Rossport Solidarity Camp Eviction Report

mayo | environment | news report

Friday September 07, 2007 11:59

by Camper R - RSC

rossportsolidaritycamp at gmail dot com

085 1141170

Court report from the camp eviction on the 3rd of September

A quick rundown on what happen in court on Monday and some thoughts from a member of Rossport Solidarity Camp

Rossport Solidarity Camp communal in the evening sun

Last Monday, 3rd of September in Castlebar Circuit Court, Judge Harvey Kenny ordered that Rossport Solidarity Camp be removed by the 1st of January 2008.

What follows is a brief rundown on the court events, followed by some thought on the case:

Jennifer Higgins (barrister for two named camp members) and Niall Harnett (representing himself) made submissions to the judge to have the case adjourned due to Mayo County Council's delay in releasing documents that had been sought by the camp for thir defense. In the previous court appearance Judge Kenny had said that full disclosure of documents should happen at least 7 days before the hearing, to stop last minute documents flying around. As it turned out, Mayo County Council (MCC) ignored the judge's ruling on this and the camp's solicitor and Niall Harnett received the documents from MCC on Friday evening around 5pm. The camp didn’t see these documents until Sunday evening. In their initial affidavit MCC claimed that the land that the camp was on is “unregistered”. Over the last month local landowners said that they believed that they actually owned the land that the camp was on. So, for the last few weeks the camp has been trying to find out for definite who owns the land. The camp had requested information from the council on the status of the land which wasn’t forthcoming. This uncertainty over the land had precluded the camp from submitting a planning application before the court case. In the last week the camp had received letters of consent from the local landowners to enter in a planning application. In any event the judge ruled that he wouldn’t give an adjournment to the case on these grounds and would proceed with the case.

Barrister for MCC John Kiely then proceeded to read out the affidavits that had been submitted for the previous hearings. The council's arguments came down to two issues, firstly, the camp is an unauthorized development and needs planning permission. Secondly, the council claimed that the camp was causing damage to the land that it was on, it being a Candidate SAC. The council used Section 3 of the Planning & Development Act 2000 which defines a 'development' to include: where land becomes used for any of the following purposes—(i) the placing or keeping of any vans, tents or other objects, whether or not moveable and whether or not collapsible, for the purpose of caravanning or camping or habitation or the sale of goods.

The court was then told by Jennifer Higgins & Niall Hartnett that the camp had been unaware that planning permission had been required for the camp and that it was assumed that permission for the camp to remain was implicit in the way that camp had dealt with by the relevant authorities all along. They said that the first they knew of MCC council's issues regarding the camp's permission was when 2 council officials came to stake a sign to be in court the following Monday. They said because of the issues over the ownership of the land and because it was the holiday period and difficult to get the appropriate information and advice, the camp had been unable to enter a planning application yet.

Niall Harnett then gave a summary of the different initiatives that the camp had undertaken to minimise the impact they have on the surrounding areas. These included: seeking advice from the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) and an expert in machairs, ensuring everyone who came on site should stay off the dunes and also laying wooden pathways to reduce the damage done.
Niall followed this with a stirring submission on why the camp was initially set up in which he stated:
“The camp exists to assist the local community in drawing attention to and opposing the environmental damage and health and safety risks associated with the Shell Corrib Gas Project, where environmental vandalism has already occurred and is anticipated to continue, where local and central government have facilitated and approved the destruction of Specially Protected Areas and priority habitats within the very Special Area of Conservation where the camp is located.”

As a result of Shell’s activities in the area, the local (including the camp) drinking water supply is already contaminated with aluminium. There have been diesel spills into local water courses around the refinery site at Bellanaboy and the cliff face at Glengad was removed by diggers, destroying the nesting sites of protected sea birds, which is in breach of EU habitats directives. I say that complaints from the local community to Mayo County Council are habitually ignored and in fact the council colludes with Shell in covering up such incidents, of which there are many, even before the refinery is complete or before a new pipeline route is established. Shell, who have an international history of environmental destruction and murder, are expert in manipulating the systems of local and central government to suit their own ends to the detriment of local communities and their environment. I say that in this regard they have also been successful in the country of Ireland and in the county of Mayo, where local and central government policy is to facilitate Shell, and change the laws to suit them, in spite of and against the wishes and rights of the local people to have the final say on the suitability of this project within their community and their own environment.

