Shell in Mayo: News from the Court Cases

mayo | environment | news report

Saturday April 16, 2005 17:28

by Terry

info at shelltosea dot com

Latest n the high court challenge to Shell and on Shell's case against farmers.

“Failure to abide by the terms of a high court order constitutes contempt of court and attracts penal sanction including possible imprisonment.
TAKE NOTICE that if you fail to abide by the terms of this order you may be summoned before the court to explain your contempt and the court may invoke penal sanction against you, including committing you to prison for such contempt.”

- Eugene F. Collins, Solicitors for the Plaintiff (i.e. Shell), Temple Chambers, 3 Burlington Road, Dublin 4.

This was the covering letter to orders receiving by Rossport residents on Thursday, ordering them to allow Shell on to their land. This effectively makes them trespassers on their own small farms. Whether they can enter those parts of their farms ear marked for Shell’s development appears to be something of a grey area.

On Friday Martin Harrington’s High Court appeal against An Bord Plenala, the state and the Attorney General ended in the Four Courts.
Justice Fidelma MacKen, making reference to her caseload, at anyone time having in the region of ten cases awaiting decision, said that she was statutorily obliged to give a decision within two months, and that her decision was more likely to be towards the end of that period.

The basis of the court challenge relates to the EU Seveso Directive, which gives guidelines on land use and planning, and basically makes for a situation where approval must be given by the competent health and safety authority.

The problem with this is that the health and safety authority here has a remit on occupational health, i.e. workplace accidents, and is not really orientated towards planning issues.

They based their approval in this instance on a consultants report commissioned by Shell.

The challenge related specifically to the Ballinaboy refinery site, which is the “establishment” for the purposes of the Seveso Directive, and there is a discrepancy between the boundary of the plant site and the planning boundary, which means that 900 metres of pipeline fall into some sort of black hole beyond the health and safety appraisal.

Meanwhile on the 9th of April the landowners got a letter from Shell offering a meet about ‘their concerns’, and saying the developers would be in touch by phone, something which hasn’t happened yet.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Shell in Mayo: News from the Court Cases