20/05/2026
𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗜𝗻𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟰: 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 (𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮 𝗼𝗳 𝟮)
Discussion returned to DfI’s proposal to deal with counter-charging the applicant for damage to the roads caused by mine traffic (if permitted) through a Section 76 agreement, in lieu of an Article 11 agreement as originally suggested in DfI’s submitted documentation. Mr Elvin (Counsel for DfI) noted that a video survey could be taken to record a baseline and the area inspected for repair 6 months before end of construction phase or 12months before operations commence. Mr Elevin noted that a clause for determination could be included for dealing with disputes. Mr Beattie (DGL) noted he had taken instruction overnight from the Applicant, DGL were content that this be dealt with through a Section 76 agreement. Mr Elvin then sought the Applicant’s thoughts on whether the responsibility for repairs should apply to construction & operation or only construction. Mr Beattie noted that the Applicant thought this was unnecessary post construction, with repair works completed at this point being subject to a 12month defects liability which could be considered as a 1 year warranty.
Third party contributors were then invited to give their thoughts and outlined the lack of detail around what was being discussed and how this could be enforced. Queries began: What Road infrastructure is to be covered by this? Who would assess the damage & determine remedial works and at what frequency? What baseline information has been or will be established? If no bond mechanism is put in place, is this agreement enforced under injunction?
Mr Haughey, an independent third party objector noted that he had made an urgent procedural application last night, as he believed this change from an Article 11 to Section 76 represented a material change to the project, noting that road deterioration, ‘extraordinary traffic’ (as referenced in the NI Roads Order 1993), repair liability, financial security or infrastructure impacts have not been agreed nor information shared with third parties to meaningfully consider this. Third parties must be provided with full wording, evidential basis & opportunity to respond. Summarising this as an expense recovery mechanism due to damage caused by excessive weight on roads. His view was the inquiry should be suspended, until DfI disclose full wording of proposed agreement, DfI provide all baseline road & structural data, proposed monitoring, repair triggers, bond/ security, indexation & enforcement arrangements. Mr Elvin (DfI) rejected this, noting his view that the inquiry was the appropriate forum to interrogate information.
Mr Hill (SOS, retired civil engineer) note that a video record as a baseline is insufficient – this would be a preliminary task in advance of the necessary meaningful assessments. integrity, drainage. A team of people are required to carry out specialist inspections. A Geotechnical engineer would assess stability of embankments, skid resistance, structural integrity; a drainage engineer would consider drainage, a lighting engineer would consider signage aspects, environmental engineer would explore relevant matters etc. DfI Roads as the Management Agent for the road should know what is required and/ or be able to subcontract out relevant inspection reports to independent specialists on their minor works framework agreement.
SOS Solicitor Mrs Brolly, noted that with this section 76 proposal third party protectors are again very much in the dark. Financial redress for road damage should be in place for life of mine & thereafter – throughout decommissioning phase. Unknown parameters: identification of parties, content of agreement, duration, community involvement. Without full information for the proposal we are in the dark, on workers (questionable car-sharing 4 per vehicle for construction, 2 per vehicle operation to control vehicle numbers on site), on haulage of concentrate (destination unknown). We are again very concerned a talk of no bond, having previously disclosed our concerns on DGL, Wheaton, Kayman Islands, Orion and now a contractual basis being considered for DfI Roads to pursue DGL for costs. DfI Roads advised to exercise great caution, bonds are commonplace for minor developments and ought to be considered rather than litigation and injunction proceedings.
A succession of third-party objectors described the video survey as wholly insufficient baseline mechanism and noted that road repair responsibility should continue throughout the life of mine operations, decommissioning and 12months beyond this (if applicant permitted). One third party representative noted that 54,000 HGV journeys were planned over the two year construction period, with 218,000 HGV journeys planned over the 23 year mine life and staff vehicle movements in excess of 2 million journeys over the same period – damage to the local road network over the entire project life is fully predictable and repairs should be carried out at the expense of the Applicant. All bridges, culverts and services on the effected roadways should also be considered (Drumlea bridge, Pollanroe bridge highlighted on Crockanboy Rd, Attagh bridge impacted on Camcosy Rd); with appropriate survey tools used – Ground penetrating radar etc. as necessary. One third party objector noted that the baseline survey should stretch from the Crockanboy Road junction at Newtownstewart to Creggan crossroads.