… The camp is situated with the express wish and consent of the local landowners who have constitutional rights to offer their own property to the camp in order that the property may be legitimately occupied and protected from unlawful trespass and environmental damage by Shell, such as happened in 2005 when Shell and the government conspired to jail the Rossport Five for their legitimate opposition to the ‘compulsory acquisition‘ of their land; a stance that has since been vindicated by Justice Mary Laffoy in the High Court.

… And with regard to the environmental damage that has already occurred at Glengad beach, the camp has a responsibility to play an active role in the further protection of this environment, where the presence of the camp is required to monitor and witness, publicise and oppose the ongoing illegal nature of the Corrib Gas Project where EU Directives on environmental protection are being breached.

… The Council’s application to the court has not been carried out in the interests of justice and fairness, where an ‘emergency’ was contrived at the end of July 2007 to achieve an ex-parte injunction which was planned for as far back as January 2007.

… I submit that the Council’s reasons for applying for a Section 160 injunction are contrived and disingenuous and this matter should never, and would never have come to court if the principles of community consultation and local government obligations in that regard, had been followed.

I submit therefore that it is not appropriate for this court to make any order to ‘cease the camp’ or to make any injunctive orders against the camp.

I ask the court to make an order to the Council to adhere to the proper principles of consultation, in any dealings they may have with the camp, pursuant to EU environmental legislation and constitutional law.”

It has to be said in fairness to Judge Kenny that unlike some previous judges involved in Shell to Sea cases at least he let some background arguments be introduced when arguing the case.

After a short break, the judge returned to deliver his decision, in which he stated:

“I do appreciate the objectives of the defendants and why they have created this camp.
The defendants are individuals who are concerned about the environment, which is admirable. I also accept that in creating the camp the defendants did make conscientious efforts to protect the said dunes and avoid any damage to the environment. However, I find as a fact that the camp is and has the potential to damage this area, this special area of conservation. The structures are such that require planning permission. The defendants are individuals who are very much aware of the laws and regulations relating to the environment and to planning. The defendants do not have planning permission for the structures nor did they apply for planning permission. In such circumstances, the buildings are an unauthorised development and accordingly must be removed.”

Harvey Kenny followed on by saying that the camp should be removed by the 1st of October. However, following an intervention from Jennifer Higgins, he instead ordered that the camp be dismantled by the 1st of January.

Some thoughts that occur to me are:
Firstly, the blatant hypocrisy of Mayo County Council`s aggressive move of using a Section 160 to remove the camp (instead of a warning letter) and at the same time granting Shell planning permission for a road, some of which is on the same SAC complex. Secondly, the fact that Mayo County Council engineered an emergency (a day of action in July) as a pretext to serve the Section 160 order on the camp, when this had been discussed publicly in a Environmental Monitoring Committee of the Corrib Gas Project meeting at which senior Shell (including Terry Nolan) and senior MCC attended back in December 06. Just last week, on the 28 & 29th of August, surveyors working for Shell entered land about 150 metres away from the camp taking ground level measurements. They also entered private land which they didn’t have permission to enter but were asked to leave before they could finish their work. It cannot be mere coincidence the MCC acted against the camp just as this survey work is starting. Also for MCC and NPWS to act so aggressively against the camp on the grounds of damage to the environment and then to remain silent regarding Shell stripping away a whole cliff face just 200 metres away, is just as blatant a example of selective laws as can be found.

All camp residents are adamant that this ruling will have no negative impact on their campaigning work against Shell and their cohorts in the Corrib Gas Project. Due to the generosity of other local residents, we have a house and other alternative accommodation within the immediate area. Help is needed not only to dismantle the camp but also to renovate buildings elsewhere. If you can be of any assistance or would simply like to visit please contact the camp.

September promises to be a very busy month for the campaign. At the moment we are looking forward to the day of action at Bellanaboy on the 14th of September. Truck blockades at the refinery site are happening daily at the moment and also the occasional site occupation. At least 10 Shell to Sea people are up in court on the 12th of September and also the EPA decision on the refinery operating licence is due this month. So any help would be most welcome.
If you wish to contact the camp please phone 085 1141170 or email rossportsolidaritycamp@gmail.com