THE local Council has urged the powers-that-be to reject all current applications for mineral prospecting licences in the Fermanagh and Omagh areas.
It has even gone one step further and called into question the legality of the legislation under which the applications have been made.
Having previously been granted licences to explore the Fermanagh countryside for nickel, copper and platinum – after previous tests indicated high concentrations of the valuable metals here – Irish mining company Karelian Diamond Resources PLC has been scoping out the county for several years.
Focusing on the wider Coonian and Brookeborough area, Karelian has since applied to the Department for the Economy (DfE) for two new mineral prospecting licences (MPLs).
Two other companies – Dalradian Gold Ltd and Flintridge Resources Ltd – have also applied for MPLs relating to gold exploration in south Tyrone.
A public consultation on these licence applications is currently open, and Fermanagh and Omagh Council has prepared a response to it.
In this draft response, which was expected to be passed at the March meeting of the regeneration and community committee due to be held in Enniskillen last night (Tuesday), the Council stressed its opposition to all five licences being granted.
It stated the applications were “contrary” to its strategy for the Local Development Plan 2030.
“The Plan Strategy introduced a number of new designations such as Special Countryside Areas, and policy MIN01 – Minerals Development advises that ‘there will be a presumption against all mineral development within designated Special Countryside Areas,’” states the Council’s response.
“These are exceptional landscapes, wherein the quality of the landscape and unique amenity value is such that they require protection from inappropriate development.”
The Council also noted other special designations in the areas where the licences cover, including Areas of Significant Archaeological Interests (ASAIs), National Nature Reserves, and Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs).
The response continued, “The legislation surrounding the licensing regime dates back to the 1960s and is no longer fit for purpose, and does not reflect the current legislative requirements in respect of climate change, environmental protection and enhancement of the environment.
“The Council considers that the granting of these five MPLs would result in the breach of a number of legislative requirements.”
The lengthy response went on to outline in more detail where it felt the licences would be in breach of other legislation.
The Council stated it felt “the whole system of issuing licences” was “fundamentally flawed”, stating it appeared “the Department operates a ‘presumption in favour’ rather than fully assessing the implication of such applications.”
As a result, it felt the local community was “disengaged from the consultation process and the Department has made no effort to ensure consultations are ‘community focused’.”
Noting the lack of detail on the methods of investigations proposed, on the work that will be involved, or on the environmental impact of this work, the Council also pointed out the exact location of works was still unknown.
It added it was particularly concerned that “the full programme of works has been redacted from the application form,” preventing full understanding of what will be involved.
“The current works are unknown and therefore it is unclear to the Council how these can be properly assessed in the context of the relevant legislative requirements.”
Related posts:
To read more.. Subscribe to current edition
Receive quality journalism wherever you are, on any device. Keep up to date from the comfort of your own home with a digital subscription.
Any time | Any place | Anywhere