Commissioner Donaghy sought clarification if there would be a series of Section 76 agreements potentially adopted or if it would be a single S76 with different sections relating to each issue agreed through this mechanism, if scheme permitted. Mr Elvin confirmed latter would be the case.
DfI consider adequate consultation has taken place around Transport Assessment –third party objectors dispute this, querying what consultation if any, has taken place since the sham consultation exercise at Camcosy Rd in November 2016.
A local community member Sean Clarke, spoke from the audience, noting he was a founder of St. Patrick’s GFC in Greencastle in 1969 and club secretary for 40years, and never had any contact/ communication from DGL. Mr Clarke noted that the club was the hub of the community and should have been consulted on proposals.
A third party objector raised key receptors for consideration in a Transport Assessment: school & pedestrian safety; community exposure to HGV Risk, community use & industrial traffic. Kids walking & cycling to school, early arrival at school/ nursery/ daycare facilities for breakfast clubs all require consideration. With mine operations planned 24/7, 365 days a year, parking on roads to attend wakes will introduce situations where roadways are reduced to single lane traffic, how has this been considered? The safety of people is paramount, proposal is considered a threat to life.
A retired principal in the audience, was compelled to speak, noting his shock when he learned of the extent of HGV traffic involved and that the local schools had not been consulted or involved in the process.
Commissioner Donaghy asked third parties if the Applicant’s rebuttal in relation to Transport queries addressed their concerns or if they had further concerns.
A third party objector noted that a child specific road safety assessment was a fundamental omission from the submitted documentation. He noted that NI are current bringing in a law to ban vehicles overtaking school buses – referencing Greencastle PS (Our Lady of Lourdes). No mitigation in place, no studies undertaken of where children walk/ desire line exercises conducted or included. He noted that these foreseeable risks should have already been identified by the Applicant and/ or DfI Roads on assessment with third parties then commenting on them – rather than pointing these out in the first instance at this late stage.
SOS Chair, Marella Fyffe shared powerful personal testimony noting that as a youngster she lost a brother to a HGV accident. She posed the question: Will the parent of the first child killed by a HGV be content with the rebuttal information?
A third party objector highlighted the number of young relatively inexperienced drivers locally – school children/ with 17-18 year old pupils travelling to 8 different post-primary schools locally. One objector noted that the project before us was incompatible with rural life in the area, referencing the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) capacity level of 10,800 for the Crockanboy Road put forward by the Applicants traffic consultant yesterday, & the proposal adding an additional 270 vehicle journeys daily to the current level (circa 1300), with the rationale appearing the local community should perhaps be grateful this is not more. This additional traffic will have major implications on road safety locally, it represents a massive risk to our area.
Local resident Barbara Ward noted that a child was killed getting off the school bus approximately 20 years ago on the Crockanboy Road.
Objectors asked that questions be put to DfI Roads on how they accept the Travel Plan submitted within the original application in the first instance? Commissioner Donaghy invited any further comments from DGL, DFI / DFI Roads. Mr Beattie stated that in the applicant’s view adequate consultation had been carried out. Mr Elvin noted DFI Roads position as regards HGV traffic remains same as yesterday. Mr Murray (DfI Roads) reiterated that their position hasn’t changed on process went through yesterday.
Mr Dorman (DGL Traffic Consultant) noted that a study had been undertaken in the area around the proposal, at pick-up/ drop off times at Greencastle PS and movements observed were typical with any rural primary school, school signposted, noting traffic calming measures in the area. Majority of HGV movements kept outside peak hour (8-9am). Every road user should be aware of the risks.
