Corrib Pipeline

Bord Pleanala Decision

Today’s publication of An Bord Pleanala’s ruling (4 page statement) amounts to a rejection of the Corrib Pipeline application.

Today’s publication of An Bord Pleanala’s ruling (4 page statement) amounts to a rejection of the Corrib Pipeline application. So stark are its findings that they amount to an outright refusal. But for diplomatic reasons they are couched in convoluted wording which requires close reading. As the Board acknowledges, the project is part of the government’s overall strategic (energy) policy so, instead of issuing an unqualified refusal, a back door is opened for what effectively should be a new ab initio ('from the beginning') application.

The 4 page statement comprises two distinct parts: the first, short and damning, is half a page in length. It states three grounds for rejection:

1. the “design documentation” and “risk assessment” are both so seriously defective that they fail to “present a complete, transparent and adequate demonstration that the pipeline does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public”;

2. the Rossport section in particular has “a proximity distance from dwellings which is within the hazard range of the pipeline should a failure occur;”

3. a short but crucial section “of the route of the pipeline … has been omitted from the application;”

Anyone of those reasons should be sufficient in itself to ensure refusal (*see note below).

The media are giving the slant that ‘permission has been given in principle’ subject only to necessary amendments by the applicant. This is blatant ‘spin’. What the document says is that in view of “the strategic national importance” etc : “it is provisionally the view of the Board that it would be appropriate to approve the onshore pipeline development.” In short, the Board would like to give permission but there are fundamental faults which cannot be permitted.

The second part of the Board’s statement (almost 3 pages) leaves no doubt that, though they are straining legalities by providing a backdoor, there will be rigour in ensuring that it is fully complied with. For this purpose fourteen stipulations are set down which highlight, on one hand, how defective the application to date is, and, on the other, give grounds for hope that the law will finally be adhered to in a transparent and accountable manner, albeit at this late stage. There is much proving and contesting yet to be done.

Edward Moran

*[A very similar situation arose in respect to the refinery application back in 2002 when, instead of refusing permission, a back door was provided by the Board. On that occasion the arrogance of Shell was so astounding that, rather than making the required improvements to their application, they failed to make any of substance. This left the Board with no option but to refuse permission.]