Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
— village November - December 2009
Cork Harbour
:
Indaver’s application is flawed, self, contradictory and dangerous.
m a r i a m c o t t o n
on a visit to China, the then
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said “I would like to have
the power of the Mayor of Shanghai…I would
like that we can get through the consultation
problem as quickly as possible”. The require-
ment to consult with communities threatened
with health and environmental problems by
big industrial and other developers had long
been a thorn in his side. At the time, what is
now known as the Planning & Development
(Strategic Infrastructure) Act was weav-
ing its way through the legislative process, every
line of it designed to relieve Mr Ahern, his col-
leagues and big business interests of as much of
the need to consult with communities as possi-
ble. The Act – formerly known as the Strategic
Infrastructure Bill - is a fast-track application
process that removes the necessity for develop-
ers to seek approval from local authorities but,
instead requires application direct to An Bord
Pleanála (ABP) for permission to build projects
which they claim have regional or national stra-
tegic significance.
One of the early cases to be considered by
ABP under this new legislation is an application
by the Belgian-owned company, Indaver Ireland,
to build two incinerators at Ringaskiddy in Co
Cork. Its original planning permission having
elapsed, in November , Indaver submitted
a new application for both toxic and municipal
waste burning facilities. Their first application
had been recommended for refusal in on
separate grounds by the ABP Inspector, Philip
Jones, though his recommendations were over-
turned by nine of the ten directors of the Bord in
a decision that was itself subsequently ruled by a
judge to offer ample grounds for judicial review,
such was its irrationality.
The Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe
Environment (CHASE) is one of many groups
from all over Cork Harbour that have opposed
Indaver’s plan for much of the nearly nine years
since the incinerator plan was first announced.
As was feared before the new Act went into force,
such groups are significantly prejudiced under
its terms. Merely to participate in the oral hear-
ing chaired by ABP Inspector Oznur Yucel-Finn
earlier this year has cost objectors approxi-
mately €, in total. Legal representation
and expert witnesses are costing them a further
€, to exercise a democratic right to par-
ticipate in the formulation of plans that materi-
ally affect people and their environment.
Under the terms of the new Act, Indaver have
also had a right of access to ABP for extensive
consultation and advice prior to making their
new application formally. While this was going
on, the communities were completely shut out
of the discussions. Indaver availed itself of ten
months of this generous support from ABP. It is
Proposed site for incinerators. In the foreground is National Maritime College, right next to it a narrow bridge which will
be the only means of escape from the site in the event ofaccident. In the background is Cobh
village_oct_09.indd 62 27/10/2009 15:39:34
during this secret process that ABP effectively
decide whether or not the developer’s plans
qualify for consideration under the fast track
strategic infrastructure process. Approval to
apply is therefore in itself a clear statement that
the Bord has decided the application has strate-
gic significance – a decision arrived at without
a shred of notice to what are likely to be com-
pletely unsuspecting communities in many
instances. Consistent with the terms of the Act,
the Cork communities, in contrast to the advan-
tages offered to the applicant, were allowed just
nine weeks (including the Christmas period)
from notification of Indaver’s new application
for planning permission to submit their objec-
tions to be heard at the oral hearing that fol-
lowed which leads to a decision from which there
is no right of appeal. CHASE is in its th year
of fighting this proposal and had the advantage
of considerable experience of the legalities and
complexities of challenging the application. It
had already secured near unanimous support
from residents, politicians, farmers, fisher-
men, doctors, tourism-related-businesses and
many others. The group had a petition that was
signed by , people as far back as .
Cork City and County Councils made it clear to
the recent oral hearing that under their waste
management plans which are on target to be met
without incineration, they have no need of the
facility and, moreover, that the proposal is in
contravention of their own development plans
for the harbour. However, the new Act says that
even where the developer’s proposal is in mate-
rial contravention of regional authority develop-
ment plans, this can be disregarded.
