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing into Terminal 2 at the Radisson SAS Hotel (former Great Southern) at Dublin Airport on Friday 20 April 2007.
Mr Sargent said that as Leader of the Green Party and a Dáil representative for DublinNorth he was most concerned about the proper development of the area. He wanted to put his observations on the record because some important issues were not been given the consideration they deserved. He feared the airport decision was being made without a full knowledge and appreciation of the all the issues.
He felt, for example, that the Strategic Environmental Assessment that had been made of the development plans of Dublin Airport had not adequately addressed the issue of climate change, which was now an undeniable fact. "The best way that plan could contribute to reducing climate change would be to put a hold on the development of Dublin Airport. If there is an optimum size for Dublin Airport, what is it? As far as the people of St Margaret's and Portmarnock are concerned, we are already near that optimum," he said.
According to Mr Sargent, it was important for the country to meet its future needs to be carbon neutral. We had international responsibilities in that regard. This was no longer just a matter of the Kyoto protocol where aviation had managed to stay beneath the radar, but of the upcoming post-Kyoto agreement. This agreement will be more rigorous as far as aviation is concerned. He pointed out that: "we have only ten years in which to act to prevent the earth's temperature rising by 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels."
He said that no proper consideration was being given to unbalanced regional development. He noted that the proper development of Fingal should take account of the state of underdevelopment of the Western Seaboard as compared to the Eastern Seaboard. This should be done before proceeding with the further development of the Dublin area in a laissez-faire manner and exacerbating its many problems, including congestion and pollution.
He noted that: "there had been no Cost Benefit justification for these proposals. In
terms of 'Value for Money', it is not just an issue of government funds but of land and other resources that are in the custodianship of Dublin Airport. It should not be assumed that the land involved is a given, and is therefore free. Obviously we know that would not be so, if it were sold, given the price of land in the area."
Contacted later Mr Sargent said he believed that, on the evidence, the planned expansion of Dublin Airport was socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable. He also agreed with Professor Stern that climate change was the greatest market failure the world had seen, and that unless the costs of climate change were included in our assessment of development projects, this market failure would persist to the detriment of the humanity.
Mr Sargent said that as Leader of the Green Party and a Dáil representative for DublinNorth he was most concerned about the proper development of the area. He wanted to put his observations on the record because some important issues were not been given the consideration they deserved. He feared the airport decision was being made without a full knowledge and appreciation of the all the issues.
He felt, for example, that the Strategic Environmental Assessment that had been made of the development plans of Dublin Airport had not adequately addressed the issue of climate change, which was now an undeniable fact. "The best way that plan could contribute to reducing climate change would be to put a hold on the development of Dublin Airport. If there is an optimum size for Dublin Airport, what is it? As far as the people of St Margaret's and Portmarnock are concerned, we are already near that optimum," he said.
According to Mr Sargent, it was important for the country to meet its future needs to be carbon neutral. We had international responsibilities in that regard. This was no longer just a matter of the Kyoto protocol where aviation had managed to stay beneath the radar, but of the upcoming post-Kyoto agreement. This agreement will be more rigorous as far as aviation is concerned. He pointed out that: "we have only ten years in which to act to prevent the earth's temperature rising by 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels."
He said that no proper consideration was being given to unbalanced regional development. He noted that the proper development of Fingal should take account of the state of underdevelopment of the Western Seaboard as compared to the Eastern Seaboard. This should be done before proceeding with the further development of the Dublin area in a laissez-faire manner and exacerbating its many problems, including congestion and pollution.
He noted that: "there had been no Cost Benefit justification for these proposals. In
terms of 'Value for Money', it is not just an issue of government funds but of land and other resources that are in the custodianship of Dublin Airport. It should not be assumed that the land involved is a given, and is therefore free. Obviously we know that would not be so, if it were sold, given the price of land in the area."
Contacted later Mr Sargent said he believed that, on the evidence, the planned expansion of Dublin Airport was socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable. He also agreed with Professor Stern that climate change was the greatest market failure the world had seen, and that unless the costs of climate change were included in our assessment of development projects, this market failure would persist to the detriment of the humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)