Shell's Shenanigans continue in Rossport..

international | miscellaneous | press release

Monday November 07, 2005 11:41

by ShelltoSea - ShelltoSea

info at corribsos dot com

Press release

As the plan to build a highly dangerous refinery and pipeline develops so too does the struggle to send 'Send to Sea'.

Pipeline Cutting

We note that Shell completed the de-welding of its pipeline last Saturday. This was essential in order to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime governing the Corrib Gas project. We once again condemn the efforts by a small, unrepresentative group to relieve Shell of its responsibilities in this regard.

Environmental Issues

Despite a recent Statement from Mayo County Council, we continue to have grave concerns regarding the environmental integrity of the Ballanaboy site. For example, local people continue to observe serious water discolouration from surface drains.
Up to three weeks ago, Shell and the County Council were warning of a critical environmental risk from the Ballanaboy site. In contrast, they now claim that the site is in complete order and posing no risks. Yet, we note that water treatment units which Shell and the Council had claimed were essential are not yet operational.

Local concerns are therefore more acute now than before. Shell to Sea will be conveying its concerns directly to the Minister for Marine and Natural Resources and demanding that a pro-active, rigorous monitoring regime be put in place immediately.

Site Access Issues

Following numerous calls by Shell to Sea to Shell to complete environmental works on the Ballanaboy site, a programme of works was commenced by Shell in the last three weeks. In order to build confidence and facilitate the smooth operation of this programme Shell to Sea and Shell agreed a modus operandi involving daily communication and site visits by Shell to Sea observers. This agreement was operating effectively. However, last week Shell unilaterally breached this agreement by refusing site access to Shell to Sea observers and then instituting a new set of pre-conditions for these visits. The consequence is that the agreement has now broken down.

We condemn this action and demand the restoration of the agreed procedure. This breach of an agreement creates a very difficult situation in the lead up to possible mediation talks. This is compounded by the failure of Shell to complete its work programme by the coming week though this had been our agreed understanding.
In order that any possible progress can be made on these issues, Shell must act as a responsible agent. That implies honouring agreements and showing respect for the local community. It is essential that Shell recognises these principles and immediately restores the agreed procedure.

Rossport 'exempted development'

Finally, Shell to Sea note with incredulity the decision of Mayo County Council that Shell's Rossport Compound is an 'exempted development'. We firmly reject this decision. We will be taking advice on this matter and considering appropriate action in response

END

For comment or verification call DR Mark Garavan Spokesperson Shell to Sea on + 353 87 9023687 - www.shelltosea.com

save preference

Comments (2 of 2)

Mayococo, I should coco

by BANANAMAN

Tue Nov 08, 2005 17:14

If one takes a quick look at planning file ref. 051655, one will get a good idea why its classified as an exempted development.
Check out www.mayococo.ie for a press release also in relation to this development.

Exempted Development

by anarchaeologist - Shell to Sea Dublin

Mon Nov 07, 2005 14:40

The provisions regarding exempted development are contained in Section 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Outlined below are the several cases by which planning permission is not required.

I'm going to quote it here in its entirety, as the URL doesn't seem to work:

4.—(1) The following shall be exempted developments for the purposes of this Act—

(a) development consisting of the use of any land for the purpose of agriculture and development consisting of the use for that purpose of any building occupied together with land so used;

(b) development by the council of a county in its functional area, exclusive of any borough or urban district;

(c) development by the corporation of a county or other borough in that borough;

(d) development by the council of an urban district in that district;

(e) development consisting of the carrying out by the corporation of a county or other borough or the council of a county or an urban district of any works required for the construction of a new road or the maintenance or improvement of a road;

(f) development carried out on behalf of, or jointly or in partnership with, a local authority that is a planning authority, pursuant to a contract entered into by the local authority concerned, whether in its capacity as a planning authority or in any other capacity;

(g) development consisting of the carrying out by any local authority or statutory undertaker of any works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing, renewing, altering or removing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables, overhead wires, or other apparatus, including the excavation of any street or other land for that purpose;

(h) development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures;

(i) development consisting of the thinning, felling and replanting of trees, forests and woodlands, the construction, maintenance and improvement of non-public roads serving forests and woodlands and works ancillary to that development, not including the replacement of broadleaf high forest by conifer species;

(j) development consisting of the use of any structure or other land within the curtilage of a house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such;

(k) development consisting of the use of land for the purposes of a casual trading area (within the meaning of the Casual Trading Act, 1995);

(l) development consisting of the carrying out of any of the works referred to in the Land Reclamation Act, 1949, not being works comprised in the fencing or enclosure of land which has been open to or used by the public within the ten years preceding the date on which the works are commenced.

(2) (a) The Minister may by regulations provide for any class of development to be exempted development for the purposes of this Act where he or she is of the opinion that—
(i) by reason of the size, nature or limited effect on its surroundings, of development belonging to that class, the carrying out of such development would not offend against principles of proper planning and sustainable development, or
(ii) the development is authorised, or is required to be authorised, by or under any enactment (whether the authorisation takes the form of the grant of a licence, consent, approval or any other type of authorisation) where the enactment concerned requires there to be consultation (howsoever described) with members of the public in relation to the proposed development prior to the granting of the authorisation (howsoever described).
(b) Regulations under paragraph (a) may be subject to conditions and be of general application or apply to such area or place as may be specified in the regulations.
(c) Regulations under this subsection may, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), provide, in the case of structures or other land used for a purpose of any specified class, for the use thereof for any other purpose being exempted development for the purposes of this Act.
(3) A reference in this Act to exempted development shall be construed as a reference to development which is—

(a) any of the developments specified in subsection (1), or

(b) development which, having regard to any regulations under subsection (2), is exempted development for the purposes of this Act.

(4) The Minister may, in connection with the Council Directive, prescribe development or classes of development which, notwithstanding subsection (1)(a), shall not be exempted development.

(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Minister shall consult with any other State authority where he or she or that other State authority considers that any such regulation relates to the functions of that State authority.

Source: Irish Statute Book Database

Would it be possible to post here why Mayo County Council has declared it an exempted development? Has there been a ministerial directive?

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Shell's Shenanigans continue in Rossport..

Comments (2 of 2)