IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INQUIRY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PUBLIC INQUIRY DIRECTION ORDER PUBLIC INQUIRY VESTING ORDER PUBLIC INQUIRY STOPPING UP OF PRIVATE ACCESSES PUBLIC INQUIRY DAY 6 The Panel: Mr Kevin Chambers Mr William Gillespie Held at: The Mellon Country Hotel Beltany, Road, Omagh Monday, 16th May 2011 At: 10.30 am Mr Francis O'Reilly represented the Roads Service 1 I N D E X {TR:4} (P:9)Presentation by Mr Winters {TR:4} (P:13)Presentation by Mr Donnelly {TR:4} (P:19)Presentation by Liz Saulter {TR:4} (P:25)Presentation by Councillor Brush {TR:4} (P:33)Presentation by Mr Suitor {TR:4} (P:37)Comments by Mrs Christie {TR:4} (P:45)Presentation by Mr Murtland {TR:4} (P:56)Further comments by Ms Saulter {TR:4} (P:57)Presentation by Mr Morris for Ballygawley Traders {TR:4} (P:63)Presentation by Mr Tallon {TR:4} (P:66)Presentation by Mr McGonnell {TR:4} (P:70)Presentation by Mr Mulligan {TR:4} (P:90)Presentation by Mr David Brush 2 {TR:4} (P:102)Presentation by Mr McClean {TR:4} (P:108)Presentation by Mr Mallon on behalf of Mr Eric Coote {TR:4} (P:111)Presentation by Mr Coote 3 ERRATUM Page 3, Line 8, Insert: “Presentation by Peter McCarron” – (Page 121) Page 12, Last paragraph. Delete “£” sign. Page 21, paragraph 1, last line. Replace “own” with “on”. Page 43, paragraph 4, first line, Page 44, paragraph 2, first line. Replace “MR CHRISTIE” with “MS CHRISTIE”. Page 46, paragraph 2, second line. Replace “300” with “3000”. Page 52, paragraph 2, line 3. Replace “quest” with “west. Page 76, paragraph 5, first line. Replace “MS SALTERS” with “THE CHAIRMAN”. 4 Monday, 16th May 2011 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. My name Kevin Chambers and my colleague is Bill Gillespie. Welcome to Day 6 of the Public Inquiry into the strategic issues related to the A5 Western Transport Corridor proposals. As usual I need to begin with a few housekeeping matters. Once again I am at the risk of boring everyone, but I would like to ask that you ensure that you are aware of the location of all the emergency exits at the front and back of the room. I would ask that everyone present switches off their mobile phone, not just put on silent. I also ask that when you rise to speak you introduce yourself by stating your name and speak slowly and clearly to allow the Stenographer to accurately record the proceedings taking place. Now just before we begin the main business of the Inquiry this morning, which is the presentation of evidence by either objectors of the scheme or supporters of the scheme, I would like to read out a statement relating to the role of the Inspectors. I want to do this because issues were raised last week relating to the independence and impartiality of the Inspectors. I promised on Friday afternoon that I would read out a statement in that respect. This is what I want to say. First of all dealing with the appointment of Inspectors: The Roads Service Northern Ireland Order, 1993 is the main legislation which contains the provision enabling or requiring the 5 Department to hold an Inquiry in connection with the exercise of its functions. Schedule A1, Clause 33, of the Interpretation Act, Northern Ireland, 1954, provides for the Department to appoint a person (Inspector) to hold a Public Inquiry into the Department's proposals. The Department presently has a panel of 13 Inspectors from which it can appoint an Inspector to hold a Public Inquiry (subject to their availability). The Inspectors are appointed by the Department for Regional Development under the above legislation (not the Roads Service). We are completely independent and impartial and are not self-appointed. The Inspector may require participants in Public Inquiries to submit copies of all statements/evidence to him or her at least four weeks before the commencement of the Inquiry. A witness who proposes to produce any other papers which have not been lodged previously may be asked to show good cause for late presentation of evidence. It is entirely at the Inspector's discretion to accept evidence which has not been presented four weeks prior to the commencement of the Inquiry. Some objectors at a Public Inquiry may wish to just make a "Statement" which is not subject to questioning, but the Inspector may choose not to hear a statement in this situation. Inspectors may intervene when they consider questions or responses to be unduly lengthy, repetitive or unhelpful. The Inspector will normally attribute more weight to evidence which has been subject to questioning. 