Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has put aside £710,000 of rate payers’ money to pay for consultants and legal representation to oppose the proposed Dalradian Mine in County Tyrone, at an upcoming Planning Appeals Commission Public Inquiry hearing, expected to take place in Omagh in January 2025. 

It can be revealed that the decision follows a series of discussions and debates that took place over the past five years within the Council, many of which have been held behind closed doors in “confidential business”, sparking fresh questions over transparency and financial governance of the Council. The proposed Council funding will cover the costs of external consultants and legal representation with fears the total could exceed £1 million.

Consultants and lawyers paid for by ratepayers are now working on a Planning Statement of Case to be submitted to the Planning Appeals Commission by next Friday (October 18), ahead of the anticipated start to the public inquiry in January 2025.

The move comes five years after the Council voted to oppose the Dalradian project in February 2019, when the mine proposal included a cyanide processing plant for separating precious metals on the site. Following public concerns at that point, Dalradian decided to remove the cyanide processing plant from the project altogether and in August 2019 submitted revised plans.

Despite this crucial element being removed from the proposal, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (FODC), two Council mandates later, has voted by a slim majority to take an active part in objecting to the project during the Public Inquiry process, despite opposition to the spending move from the Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists, and SDLP members on the Council.

The Impartial Reporter has obtained documents showing how the Council asked neighbouring authorities to split the bill but were turned down - including by Mid Ulster Council which swiftly dismissed the request of more than £100,000 towards the costs, arguing that it would not provide value for money and that the necessary environmental oversight was already in place through various Government departments and statutory consultees involved in the overall planning process.

Donegal County Council decided to “not participate” in the funding of a joint procurement of a special consultancy support to assist in the assessment of the planning application.

The controversial nature of the decision by the Council to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds is also highly unusual given there are 4,500 letters of support for the project - many of which have been submitted from people living in the proposed mine area.

It is also thought to be highly unusual given there is already an existing gold mine at Cavanacaw in Tyrone, and the Council has taken no such action towards it. Furthermore, all parties, including Sinn Féin, in the previous Omagh District Council gave a corporate letter of support for Cavanacaw in 2012 when it was threatened with closure and the loss of 150 jobs.

The financial implications of the Council’s involvement in the Dalradian project began in November 2020. At this time, Council officers were asked to look at the idea of procuring external consultants to conduct a peer review of the Dalradian planning application. The planning application, submitted by Dalradian Gold Ltd (DGL) in 2017, sought permission for the construction of a gold mine in the Curraghinalt area, with the promise of creating 1,000 jobs and investing over £750 million into the project over 25 years.

In a meeting held on November 10, 2020, Council officers presented an estimated cost of £116,000 for hiring external experts to peer review the DGL planning application. However, concerns were raised at that time by councillors over the high cost.

In response, councillors agreed to write to neighbouring councils, including Mid Ulster District Council, Derry City and Strabane District Council, and Donegal County Council, to ask if they would be willing to share the financial burden. Despite these efforts, the neighbouring councils all declined to offer financial support.

In a response to the request for money, Derry and Strabane District Council said “unfortunately due to budgetary pressures” it could not make any financial commitment.

In correspondence seen by this newspaper, Mid Ulster District Council, in particular, formally replied that the peer review work should be handled by the Council’s own planners.

In March 2021, the Council ultimately decided not to proceed with hiring external consultants and chose instead to have its own planning officers conduct the peer review. This decision was taken during another confidential meeting. While the Council avoided the £116,000 expenditure at the time, the issue of funding resurfaced in later years as the project progressed.

The Dalradian project remained a point of contention, and the situation took a significant turn following the May 2023 local council elections.

In September 2023, after Sinn Féin had secured 21 of the 40 seats on the Council, a workshop held within “confidential business” discussed how the Council would proceed with its objection to the planning application.

According to documents, seen by this newspaper, during this workshop, four options were presented to councillors, outlining various approaches to objecting at the public inquiry. Conor Fegan, a barrister advising the Council on the matter, recommended that it engage external consultants and hire him as the lead legal advisor to represent its objection at the inquiry.

Mr. Fegan, who has been acting as sole counsel on behalf of the Alternative A5 Alliance, advised that the Council appoint experts in five key areas: landscape and visual impact, economic impact, ecology, water environment, and carbon neutrality. These consultants would be tasked with preparing the Council’s case to present at the inquiry.

