Objectors have appealed to An Bord Pleanβla against planning permission granted to a Co Mayo gas terminal.

The plant is required to bring gas from the Corrib field into the national grid, but objectors are understood to have said it would "completely destroy" the local environment.

Developers Enterprise Oil, Statoil and Marathon Petroleum this month received planning permission from Mayo County Council.

An objection was anticipated and it is understood the Ballinaboy/Lenamore Concerned Citizens Group wrote to the planning appeals board on August 17th, stating the plant would be a "constant danger" to local people.

The appeal process could take months, though the board tends to prioritise infrastructure projects.

Because construction will take 18 months, it is understood the project leader, Enterprise, would need to have cleared the planning process by next February or March to ensure its target of gas production for October 2003 is met.

Enterprise and its partners changed their planning application in May, moving the site of the proposed plant to Ballinaboy from Pollathomas, near Broadhaven.

Planners in the county had expressed "certain anxieties" about the original plan, which received objections from about 26 individuals and groups. The plant is designed to import gas from the offshore field and prepare it for transmission in a pipeline to Galway, where it will link with the national system.

It is understood the concerned citizens group outlined 21 points of objection, among them an allegation that the project was not in "proper accordance" with the county development plan. It alleged there was no adequate protection for local people from exposure to dust and that there was no "proper" proposal to monitor noise.

The local road network was not suitable, it charged, adding that the removal of 600,000 cubic feet of peat from the site would leave adjoining lands prone to flooding. The group is also thought to have said undertakings to protect the environment were insufficient. It said the landscaping provisions were not sufficient to protect the area's "visual amenity".

It is understood the group further alleged the project would "interfere grossly" with the archaeological importance of the area. It added that the water supply in the area was insufficient for a project of this scope.

It claimed the proposed environmental management system was insufficient, stating that the developers did not show it would satisfy the needs of Mayo County Council. The protection of settling ponds and silt traps on the site was not in accordance with good planning practice, the group also charged.