Third party objectors contended that it was not a typical situation where the local shop is in close proximity to Greencastle PS, children know where this is and perhaps have a line of sight to it, however it requires the crossing of two roads to reach this. There are no traffic lights in Greencastle, nor pelican crossings to facilitate safe crossing. Similarly in Gortin there is a shop across the road from the Primary school, with no traffic lights or pelican crossings in place.
Mr Elvin noted that the Traffic Assessment was consulted on, noting it was subject to transboundary consultation. It is worth noting, whilst not picked up at time, the transboundary response by DGL TBR 20 document on Traffic reads only ‘Dec 2025 No comments to make’.
The Applicant’s sustainable traffic & transport plan was then discussed with comments sought first from FODC on their view if concerns had been addressed by the Applicant’s Transboundary responses.
Mr McDermott (Lead Planner FODC) noted concerns remained as outlined in the Council’s Statement of Case & Rebuttal documentation. Sustainability plan is ‘long on promises and short on outcomes or guarantees’, highlighting how measures such as car sharing or use of alternative forms of transport were to be ‘promoted’, and paragraph 5.5 which reads ‘It will be the responsibility of the (Travel Plan) Co-ordinator to review the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the Travel Plan,’ introducing an opt out clause.
Third party objectors noted the lack of depth, aspirational nature of plan and problems with enforcement, with one contributor labelling it meaningless. Another third party representative queried how realistic the car sharing proposals were, citing travel hub Ireland noting a 10% uptake over 3 years and a 2025 study by Essex County Council with a 5-10% update. What measures are in place if this element is unsuccessful or underperforms significantly on targets set?
Mr Elvin (DfI Counsel) conceded that he could see problems around enforcement measures and that improvements could be made to the travel plan. This was a new stance with DfI in RR15 previously accepting/ adopting the plan put forward by the Applicant. Mr Elvin suggested that an equivalent plan be agreed/ submitted for approval by DfI; or equivalent obligation be put into a section 76 agreement to address this point, citing S76 agreements he had previously seen where financial penalties were introduced where aspects didn’t work or underperformed (such as car sharing). Mr Elvin noted ‘I see criticisms that it is internally policed rather than open to external scrutiny’, acknowledging concerns on the performance matrix & enforcement/ monitoring elements. “Public interest requires a better response”.
Commissioner Donaghy noted that this was a new opinion being expressed by the Department so opened floor to third parties.
SOS solicitor Mrs Brolly noted that it has taken DfI some time to identify & accept criticism of travel plan. At this late stage in process, it ought to have been apparent long before now, are we now being asked to consider this under condition with no details on what is being proposed?
Third party objector Niall McAleer noted his understanding that the purpose of this inquiry was to interrogate the submission before it and if aspects were found to be deficient this should be noted & the element rejected. He queried why DfI continue to propose workarounds to plug holes in the information, offer the applicant further opportunities by kicking the can down the road, noting a perception that the inquiry is about facilitating the application rather than assessing it. Commissioner Donaghy noted that this was the second aspect being couched into legal agreement in two days so did allow the query to be put to DfI. Mr Elvin noted this response was simply listening to some of the objections, stating the purpose of the hearing was to respond to queries being made.
Mr Beattie (DGL) noted travel plan is of some vintage, we recognise that (Appendix B4, 2017). He noted that the car share provision is proposed to be implemented by mandatory mini-bus provision (4 per car in construction, 2 per car in operation). Applicant considers an Article 11 agreement or condition a better way of addressing this aspect, DGL don’t consider section 76 agreement necessary. Breach of condition, stop notice, we think adequate… I don’t accept financial mechanism necessary.
Mr McDermott (FODC) noted some policy context (15.4) Council would not accept because we are not in Belfast (following references to Belfast travel plan by DGL consultants) that the provision of sustainable transport should be minimised, it should be of greater importance (especially when considering scale & size of proposal).
