The co-joined planning inquiry into the suitability of a site at the Point of Ayre, for depositing hazardous waste, namely incinerator Air Pollution Control Residues (APCR) also known as fly ash, resumed today.

CEMEX, formerly Island Aggregates, is seeking permission to develop the site, alongside the Wright’s Pit North landfill site, so that the disposal of this waste can be undertaken on the IOM, for which it believes, on sustainability grounds, there is an essential need.

Bride Commissioners, and local residents, obviously disagree; and they had been granted an adjournment by the Independent Inspector, David Ward to allow them more time to prepare their case.

Leading the Commissioners’ team is non-practicing advocate, Steven Coren and he has two expert witnesses assisting him from RSK environmental consultants.

Most of today’s session was taken up by Mr Coren cross-examining CEMEX’s planning representative, Paul Hathaway, of Enviros environmental consultants, on the company’s application and Environmental Statement.

Mr Coren had identified numerous inconsistencies or errors in the document, and often Mr Hathaway had to admit had he written the document he would have done it differently, and probably even better. However, he didn’t think any of the points significantly altered his belief that the site was suitable.

Much of the arguments, during the course of the day, centre on whom the burden of proof lay to justify their stance, the threshold or standard of that proof; and how to interpret various policies and what weight to attach to certain documents.

Often Mr Ward intervened and tried to enlighten all parties as to how he would deal with opposing views, and what his understanding was of various points or issues. Ultimately, of course it will be for him to decide how he treats the evidence provided; and what recommendation to make to the Council of Ministers.

A key issue was what was meant by location-dependent in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The applicant made out that as their hole in the ground was in a specific location, so their application became ‘location-dependent’. Mr Coren suggested it meant it was something that couldn’t be done at any other site, and therefore was ‘location-dependent’.

The Inspector said he would have to make up his mind whether it meant one or both of the interpretations.

A similar argument ensued later over whether a particular location was ‘essential’ or not.

Towards the end of the morning session it was most disconcerting that, during a ‘debate’ on conditions for an earlier approval for mineral extraction, and the proposals for restoration, nobody was able to produce the appropriate plans.

Mr Ward pointed out that if the planning authority could not find the plans then they couldn’t hold the applicant to them. He added that he was sure all parties would be interested in the plans, that COMIN would be interested in them; and even more interested - when he reported to them - that they couldn’t be found.

The applicant helpfully ventured they had loads of plans, and thought they would, eventually, be able to turn up a set.

(Editor’s comment: The planning authority came in for some severe criticism in the Mount Murray Report for failing to have a complete set of ‘approved’ plans on file for that development.)

Later it was claimed by Mr Coren that an assurance had been given, by the government, that tipping “would cease” in Bride following the completion of the Wright’s Pits.

Mr Hatherley responded by saying he couldn’t see how the government could give such an assurance that was binding on a commercial/private operator; and that their activities would be controlled by the planning process.

Mr Ward seemed to accept this argument only for Walter Gilbey, who was in attendance at the inquiry, to interject that he was the Minister that gave that assurance.

Mr Ward, having ascertained that Mr Gilbey was no longer the Minister, or an MHK, thanked Mr Gilbey for his assistance but as it wasn’t a written policy he wouldn’t be including it in his report.

This type of probing and testing continued for some considerable time, and Mr Ward commented on the amount of time he had allowed Mr Coren; but he drew the line when he believed that Mr Coren had strayed into an area of questioning that he had ruled would not be allowed.

Mr Coren pointed out that the Commissioners had reserved their right on certain matters, but Mr Ward said he had given written notice of what was required by the Commissioners, and what would be allowed at the inquiry, and if the Commissioners had misunderstood that then that was unfortunate.

The Inquiry continues tomorrow (Friday).