6 Inspectors have the powers to refuse the submission or production of any matter or evidence which they consider to be irrelevant, repetitious, contrary to the public interest or which is directed to the merits of government policy. Government policies which have been through the democratic process are outside the remit of the Inquiry. If witnesses are repeating evidence given earlier the Inspector may limit or refuse such evidence to be heard. Last minute introduction of material intended to catch an opposing party off guard is not acceptable. Inspectors will exercise discretion in favour of persons who wish to be heard (but cannot appear as of right), provided the presentation is likely to last no more than five to ten minutes. Legal challenges such as an alleged contravention of human rights are not for the Inquiry, but should be addressed through the Courts. Any concerns about an individual Inspector should be directed to the Department for Regional Development. Upon receipt, the Inspector's report and recommendations will be considered by the Department. Roads Service will then be asked to produce a Departmental Statement, which will set out the Department's consideration of the Inspector's comments and recommendations. It will state the Department's decision on whether to proceed with the scheme without modifications or subject to such modifications as the Department thinks fit or not to proceed at all. 7 The Departmental Statement will be copied to all objectors and any other person who appeared or was represented at the Inquiry and who has asked to be notified of the decision. In notifying the objectors of the decision the Department will either append a copy of the Inspector's report, if convenient, or the relevant extract from the report. The Department will not circulate the Inspector's report before a decision is made. In light of some of the statements made last week I thought it important, ladies and gentlemen, to clarify both the position of the Inspectors and the purpose of the report we have produced. Now I am not prepared to take questions on what I have said up until this point because there is a very, very full schedule today and we have to ensure that all those who wish to present evidence will have the opportunity to be heard. If there is any time at the end of the today's proceedings I will consider that. No interruptions at this point, thank you. The first presenter this morning I understand is Mr Ed Winters present. Could you come forward, please and present your evidence, and I remind you to state your full name and speak fairly slowly and clearly so that the Stenographer can accurately record your evidence. MR WINTERS: Can I hand you a prepared copy? THE CHAIRMAN: One point I would like to emphasise, Mr Winters, this Inquiry is specifically focused on strategic issues and strategic matters relating to the A5 proposals. I would ask that all presenters of evidence to ensure that while there is some leeway and 8 possible overlap in terms of strategic and other issues, to focus and concentrate on the strategic matters. Presentation by Mr Winters MR WINTERS: Thank you, and good morning. My name is Ed Winters, and my wife Winifred and I live with our four dogs in Cavanacaw near Omagh just beside the Gold Mine. I am semi-retired having worked as professional photographer for 32 years in my Omagh High Street Studio. I hold a London University General Science Degree and in 1996 I gained a postgraduate diploma in Environmental Protection. Omagh Minerals applied for planning permission for a Gold Mine and associated Minerals at Cavanacaw in 1992. This major application was supported by an Environmental Impact Statement, which I have here. This scoped the entire development. A Public Inquiry into this application was held in 1993 and the Planning Appeals Commission recommended approval and this was granted with 39 conditions to protect the environment and the community. Omagh Minerals have consistently flaunted those conditions with breaches of the planning conditions and Enforcement Orders that have been issued by the Planning Service to get them back to those 9 conditions. For example, the name of the application for a gold mine and associated minerals but, in fact, this is an open cast lead mine producing tonnes of toxic lead and a few ounces of gold and silver. Associated with the lead are other toxic and carcinogenic materials such as mercury, cadmium mercury and arsenic. Continual restoration at the Gold Mine was an element of the successful application with progressive back filling of the open cast mine. All waste rock was to be used for back filling and re-landscaping with no rock to be removed from the site. However, in Condition 39b, the phrase "And the removal of surplus rock", had slipped into the planning consent. This may be interpreted as a few lorry loads of excess rock but between the period of July 2008 and February 2009, the contractor PT McWilliams, took out some 140 20-ton lorries of rock per day before the Planning Service issued an Enforcement Order to stop.