Discussion moved to 37.9km Powerline Application – Commissioner Donaghy queried what roads would be subject to closure and for how long. Mr O’Hara (DGL – Tetratech) noted installation of underground cabling may require road closures, not known definitively as yet, depending on where cable can be sited – verge etc, partial closures may be accommodated – any closures will be limited to 9am-4pm. Mr O’Hara noted a 12-18months predicted construction period, with works planned 7am-7pm Monday to Saturday.
Third parties noted concerns around 10months of road closures noted in submitted documentation, installation difficulties due to access difficulties (gradient, narrow lane access, bogland, farmers refusing leeway access), line selection (from Artigarvan – to be discussed again at Climate section); has transport modelling considered maintenance of 10m wide strip beneath powerlines/ between/ around poles? Mr Orbinson (Counsel for NIE) noted NIE very experienced at producing powerlines like this, he believed over 1000km of powerlines has already been installed in the AONB by NIE & its subcontractors.
Formal questioning on traffic & transport closed. Conditions next to be discussed, with Commissioner Donaghy advising these will be discussed without prejudice on the basis of the scheme being found acceptable, what conditions would then be proposed. Draft conditions included in DfI submissions at SoC stage. Third parties contended that the detail isn’t there to consider the majority of these, with some topics yet to be discussed to which these relate.
Lengthy discussion on existing mine infrastructure at Camcosy Road which is unlawful and subject to ongoing enforcement proceedings – presently with a separate PAC next sitting 08/07/26. Mr McDermott noted FODC’s view that the exploratory site & explosives store should be treated as a greenfield site (as they are supposed to be) in condition wording. Sub-standard visibility splays serving the explosives store access to the south of the Camcosy road again discussed. Mr Beattie noted that this was investigated in 2014 and confirmed acceptable by DoE Minister 29th January 2015 through an AQW (assembly question), with a request that the accepted tolerance then be also accepted now for a planned future works (if permitted).
Third party objectors noted this has been a long running issue, with the deficiency highlighted to Strategic Planning and DfI Roads in 2014, with DfI Roads recognising there was an issue here & accepting a relaxation on the 2.4m x 60m visibility splay stated as achievable in SLR Drawing 12 at that time. It was noted that the explosives store building was only shown on a site plan at 1:2500 scale in the K/2013/0072/F without the necessary floor plans & elevations provided for it to be considered and later in the 2014 application (K/2014/0387/F) this was wrongly presented as a relocation of a previously approved structure. The matter was further compounded by the Keenan family submitting an planning application to restore a local vernacular dwelling in close proximity to the explosives store prior to the 2014 application being submitted by DGL, yet permission was refused on Mickey Atty’s due to inadequate visibility splays & the explosives store & mine taking precedence (K/2014/0600F). Commissioners sought confirmation on the level of visibility splay currently achievable in this location this week.
Mr Elvin shared a draft condition on an amended travel plan submission, should the position be that this isn’t incorporated into a Section 76 agreement:
‘Prior to commencement of development a Travel Plan in substantively the form contained in Appendix B to the Environmental Statement shall be submitted in writing to the Department for approval. Following approval of the plan by the Department it should be implemented and complied with according to the terms approved.’
Mr Elvin noted that the applicant’s Judicial Review on the Landscape topic proceeding next week, would be heard by Justice McAlinden on Friday 22/05/26, suggesting contingency planning may be necessary, as if this succeeds we don’t know what we’re doing next week.
Commissioner McPharland provided a breakdown of topics for the dates currently listed/ proposed:
16th – 17th June Noise
29th – 30th June Blasting & Vibration
(Seismicity & subsidence to be dealt with separately)
1st July Radon, NORM, EMF & Public Health
4th, 5th & 6th August Lighting
Commissioner McPharland noted that when outcome of JR is known, update on timetable will be put on PAC Website on Friday 22/05/26
