Kilcolgan
Residents Association
c/o
Johnny McElligott
Island
View,
5
Convent Street,
Listowel,
County
Kerry
[email protected]
Tel:
(087) 2804474
28th
November 2007
Mr.
Patrick Cosgrave,
Official
Complaints Section,
An
Bord Pleanala,
64
Marlborough Street,
Dublin
1
By
Email only to [email protected]
Private
and Confidential
Re:
Complaint about breach of Procedures at An Bord Pleanala 08.PC0002
Dear
Patrick,
Yesterday, on
reviewing the pre-consultation documents of the Shannon LNG case
PC0002 which was declared as qualifying for fast-track planning on
September 7th 2007, I noticed some extremely serious
issues which are now the subject of this complaint.
There is a
written record of a pre-application consultation between An Bord
Pleanala and Shannon LNG for PC0002 which took place on May 2nd
2007.
The
problem is that there are two versions of the minutes of this meeting
which are materially different.
The
meeting was attended by Des Johnson, Kevin Moore, Gerard Egan,
Marcella Doyle and Siohban White of An Bord Pleanala. Shannon LNG was
represented at the meeting by Paddy Power, Samy Ibrahim, Peter
Langford and Ria Lyden.
The
meeting record was signed by Des Johnson on May 28th
2007 and the last page with his signature is the exact same in both
documents i.e. it is the same page while the content of both
documents is materially different.
Among
others, the following changes were made:
1.
“Part of a Natural Heritage
Area and a Special Area of Conservation extend into the site. The
footprint of the proposed development is stated to be outside the SAC
but may still affect
the integrity of the site”
was
changed to:
“Part of a Natural Heritage
Area and a Special Area of Conservation extend into the site. The
footprint of the proposed development is stated to be outside the
SAC. Studies are
underway to confirm that it will not affect the integrity of the
site”
2.
“The prospective applicant
explained the ownership issue – see the rectangle outlined on page
5 of the Display Boards Booklet and stated this area is owned by a
local person”.
was
changed to:
The prospective applicant
explained the ownership issue – see the rectangle outlined on page
5 of the Display Boards Booklet and stated this area is claimed
to be owned by a
local person”.
3.
“Road Impacts. The Board
advised that this issue should be addressed when making the
application assuming that some construction traffic will be by road.
The E.I.S. should
address the ‘worst case’ scenario, which would include
distribution of the product by road.”
was
changed to:
Road Impacts. The Board advised
that this issue should be addressed when making the application
assuming that some construction traffic will be by road. The
prospective applicant has no plans to move LNG by road.”
4.
“The Board raised the issue of
association with a nearby proposed petroleum storage facility and the
cumulative impact of the proposals. The prospective applicant stated
it would not
foresee any problem in having the proposal beside the petroleum
storage facility
but that it would not be logisticaly feasible for its development to
share facilities such as the jetty with the petroleum storage
facility”
was
changed to:
“The Board raised the issue of
association with a nearby proposed petroleum storage facility and the
cumulative impact of the proposals. The prospective applicant stated
that they were not
aware of the details of the mooted petroleum storage facility
but that it would not be logisticaly feasible for its development to
share facilities such as the jetty with the mooted
petroleum storage facility”.
I
notice that a copy of this document was sent to Paddy Power of
Shannon LNG on June 15th
2007 by Marcella Doyle. It was forwarded internally “for comments
if any” to Brian Hunt, Deputy Chairman of An Bord Pleanala on June
19th.
2007 by Marcella Doyle. On July 2nd
2007, Siobhan White sent a “copy of the suggested amendments” to
Paddy Power of Shannon LNG.
You
can’t change history. You cannot unsay what was said.
Who
changed this document? Who requested it changed? Why was it changed?
The
four sections we highlighted above have:
given
the impression that the integrity of SAC and NHA areas would not be
affected when the opposite was stated in the meeting;
given
the impression there is only a minor claim to some of the land
surrounded by the development when it was clearly stated in the
meeting that it was owned by someone else;
given
the impression that there will be no transportation of LNG by road
when the meeting covered the need for a “worst-case scenario” in
a risk assessment for road transportation of LNG and
given
the impression that Shannon LNG was not aware of the details of the
petroleum storage facility proposed by SemEuro when the meeting
gives the clear impression that Shannon LNG were very much aware of
the proposal and had no problems with it.
If anyone is building a top-tier Seveso II development worth
hundreds of millions of Euro, it would seem logical to assume that
they would inform themselves of the details of what was being built
next door?
These
changes are not “minor amendments”, as suggested in the minutes
of the meeting of June 27th,
2007 as they had an enormous bearing on the final decision given.
We await your reply
Yours
sincerely,
Johnny
McElligott
|