Adjournment opposed |
Claimed Bypass application fundamentally flawed |
|
The Oral Hearing was today, August 15th. 2001, adjourned until 11
a.m. Monday November 19th 2001. The intention to seek an adjournment
was announced at the opening of the hearing. The hearing adjourned
and resumed a number of times during the day as various legal teams
consulted their clients. Ultimately all objectors agreed to the
adjournment with the exception of Peter Sweetman. The following is a
transcript of his closing statement.
"I wish to oppose the adjournment. The application before the Board is for a consent to build a road subject to E.I.A. as prescribed under Directive 85/337/E.E.C. as amended by Directive 97/11/E.C. It is my submission that the application before the Board was a material contravention of the Waterford County Development Plan and the Kilkenny County Development Plan at the time of the publication of the E.I.S. Therefore the application is ultra vires on account of Mr. Justin McCarthy Supreme Court judgement in the case of the Attorney General (McGarry & others) v Sligo Co. Co. It is also my submission that the E.I.S. as submitted does not comply with European Community. (E.I.A.) Amendment Regs. 1999 S.I. 93/1999. It is also my submission that the application as submitted is contrary to the provisions of the Habitats Directive 92/43/E.E.C. Therefore it is my submission that the Board must refuse the consent to the Development." Peter Sweetman Wednesday August 15th 2001 |
| |