Conflict of interest in appointment of ABP as Competent Authority for PCI Failure by ABP to properly engage prescribed bodies in its handling of EirGrid submissions to ABP Each of the above 15 points is substantive in its own regard and merits investigation. But the overriding substantive issue is that of the continued refusal and repeated failure to carry out a genuine public consultation on this project. This is all the more unforgiveable given that EirGrid is going through the process of a resubmitted planning application, over a 7 year period. Eirgrid’s brazen approach of paying lip-service to the option of undergrounding and to ignore public concerns and recommendations strongly indicates that it carries the imprimatur of the full backing of Government to steam-roll the North-South interconnector through the planning stages, and in so doing break the will of local communities opposing the Grid Link and Grid West projects. The current EirGrid Project Manager Mr John Fitzgerald recently stated on the airwaves that: “..public acceptability is key. We have to have these projects accepted or they simply won’t be built..”. In a sworn affidavit to the High Court, dated 19th May 2008, EirGrid’s then Project Manager, Mr Tomás Mahony, stated: ‘It is recognised by the Respondent that such infrastructure cannot be put in place without the general acceptance of the people of the North East...’ NEPPC concurs with Mr Mahony’s assessment. It is an alarming development for the public that the new EU regulation 347, which espouses greater public consultation as a core component of PCI projects is in fact being ignored and manipulated by EirGrid and by An Bord Pleanála in a rush to force through the planning application yet again. It is incumbent of the EU Commission to investigate this aspect in particular and not to allow the whole issue of respect for the integrity of the public consultation process, a process that is a central pillar of our democracy, to be hijacked.
In essence, UGC was not considered; OHTL was the sole option; the route was chosen and then, after the fact, the public would be ‘consulted’. This approach demolishes any claims of legitimacy of the consultation process. Bear in mind also that from the outset EirGrid refused to reveal to the public the rationale for its choice of route corridors. NEPPC was forced to take EirGrid to the High Court to obtain this information, which is a fundamental component of public consultation. On a more general note EirGrid refuses to discuss the NSIP with affected communities, landowners or representative groups in a public forum. It has been invited to participate in public debate fora, but has refused, stating ‘health and safety’ concerns, which is an insult to both the communities concerned and to its representatives. It refuses to debate the NSIP on radio directly, instead only offering to speak on air unchallenged. This leaves a very sour taste with the public, and makes a mockery of EirGrid’s claims of ‘public consultation’. In summary, not one single input from the public has been taken on board by EirGrid. It is ploughing on with the OHTL technology along the same route, in the same route corridor it outlined in 2007. The public concerns have been treated as an irrelevancy by EirGrid. 6. Refusal by EirGrid to engage with landowners concerns’ or recommendations EirGrid, even after 7 years, has to this day refused to meet the affected landowners as a group, to hear their concerns and discuss the best way forward. The subject of landowner consultation has not been addressed with either the appropriate expertise or with genuine intent. It was quite clear that the purpose of the so called ‘consultations’ with landowners prior to the original planning application was confined to EirGrid seeking merely to ascertain the identity and addresses of landholders and/or occupiers for the serving of notices on them in respect of individual plots of land. No proper assessment of these landowners was at any time being carried out by Eirgrid. This ploy was received by landowners as an insult to their intelligence. This tactic by agents of the Applicant is conceded in the Oral
‘In light of the above I must conclude that the withdrawal of the original application by Eirgrid was made “in the knowledge of the national rules applicable at the time of the submission of the file” and that it could have only been done in the full knowledge of the implications that a new application file requiring new examination would have been required’. It should be noted that, despite the DG Energy direction, there was not unanimous approval by the Board of ABP, with a 4:1 decision being recorded. The N-S interconnector is now a SID project and also a PCI project. The dual role of ABP as statutory planning and consent granting body and Competent Authority for PCI raises public concerns regarding conflict of interest. The pronouncement from ABP in the PCI ‘Manual of Permit Granting Process Procedures’ is that its duties under Regulation 347 will not affect its impartial assessment of planning applications’ and that ‘ neither role will impinge on the other and the separate administrative unit will maintain this division of function’. It is our understanding, however, that such separation does not exist – letter from ABP 19 September 2014: An Bord Pleanála was designated as Competent Authority for Projects of Common Interest on 4th December, 2013 in accordance with Regulation 347/2013. The Manual of Procedures was published on 15th May, 2014. The Manual states that An Bord Pleanála “will establish a PCI Unit to administer the PCI process separate from its Strategic Infrastructure or Planning Appeals Units”. The PCI Unit was established shortly afterwards. Projects of Common Interest are still a relatively new function for the organisation and the PCI Unit is still in a transitional phase. The Unit is an administrative unit reflecting the Board’s view that under the “Collaborative Scheme” approach adopted by the State the Board’s PCI permit granting role is principally one of co-ordinating the issuing of all the consents and decisions, including planning consents, required from all relevant authorities and to monitor compliance with time limits agreed for the issue of such consents. The Director of Planning has managerial responsibility for Planning Appeals, Strategic Infrastructure and Projects of Common Interest and directs and advises all 3 Sections.