Following Mr. Fegan’s recommendations, the Council met again on October 10, 2023 to vote on whether to proceed with the hiring of environmental consultants and Mr. Fegan as the legal representative.

This meeting, like previous ones, was held in confidential business behind closed doors. This decision, which was then ratified in November 2023, was backed by Sinn Féin, and the Alliance Party. However, the proposal faced opposition from the SDLP, DUP and UUP councillors, who raised concerns over the costs and the lack of transparency regarding the overall budget.

Sinn Féin had the opportunity to support engaging consultants to object to the Dalradian in the previous Council mandate in November 2020, but declined. However, the party had clearly changed its mind in October 2023.

The decision to proceed in October 2023 with hiring external consultants was based, in part, on the original estimate of £116,000, which had been proposed for a high level, peer review three years earlier. However, in March 2024, Chief Executive Alison McCullagh finally revealed in an email to Councillors, that the Council had, in fact, allocated £400,000 to fund the consultants and legal representation.

Ms McCullagh, in her email, explained the breakdown of the allocated budget, stating that “provision has been made for £100,000 in the current (23/24 financial year) and £300,000 in 24/25.”

The email was sent in response to a request for financial information about the Council’s participation in the inquiry. Conscious of the broader interest, Ms McCullagh stated: “I thought it appropriate to provide all Members with my response to the request.”

She noted that some of the information contained in the email should be treated as “commercially sensitive,” and advised councillors to exercise discretion before sharing the details with third parties.

In addition to the financial details, Ms McCullagh provided information on the engagement of external consultants. She confirmed that the consultancy firm Gleeds/RSK had been appointed to provide expertise on key areas related to the Dalradian planning application, including landscape and visual impact, economic impact, ecology, water environment, and carbon neutrality.

Ms McCullagh clarified: “Correspondence issued to Gleeds/RSK on March 7, 2024, authorising the site visit and the commencement of the initial work.” Ms McCullagh reiterated that all actions taken by the Council were “in accordance with the Council’s decision (of February 2019) and in full compliance with Council policies and procedures.”

In her email, Ms McCullagh acknowledged that further details on the inquiry’s financial implications might emerge, stating: “Discussions are ongoing with the consultant team in relation to the scope of service and associated costs.”

At the Council’s monthly meeting on April 9, 2024, Ulster Unionist councillor Mark Ovens voiced concerns about the £400,000 expenditure, questioning whether the Council’s procurement rules had been followed correctly. Councillor Ovens’ concerns were focused on whether councillors had been given sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the allocation of such a large sum of public money.

The concerns about the Council’s spending deepened in May 2024, when the Chief Executive disclosed that, in addition to the £400,000 already committed, a further £310,000 “contingency fund” had been set aside in reserves. This brought the total potential expenditure on the Council’s involvement in the public inquiry to £710,000.

During the Council meeting in May, SDLP councillor Bernard McGrath also expressed concerns over the lack of information on the planned expenditure, however, Sinn Féin councillors maintained their support for the Council’s decision to proceed with the expenditure on consultants and legal representation.

Ms McCullagh told the meeting: “Our processes are fully compliant, the budget was fully disclosed... everything was in the public domain.”

The allocation of the £310,000 contingency fund has further fuelled debate about the Council’s transparency and financial governance procedures.

Critics argue that the Council’s decision to hold key discussions behind closed doors has hindered proper scrutiny of the decision making processes and denied ratepayers any knowledge of the scale of expenditure involved.

The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) announced in September 2024 that the dates for the public inquiry into the Dalradian project had been revised, with the inquiry now expected to reconvene in the Omagh Strule Arts Centre in January 2025. Despite the delay, questions about the Council’s spending remain at the forefront of discussions.

At last week’s Council meeting on October 1, questions were raised of the Chief Executive on the expenditure to date, but no indication of Council expenditure incurred to date was provided in response.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Fermanagh and Omagh District Council did not refer to the £300,000 “contingency fund” and said: “The figure you have quoted of £710k is incorrect.

“The Council has made financial provision of £300k in the 2024-25 financial year and £100k in the 2023-24 financial year and the Council’s legal fees for representation at the Inquiry will be charged to this budget.”