In essence, UGC was not considered; OHTL was the sole option; the route was chosen and then, after the fact, the public would be This approach demolishes any claims of ‘consulted’. legitimacy of the consultation process. Bear in mind also that from the outset EirGrid refused to reveal to the public the rationale for its choice of route corridors. NEPPC was forced to take EirGrid to the High Court to obtain this information, which is a fundamental component of public consultation. On a more general note EirGrid refuses to discuss the NSIP with affected communities, landowners or representative groups in a public forum. It has been invited to participate in public debate fora, but has refused, stating and concerns, which is an insult to both the ‘health safety’ communities concerned and to its representatives. It refuses to debate the NSIP on radio directly, instead only offering to speak on air unchallenged. This leaves a very sour taste with the public, and makes a mockery of claims of EirGrid’s ‘public consultation’. In summary, not one single input from the public has been taken on board by EirGrid. It is ploughing on with the OHTL technology along the same route, in the same route corridor it outlined in 2007. The public concerns have been treated as an irrelevancy by EirGrid. 6. Refusal by EirGrid to engage with landowners or recommendations concerns’ EirGrid, even after 7 years, has to this day refused to meet the affected landowners as a group, to hear their concerns and discuss the best way forward. The subject of landowner consultation has not been addressed with either the appropriate expertise or with genuine intent. It was quite clear that the purpose of the so called with landowners prior to the original planning application was confined to EirGrid ‘consultations’ seeking merely to ascertain the identity and addresses of landholders and/or occupiers for the serving of notices on them in respect of individual plots of land. No proper assessment of these landowners was at any time being carried out by Eirgrid. This ploy was received by landowners as an insult to their intelligence. This tactic by agents of the Applicant is conceded in the Oral
In essence, UGC was not considered; OHTL was the sole option; the route was chosen and then, after the fact, the public would be ‘consulted’. This approach demolishes any claims of legitimacy of the consultation process. Bear in mind also that from the outset EirGrid refused to reveal to the public the rationale for its choice of route corridors. NEPPC was forced to take EirGrid to the High Court to obtain this information, which is a fundamental component of public consultation. On a more general note EirGrid refuses to discuss the NSIP with affected communities, landowners or representative groups in a public forum. It has been invited to participate in public debate fora, but has refused, stating ‘health and safety’ concerns, which is an insult to both the communities concerned and to its representatives. It refuses to debate the NSIP on radio directly, instead only offering to speak on air unchallenged. This leaves a very sour taste with the public, and makes a mockery of EirGrid’s claims of ‘public consultation’. In summary, not one single input from the public has been taken on board by EirGrid. It is ploughing on with the OHTL technology along the same route, in the same route corridor it outlined in 2007. The public concerns have been treated as an irrelevancy by EirGrid. 6. Refusal by EirGrid to engage with landowners concerns’ or recommendations EirGrid, even after 7 years, has to this day refused to meet the affected landowners as a group, to hear their concerns and discuss the best way forward. The subject of landowner consultation has not been addressed with either the appropriate expertise or with genuine intent. It was quite clear that the purpose of the so called ‘consultations’ with landowners prior to the original planning application was confined to EirGrid seeking merely to ascertain the identity and addresses of landholders and/or occupiers for the serving of notices on them in respect of individual plots of land. No proper assessment of these landowners was at any time being carried out by Eirgrid. This ploy was received by landowners as an insult to their intelligence. This tactic by agents of the Applicant is conceded in the Oral
EU-Commission-complaint-by-NEPPC-15-November-20141.docx