By
A gold mine inquiry could be derailed for a third time over timetable issues that saw both the applicant and objectors threaten legal action against the Planning Appeals Commission.
The long-awaited public inquiry into Dalradian Gold’s application to mine in the Sperrin mountains has been beset by delays since it was announced by a former minister in 2020.
After two false starts in 2023 and 2024, new dates were set from April to June this year with Planning Appeals Commissioner Jacqueline McParland warning that only a court or the Chief Commissioner could stop them.
But after announcing a new week of hearings in August, and that hearings in late May would continue despite the absence of expert witnesses for Dalradian and Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, proceedings took a turn on Thursday.
Experts
Both the company and council announced plans to take a judicial review on the continuation of the ‘landscape’ topic for which their experts are not available. The landscape topic includes environmental protection designations and restoration of the site.
Third-party objectors meanwhile, raised a series of concerns about the sudden announcement of four days of hearings starting in August and said they too are considering legal action as many will be unable to attend.
The gold mine public inquiry was originally scheduled for 22 days when the timetable was issued in March, but following consideration of the pace of proceedings, the PAC said it could take up to 50 days.
As a result, timetables have been changed and some topics pushed back. But it was said this has been done on an “ad hoc” basis with no complete outline of hearing dates, nor the topics that will be discussed or which consultees will be required.
This uncertainty has led to repeated complaints across the board because parties have had to reschedule expert witnesses, some of whom are travelling from abroad.
Objectors to the mining application also raised the issue of public participation in the process amid suggestions the inquiry could span more days than they could take as annual leave.
Save Our Sperrins solicitor Mary Brolly said it “poses great difficulties” as they now know dates but “not topics” being discussed in August. Group member, Cormac McAleer, said it was “beyond comment” that they are being “spoonfed little bits of information” one at a time.
Pat Haughey described the new days in August as a “further erosion of our human rights”. He told the commissioners “I have only 25 days [holiday]. I have already said I can’t attend past that”. Martin Tracey said PAC officials had long known delays were possible but had done “very little” to mitigate them
William Orbinson, for co-applicant Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) Networks, told the inquiry “depending on what topics are contemplated in August, my witnesses may or may not be available. We do need clarity ASAP as to what is happening.”
‘Impose her will’
The Department for Infrastructure’s counsel, David Elvin, accused the PAC’s chief commissioner - Andrea Kells - of “trying to impose her will” without examining the views of the third-parties and others at the inquiry in relation to the timetable.
Both Stewart Beattie for Dalradian Gold and Conor Fegan for FODC said they planned to take a judicial review at the High Court to challenge the PAC’s decision on landscape.
Mr Beattie told Commissioner McParland: “You have said repeatedly to parties, nothing stops me but the Chief Commissioner or the High Court.
He said the company hoped to file its application without seeking an adjournment.
“Our intention is to allow next week to proceed.”
He also indicated that he had not had time yet to reflect on the announcement of hearings in August.
Mr Fegan said it was “simply too prejudicial for us not to take a stand”.
He described the scenario as “highly regrettable… but foreseeable” and suggested it presented an “opportunity for sober reflection on the part of the Chief Commissioner” over the position parties have found themselves in.
Mrs Brolly for Save Our Sperrins indicated she would take instructions regarding the August dates, while objector Martin Tracey also suggested he too was considering legal action.
Commissioner Jacqueline McParland closed proceedings on Thursday saying: “We will see everybody bright and early Monday morning, possibly.”
‘Stricter policies’
While much of Thursday’s session focused on scheduling disputes, parties also clashed over how local planning policy should apply to the proposed mine.
Fermanagh and Omagh District Council argued that its local planning policies on mining are stricter than the Department for Infrastructure’s regional planning rules.
Counsel for the council, Conor Fegan, said those local policies should carry significant weight when the PAC considers Dalradian’s application.
Much of the debate focused on a council policy which starts from a presumption against mining in protected countryside areas.
The policy allows for mineral development in areas of constraint if it won’t have “unacceptable adverse” impacts on areas including the environment, landscape, and human health.
The policy also considers factors including how rare or valuable the mineral is and how long the project would last.
Dalradian argued there is a conflict between local and regional planning policy.
Speaking for the company, Dr Michael Gordon said the council’s local development plan includes a 15-year limit for projects, while the regional planning framework does not.
But Conor Fegan for FODC told the PAC there is a “general attempt by the applicant that seeks to downplay local policies that they don’t like because they are a bit stricter.”
“They are asking you to give less weight to local policies because they are more difficult for them to adhere to.”
He added: “The policy is there for a reason and we think full weight ought to be given to it.”
Dalradian’s 2017 planning application includes a mine waste facility dubbed a ‘dry stack’ which will see waste that could reach 17 stories high and cover around 0.5km of Sperrins hillside.
Another dispute centred on whether the mine’s waste storage facility should also be assessed under council policies for waste management sites.
DfI’s Mr Elvin, however, took a different view when asked. He said: “We don't think it’s applicable. There is a separate set of rules dealing with minerals and the ancillary waste.”
He later added: “I suspect Fermanagh and Omagh are keen to get this in because of the restrictive criteria.”
Counsel for FODC, Mr Fegan hit back, saying “one would expect they would have waited for the PAC’s report before making a decision”.
He described the department’s position as an “error of law” and said “it can be a mineral development while also being a waste management facility”.
Third-party objector Cormac McAleer said he was “shocked to hear such a political statement attributing such a motive to FODC”.
He raised concerns about the toxic nature of the waste and its potential impacts on everything from human life, to animals, the environment and plant life.
Dalradian and third-party supporters backed Mr Elvin’s stance that FODC’s policy is not relevant. He later added that the department still considered waste issues “a very serious issue”.
He said that its consequences for people and the environment “remains a key consideration” and that he agrees with Mr Fegan’s submissions on the approach to “interpreting planning policy”.
“If the commission considers our applications of WM01 are incorrect, you will advise us.”
The inquiry is scheduled to continue at Strule Arts Centre at 10am on Monday.