By
HGVs will transport everything from fuel to explosives. Photo by Zieben VH on Unsplash
A mining company’s plan to send 70 heavy goods vehicles a day along single-lane rural roads was branded a “public safety issue” at a public inquiry on Monday
“This is not somewhere in the outback of Australia where you can do what you want,” said retired roads engineer Douglas Hill, a consultant to the third-party objectors.
Dalradian Gold wants to mine gold and other precious metals in the Sperrin Mountains designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for at least 20 years but says the worst traffic will be in year one.
The plans would increase traffic in the largely unspoilt area around Greencastle, Co Tyrone, including HGVs and vans transporting everything from fuel to explosives, three lorries a day removing metal concentrate Dalradian hopes to sell, and commuter traffic.
Dalradian says it expects its staff to travel four per car, or at least two after the mine is built.
Mr Hill outlined a series of concerns about the company’s transport assessment, which was carried out in 2015, updated in 2018 with spot checks in 2021 and 2023.
“It’s about protecting motorists, children on school buses, cyclists, pedestrians and the community,” he told those gathered at the Strule Arts Centre.
Topics under discussion this week include the company’s application asking the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) to abandon the historic Green Road, along with other transport-related issues.
Questioning was led by Commissioner Kenneth Donaghey, who took a new approach by asking third parties for their opinions before DfI and Dalradian.
Third parties raised concerns that this was impacting their ability to take part as they didn’t know what DfI or Dalradian were going to say before they gave their comments.
Commissioner Donaghey said he was “not going round the houses on the issue”.
“So far as transport information, there has been no new information so third parties have had a chance to make rebuttals,” he added.
Following rigorous questioning about how the transport modelling was carried out and on which dates, civil engineering and transport expert Karl Dorman outlined a series of dates on behalf of Dalradian.
He told the inquiry that a number of surveys were carried out on dates in November 2015, April 2017, September 2018, January 2020 and June 2023.
Third-party objectors raised a series of concerns about the data and timescales over which it was gathered. Save Our Sperrins founder Fidlema O’Kane told the inquiry: “There are so many gaps in this model and it is so out of date that it is not worth talking about.”
She also questioned whether emergency services transport requirements had been factored in, in respect of ambulance, police and fire services and whether those services had been consulted.
Third-party objector Sean Tracey also raised concerns about the age of the traffic data being used. He said: “Data over three years is becoming unreliable. There have been significant changes in traffic patterns, and that alone should trigger an update.”
Four men appeared on behalf of the DfI’s Roads Division, with Seamus Logue from network planning answering questions.
Their appearance came after the Planning Appeals Commission wrote to DfI Roads on May 11 over concerns they “could not provide representation for the dates of 20 and 21 May and was uncertain as to the 18 May”.
“The Commission would expect that DfI Roads, a government department and the referring body in respect of the Roads Abandonment Order application, would be able to and should provide a representative for all of the relevant dates,” the letter added.
Mr Logue told the inquiry that DfI roads had found “no significant concerns or increases from the data provided from 2015” nor that “2023 spot checks presented any concerns”.
He was pressed further on whether they were happy that the 2023 spot check was taken at a single point - and answered “yes”.
Following further questioning about their approach to the traffic data and modelling provided by Dalradian along with its mining application, it was revealed that DfI Roads relied on the information Dalradian provided for their assessments.
DfI counsel, David Elvin, stated: “DfI Roads has not done its own modelling. What it has done is a process of scrutiny of the work that was done by Dalradian, which is not an unusual process.
“It is not incumbent on DfI to do its own modelling.”
Speaking for Dalradian, Mr Dorman said: “As part of the original [environmental statement] we used in 2015, DfI provided vehicle data. There was a permanent traffic counter on Crockanboy Road from 2007 to 2017.
“Those figures show a very stable level of traffic from 2007 to 2015.”
Third-party objector Niall McAleer raised concerns that the assessments carried out by the mining firm were done at a time of year when there were “lower daylight hours and lower peak tourism traffic”.
Mr Logue responded, saying: “Traffic volumes can vary - you have the balance of undertaking it in the summer when tourism is increased but schools decreased. That has a significant impact in June, July, August. The periods they were taken, we have no reason to suggest they were hampered.”
The 44,000 tonnes of explosives expected to be used on the site for the duration of the mine’s life was also debated.
It emerged that 97.5% of the explosives Dalradian plans to use can be shipped in 25 tonne loads, and that means “one vehicle every three days”.
Third parties questioned whether this included the required police escort, which they said could involve around six vehicles as well as a police helicopter, and the closure of roads in the area for such deliveries to take place.
Concerns were also raised about the safety impacts of carrying explosives on rural roads.
Mr Dorman for Dalradian said that the “risk of passing vehicles conflicts is very very low” because of the “low volume of traffic” and that the road could accommodate up to 10,800 vehicles a day, compared with current traffic levels of around 1,200 to 1,300 vehicles daily.
Pat Haughey asked if this was a “realistic” estimate of the volume of traffic the road could handle, adding “it doesn’t make sense”.
The current condition of the road was also repeatedly raised, with Mr Hill asking if a road safety audit had been carried out and whether culverts, slipping banks and a bridge had been considered as well as the winding and narrow nature of the road.
Mr Elvin KC said on behalf of DfI that a video survey would be done ahead of the gold mine’s construction and that Dalradian would be required to do this and ongoing surveys, and pay for any damage they may cause.
While he said this was in the list of proposed conditions, it was later suggested this could be done under a section 76 order, which is effectively a legally binding contract between a developer or landowner and a local planning authority.
Conor Fegan for Fermanagh and Omagh District Council said: “A [section] 76 agreement is eminently wise and a much cleaner way of dealing with this. The council would have no objection to that.”