Incinerators are notorious for the environ-
mental and health damage they allegedly cause,
and are resisted ferociously by communities all
over the world. Many countries are abandon-
ing them as a means of waste disposal. CHASE
is particularly concerned about the constant
emission of nano-particles from the burning of
an unquantifiable number of highly toxic sub-
stances. One of their expert witnesses, paedia-
trician Dr Gavin ten Tusscher confirmed to the
oral hearing that there is no technology capa-
ble of capturing them and no levels of emission
below which they are safe. While nano-particles
are a small percentage of the total mass of emis-
sions, it is their tiny size that in fact makes them
more dangerous than larger particles because
their surface area is far greater, thus making
them highly efficient carriers of toxic pollutants.
These particles are inhaled deep into the lungs
where they can pass into the blood stream and be
carried around the body to various organs. They
are exceptionally dangerous to children and
babies and are associated with a range of health
problems including cancers, birth defects, respi-
ratory difficulties and many others. Another of
CHASE’s expert witnesses, the toxic-pathologist
Professor Vyvyan Howard explained that “cur-
rently in the EU there is a statistical loss of life
expectancy due to fine particles in the air equiv-
alent to . million life years”. On these dangers,
however, Indaver were silent during the
oral hearing and they made
no attempt at cross-exam-
ination on the nano parti-
cle issue. Indeed, during
the first oral hearing back
in , the communities
were prevented from argu-
ing the health implications
of the incinerator pro-
posal - as the hearing was
on planning and not envi-
ronmental matters. The
topography of the lower
harbour means that the
area is subject to thermal
inversions which will trap
pollutants in its hollow
shape. Indaver’s evidence
on this point was made on the basis of tests con-
ducted miles away at the elevated and wind-
swept Cork Airport rendering them irrelevant
to the reality which the harbour communities
would experience .
The manner of Indaver’s presentation of
its case has been much criticised by objectors
from the outset, with one local resident com-
paring it to a clock in Cork City known as ‘the
four-faced liar’ because each of its faces gives
a different time. At the oral hearing this year,
Audrey Hogan, described how Indaver’s claims
are inconsistent – promising one minute that
the facility would be exclusively for the burn-
ing of Irish waste, and then in the next apply-
ing for a licence to import waste from elsewhere,
for example. The Chairperson of CHASE, Mary
O’ Leary undermined the claims of Indaver
that Ireland was obliged under EU law to build
these incinerators. She quoted Environment
Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, who said
“European legislation does not prescribe any
quotas for waste incineration, nor does it oblige
Member States to build waste incinerators if
they do not wish to. ..The Commission does
not know what particular legislation the Irish
Government…could refer to…The conclusion
that Community waste legislation obliges or will
oblige Member States to build incinerators is,
however, incorrect”. Professor Andrew Staines
of DCU, author of a Health Research Board
Report which found that Ireland has no ade-
quate means of monitoring the health impacts
of such facilities, is perturbed by the standard
and nature of the evidence given by Indaver’s
expert medical witness, occupational physician
Dr Martin Hogan. During the oral hearing this
year, Dr Hogan was discovered to have copyed
several pages of Professor Staines’ report and
presented it unattributed as his own work, and
out of context. What is even more astonishing is
that this was the second time that Dr Hogan had
done this. At a separate oral hearing into the
Poolbeg incinerator proposal in Dublin in ,
the ABP Inspector at that hearing had rebuked
Dr Hogan for the exact same practice.
The human cost to those who have put so
much effort into protecting their communities
from these incinerator plans has been immense.
They have attended endless meetings and con-
ferences, researched and prepared for hearings
and court appearances - to say nothing of the
expense and stress caused them. Parents have
lost valuable contact time with children now
grown up, because of their commitment to pro-
tecting the environment for those same children
and future generations. In a powerful and elo-
quent submission to the Inspector at this year’s
hearing, local resident Nick Loughnan spoke of
the shared determination to defend the home-
place from the polluting invader from Belgium.
At the time of writing the many communities
around Cork Harbour are anxiously awaiting
the Inspector’s findings and to find out whether
all their efforts have been in vain.
“European legislation does not
prescribe any quotas for waste
incineration, nor does it oblige
Member States to build waste
incinerators if they do not
wish to.”
village_oct_09.indd 63 27/10/2009 15:39:34
