Brosnan asked for clarification
The chairman of the recently established forum for development in Erris has been urged to ‘give precedence’ to the core problems relating to the controversial Corrib gas project.
Brosnan asked for further Corrib clarification
Áine Ryan
THE Chairman of the recently-established forum for development in Erris has been urged to ‘give precedence’ to the core problems relating to the controversial Corrib gas project. In a letter to Mr Joe Brosnan, seen by The Mayo News, it is predicted that the forum will ‘be totally ineffective and another wasted opportunity’ if the compromise onshore location, as well as health and safety and community consent, are not on the agenda.
The joint letter was sent on December 16 last by Mr Vincent McGrath and Mr Ciarán Ó Murchú, on behalf of community organisations Pobal Chill Chomáin and Pobal le Chéile.
They write: “There are very good reasons for the high level of distrust and suspicion of the political and statutory processes that exist amongst the people of our parish. For the last nine years the Kilcommon community has effectively been subject to bullying, manipulation and attempts at financial inducement from both the State and the developers in relation to a project that still does not have full statutory consents.”
The letter also welcomes Mr Brosnan’s invitation to meet for contingency talks, in light of both groups’ boycott of the forum’s first meeting on December 5 last. However, it also notes that clarification is needed regarding the implications of Shell’s recent withdrawal of its planning application to An Bord Pleanála for the modified pipeline route.
It also asks: “Can you clearly outline to us your objectives and the objectives of the forum in relation to the long-running Corrib gas dispute? How do you see the forum’s function in relation to resolving the core issues of the Corrib gas dispute?”
Mr Brosnan is asked to comment on the origins of the fund for the broad social and economic development of Erris and how the forum will legally operate in this area without prejudicing the outcome of a planning process in relation to the gas pipeline.
It is stressed that while both groups welcome the initiative and are willing to help bring it forward, they will have ‘difficulty in partaking in a process that effectively has no power to change anything’.