Permission for Ringaskiddy incinerator was given because Governent policy was considered ahead of local concerns, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor.
But it is unprecedented for the board to grant permission in the face of 14 recommended reasons for refusal.
Mr Philip Jones, the senior planning inspector who dealt with this controversial case and presided at the lengthy public hearing, produced a report running to more than 300 pages which unequivocally rejected the Indaver scheme on each of 14 counts; in effect, endorsing the case made by its opponents.
CHASE, the alliance of residents' associations formed to fight the plan, put a lot of time and effort into presenting what its members regarded as an excellent case at the public hearing; only to find that, however much it was listened to and even taken on board, it could be set aside by executive fiat.
An Bord Pleanála must take Government policy into account, and that's one of the main reasons it decided, by a majority of nine members to one, to grant permission after considering the matter - and the very negative report from Mr Jones, in particular - over the course of three board meetings.
The board's refusal for the Corrib gas terminal did not win any brownie points in political circles and, if that had been followed up by a rejection of the Ringaskiddy incinerator, mooted plans for a national infrastructure board to speed up the process of approving schemes would have moved up a notch or two.
In making its decision, the board had regard to the national waste-management policy framework as set out in Government policy statements, particularly their preference for incineration over landfill, and to the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001.
The board also took into account the geographical spread of hazardous waste arising in the State, with a concentration of large-scale chemical and pharmaceutical industries in the Cork Harbour area, and the fact that Indaver's site is adjacent to the N28 national primary route, which is due to be upgraded.
Although it was precluded by the 1996 Waste Management Act and the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency Act from considering issues relating to environmental pollution, the board said it had regard to the Health and Safety Authority's advice on hazards involving dangerous substances. Accordingly, it ruled that the site was "an appropriate location for a necessary public facility" and that Indaver's plan to develop it would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or be prejudicial to the future of port-related development and that it would be "acceptable in terms of traffic safety".
In deciding not to accept the inspector's recommendation, the board noted that the priorities set out in the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan for 2001-2006 "were intended to be provided in parallel (and not in any particular sequence) as part of an integrated approach to the management of waste."
Mr Jones argued, with some justification, that the plan's emphasis on minimising and reducing waste should be given priority over the provision of disposal facilities, in line with the EU's established waste-management hierarchy. But the appeals board fundamentally disagreed with his interpretation.
Having regard to the amount of hazardous waste produced in Ireland, the board considered that the scale of the proposed development was not excessive. And because of the concentration of pharmachem industries in the area, it was considered "appropriate" to contravene the Cork county plan.
In relation to visual impact, the board had regard to the industrial zoning of the area, the pattern and scale of existing industrial developments in this part of Cork Harbour, the topography and the long-distance nature of any open views of the site in deciding not to accept the inspector's report.
Referring to its recommendation that permission be refused on residential amenity grounds, the board noted the separation distances from the nearest houses in Ringaskiddy, the limited timescale of construction, the existing traffic levels on the roads and the imposition of conditions to mitigate the impact.
These conditions specify that "no hazardous waste from outside the State shall be accepted for treatment at the site" and that the annual volume of waste processed there shall not exceed 100,000 tonnes. Each consignment must also have a waste certificate identifying its origin, nature and composition.
Another of the 27 conditions provides for the establishment of a community liaison committee to provide for ongoing review of Indaver's operation. The ruling also goes further than any other in specifying that the company must pay a levy of €1.27 per tonne towards the provision of amenities in the area.
In an attempt to ease local fears, the board's order also lays down that bulk storage tanks on the site must have a "double-skin" construction, surrounded by adequate bunding, while those containing hydrochloric acid and aqueous ammonia are to be within an enclosed building.