the consultation ‘problem’

The Consultation ‘Problem’CHASE – Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment

www.chaseireland.org1

The Consultation ‘Problem’

"I would like to have the power of the Mayor [of Shanghai] . . . I would just like that we can get through the consultation problem as quick as possible". (An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, 20th Jan 2005, China)



Overview CHASE’s aims and concerns The planning process

CHASE’s participation The principal participants and how they

engaged in the process What we have learnt



About CHASE Cork Harbour Alliance

for a Safe Environment Alliance of community

groups

CHASE’s Aims Prevent toxic waste

incineration in Cork Harbour

Promote awareness of alternative solutions

Increase national/local knowledge about mass incineration

Actively promote non-burn solutions



Why is CHASE concerned? International guidelines

(WHO) indicate site is unsuitable

Health studies suggest that incinerator emissions are harmful to health

International/national policies view incineration as a last resort, to be used only when all other options have been exhausted



Why have a planning system?

“To provide, in the interests of the common good, for proper planning and

sustainable development”(The Planning and Development Act 2000)



Planning process – community participation County Development

Plan

Cork Waste Management Plan

Cork Area Strategic Plan

National Spatial Strategy

30,000 objections to application Councillors refuse to materially

contravene CDP Cork County Council refuse

planning permission Applicant appeals to An Bord

Pleanála CHASE and over 20 other parties

lodge counter appeal to uphold refusal

Three-week long oral hearing takes place



Planning process – the participants



The Participants – the applicant Provided inadequate information

‘EIS is inadequate and fails to comply with mandatory requirements’ (ABP Inspector’s Report)

Unaware of WHO Guidelines for Site Selection (ABP Inspector’s Report)

Did not carry out flora/fauna study for operation of plant, as legally required (ABP Inspector’s Report and EPA Oral Hearing)

Did not carry out risk assessment on human health (Dr. Anthony Staines, EPA Oral Hearing)



The Participants – the applicantCritique of the ‘Impact on Human Beings’

“This section of the EIS seems to me to be deficient. I would not regard this as an adequate or a useful contribution to an assessment of the human health impacts of the development proposed here. There is no description of the process used to produce it, but I do not see any obvious indication that any formal process for human health assessment was used.”

(Dr. Anthony Staines, Co-author Health Research Bureau Report 2003, at EPA Oral Hearing 2005)



The Participants – Cork County Council Cork County Countil refused

planning permission

Failed to inform public of Seveso II nature of site

Ignored dangers posed to Maritime College ‘In the case of a pool fire

… heat radiation would be sufficient to cause 2nd degree burns after 40 secs exposure [at College]’

‘Vapour cloud explosion could result in windows being broken at College’

(quotes from applicant’s consultants)

Incinerator site on right; Maritime College entrance on left



The Participants – HSADid not know: That application was

for a hazardous waste incinerator

What chemicals were to be burnt or stored on site

That fires ignite frequently at Hammond lane facility

That a gas pipe line runs through site

Were not aware of the WHO Guidelines on Site Selection

Relied solely on information provided by the applicant

Sought no additional information from any other source



The Participants – HSADid not consider:

That 14000 people on Great Island have only one escape route over a narrow hump-backed bridge

That a fire would block off the escape route from the Naval Base and Maritime College

Incinerator fire, Argentina, Nov. 2004

Belvelly Bridge, Great Island



The Participants – An Bord Pleanála Three-week Oral Hearing, presided over by

a Senior Planning Inspector of ABP FOURTEEN planning reasons given for

refusing permission Could not guarantee that would not pose a risk

to public safety Failed on 13 out of 14 of the WHO guidelines for

site selection Site subject to flooding, erosion, and thermal

inversions



The Participants – An Bord Pleanála

Inspector set no conditions for planning permission

Indicated that the Board had only 2 options open to it: To reject first party appeal To invite further submissions/information

from applicant Board rejected both options and

granted permission



The Participants – An Bord Pleanála It is a principle of Irish law that the state’s

institutions: Cannot act arbitrarily Must act reasonably and in the interest of

fairness and justice Did the Board have reasonable grounds for

rejecting their Inspector’s considered recommendations? Or was their decision against the principles of good planning and the democratic process?

ABP decision now subject of a judicial review



The Participants – EPA Three undeniable truths emerged

from EPA Oral Hearing Operation of plant will release harmful

pollutants Extent of harm to people’s health should

be assessed before granting license This assessment has not and will not be

carried out



The Community – what we have learnt

The local communities, represented by CHASE, have a unique perspective

Other participants are limited to specific areas of competency

Competent authorities failed to consult with each other to ensure that all areas of concern were fully investigated

Health, in particular, has fallen between the cracks, with no authority acknowledging responsibility



The Community – what we have learnt

CCC ABP HSA EPA SHB

Who’s responsible for our health?

Of all participants in planning and licensing processes, only CHASE consulted and presented evidence from medical experts!



The Consultation ‘Problem’Local communities: Willingly participate in policy development

(CDP, CWMP, NWMP) Fully accept National policies Have unique perspective as main stakeholders Object to National Policy (democratically

determined) being ignored, underfunded unimplemented, cherry-picked from, and overridden by Government (party) policy

This is what leads to the ‘consultation process’ becoming a ‘consultation problem’



The Consultation ‘Problem’

“Public trust, whether it is placed in the regulators, in compliance with the regulations

or in the information provided, will be fundamental in achieving even a modicum of

consensus for any future developments in waste policy in Ireland”

HRB Report 2003

the consultation ‘problem’

Documents