Mr. Owen Bannigan:

I wish to make a couple of brief comments on EirGrid's consultation and trying to secure public acceptance. The county development plan was mentioned, in particular the one for Carlow. Monaghan County Council varied its development plan four years ago in an attempt to keep pylons 100 m from a dwelling, but EirGrid went to the High Court and was successful.

My group thought that 100 m was a very decent and respectable minimum required distance from a dwelling house. I will outline the reasoning behind that distance being chosen. If the 100 m proviso had been successful, due to the population structure in County Monaghan, EirGrid would not have been able to put an overhead power line through County Monaghan. I am being honest about that. EirGrid recognised that possibility and went to the High Court to get the 100 m proviso overruled, so EirGrid is liable to do anything.

EirGrid attended a Monday meeting of Monaghan County Council 12 months after the oral hearing had failed in 2011. the agency had been invited by the councillors to attend but it had nothing major to report. While EirGrid's representative spoke and addressed the meeting, it had sent letters to every affected party to say it was re-engaging and restarting the failed process, but EirGrid could not answer the question posed at the council meeting. Our history of EirGrid at council meetings is that it was asked many questions but it could not answer them but submitted written responses up to three months later and ignored half the queries.

On the day EirGrid attended the meeting of Monaghan County Council, its electrical engineer attended to tell us about health effects. When EirGrid's engineer was questioned on his profession, he said he was an electrical engineer. Does EirGrid wish to be professional? Does EirGrid take the people to be fools? I am trying to build a picture of what EirGrid is like.

Recently a helicopter flew over the route, and this started on a Monday morning. That afternoon EirGrid went on local radio to say it had commenced consultation. EirGrid laid traffic counters on our roads in the past two months but never contacted or notified the county council to say it was doing so. As it turned out, EirGrid required planning permission but it did not bother getting it even though it is a semi-State body. There is something seriously wrong with the tactics EirGrid has used.

My group did not come here today just to highlight all the negatives but to raise questions and show what people are faced with. Before the committee engages with EirGrid it needs to be made aware of what has happened locally. EirGrid does not want to consult except on where the pylon will be located.

EirGrid's final report for statutory consultation clearly states that where the location of the tower or pylon has been identified, if the landowner wants it moved to a different location, he must do a number of things. He must give EirGrid access to his land to survey. If the tower is going to be located closer to anybody else's property, the landowner must get acceptance from his neighbour or neighbours. EirGrid never looked for acceptance from anyone to erect a tower on the first day. For a landowner to get a tower relocated, and if it is going to impinge more on somebody else's property, whether it is a field, dwelling house or whatever, the person who requests its removal must get acceptance from their neighbour. Otherwise it will not be considered. That was clearly written in EirGrid's final solution report. It is unbelievable what must happen if I want a tower located in my field to be relocated to a more suitable position. If it is going to be closer to Mr. Hillis's property, I would have to approach him and ask for his permission.