ALMOST 85 per cent of objections lodged nationally against special designation areas for the protected bird the hen harrier have been lodged in the midwest, new figures released by the Department of the Environment show.
According to the department, the two areas where 83 per cent of the objections have been lodged relate to the Slieve Aughty mountains in east Clare and the Stacks to Mullaghareik mountains in west Co Limerick, north Co Kerry and north Co Cork.
The department has stated that across the country 804 submissions have been made in relation to Special Protection Area (SPA) designation have been received in relation to six areas, with 744 being declared valid. In total, the Minister for the Environment John Gormley announced last year that 169,000 hectares of land are to be designated SPAs for the protection of the hen harrier, which is one of Ireland's and Europe's rarest birds of prey.
The designation affects 5,500 farmers and landowners in six sites in counties Kerry, Cork, Limerick, Laois, Offaly, Monaghan, Tipperary, Galway and Clare. The department confirmed that in relation to plans to designate an SPA in the Slieve Aughty mountains in northeast Clare, it has received a total of 283 objections and 340 objections in relation to the west Co Limerick site.
The department states three-quarters of the submissions relate to requests to have land removed from the SPA and the remainder request land to be included. The largest SPA is the Slieve Aughty mountains and involves the designation of 61,000 hectares where the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) believe that 24 pairs of hen harrier are present or 17 per cent of the 130 to 150 overall population.
Earlier this year, the director of the NPWS, Oonagh Buckley tried to allay landowners' fears in SPA areas by stating that the designation would not affect plans for one-off housing. She said she had been directed by Mr Gormley to advise Clare County Council that where the hen harrier was the sole conservation interest in the SPA, the designation should not be cited as grounds for refusing permission for development of rural houses within the special area.
Clare councillor Pat Hayes said he hoped the department would stand over the commitment as his concern was the effect the designation would have on the construction of one-off homes.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label objections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objections. Show all posts
Friday, 8 August 2008
Friday, 20 April 2007
More than 2,500 formal objections to incinerator
MORE than 2,500 formal objections to plans by the four local authorities in Dublin to build a large incinerator on a site in Poolbeg at the mouth of the River Liffey have been lodged.
An oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála (ABP), which began in Dublin yesterday, heard that the incinerator was opposed by the elected members of Dublin City Council, despite being promoted by the management of the local authority.
ABP inspector Padraig Thornton said the planning authority had received 165 separate submissions on proposals to build an incinerator at Poolbeg.
An additional 2,591 observations have also been made by individuals, environmental groups, residents associations, State bodies and other parties. The vast majority of observations contained objections to the proposed incinerator.
The Dublin Port Company and two other parties specifically opposed a compulsory purchase order placed on the site of the incinerator by Dublin City Council. The planning inspector said it had appeared on a preliminary reading of all the files that only two parties had come out in support of the incinerator.
Among the various grounds for opposing planning permission for the project are claims that it runs contrary to both EU and national policies on waste management and nature conservation as well as the Dublin City Development Plan. Opponents of the incinerator claim that it poses a threat to public health because of the increased risk of air, water and noise pollution and possible soil contamination. The location of the proposed incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula near the ESB Pigeon House power plant could also be subject to flooding.
They also argue the transport of large quantities of waste to the incinerator will result in additional traffic problems on an already congested road network in the Ringsend area.
Other complaints relate to the inadequacy of the related Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the planning application for the incinerator.
Many objectors also argued that the site selection process was flawed and out of date. In addition, they claim the incinerator will also damage visual, recreational and residential amenities in the area.
However, representatives of Dublin City Council told the hearing that the incinerator, which they prefer to call “a waste to energy project”, was the right solution for Dublin. The local authority believes the facility which will be located on a 15.4-acre site in Poolbeg can handle up to 600,000 tonnes of household and non-hazardous industrial waste each year. It is estimated that 25% of the city’s refuse will be sent for incineration.
Much of yesterday’s proceedings were dominated by procedural wrangling as various opponents claimed they were being placed at an unfair disadvantage because of the lack of information on the project being provided by Dublin City Council.
A total of 29 witnesses will give evidence on behalf of Dublin City Council over the next few days. TDs and councillors for the area, including Tánaiste Michael McDowell are expected to be called next week.
Irish Examiner
An oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála (ABP), which began in Dublin yesterday, heard that the incinerator was opposed by the elected members of Dublin City Council, despite being promoted by the management of the local authority.
ABP inspector Padraig Thornton said the planning authority had received 165 separate submissions on proposals to build an incinerator at Poolbeg.
An additional 2,591 observations have also been made by individuals, environmental groups, residents associations, State bodies and other parties. The vast majority of observations contained objections to the proposed incinerator.
The Dublin Port Company and two other parties specifically opposed a compulsory purchase order placed on the site of the incinerator by Dublin City Council. The planning inspector said it had appeared on a preliminary reading of all the files that only two parties had come out in support of the incinerator.
Among the various grounds for opposing planning permission for the project are claims that it runs contrary to both EU and national policies on waste management and nature conservation as well as the Dublin City Development Plan. Opponents of the incinerator claim that it poses a threat to public health because of the increased risk of air, water and noise pollution and possible soil contamination. The location of the proposed incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula near the ESB Pigeon House power plant could also be subject to flooding.
They also argue the transport of large quantities of waste to the incinerator will result in additional traffic problems on an already congested road network in the Ringsend area.
Other complaints relate to the inadequacy of the related Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the planning application for the incinerator.
Many objectors also argued that the site selection process was flawed and out of date. In addition, they claim the incinerator will also damage visual, recreational and residential amenities in the area.
However, representatives of Dublin City Council told the hearing that the incinerator, which they prefer to call “a waste to energy project”, was the right solution for Dublin. The local authority believes the facility which will be located on a 15.4-acre site in Poolbeg can handle up to 600,000 tonnes of household and non-hazardous industrial waste each year. It is estimated that 25% of the city’s refuse will be sent for incineration.
Much of yesterday’s proceedings were dominated by procedural wrangling as various opponents claimed they were being placed at an unfair disadvantage because of the lack of information on the project being provided by Dublin City Council.
A total of 29 witnesses will give evidence on behalf of Dublin City Council over the next few days. TDs and councillors for the area, including Tánaiste Michael McDowell are expected to be called next week.
Irish Examiner
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Councillors being taken for a ride
already agreed by officials with advertising firm, JCDecaux, in what has been described as a "free bike" scheme for Dublin: that is "free" in exchange for 120 billboard sites. So controversial is the scheme that denizens like Bertie Ahern – as a Drumcondra resident – has objected to it.
While media reports have concentrated on the bicycles, the real story is that councillors are outraged at the deal being already agreed by officials, with councillor Tom Stafford's criticisms of the plan as a "terrible, terrible application" typifying representatives' views.
Councillors were simply not aware of the scheme's details – that is until 70 simultaneous applications to erect billboards was made by JCDecaux during December, with another 50 in January. These roadside units are to display adverts on one side, with "civic information" on the other – and all to be located on public footpaths.
Strangely there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment, nor a council motion selling public land – while councillors are also puzzled as to why, if the council is to be a beneficiary, that the applications were not addressed to Bórd Pleanála.
More interesting is that by virtue of the project being applied for as more than 120 individual applications, it would cost over €25 grand for total adjudication by the Bórd.
However, Executive Planning Manager Ciaran MacNamara has been busy at council meetings defending the "public realm enhancements". Describing the proposed billboards as a "new departure for the industry", MacNamara claims
that along with the 500 rental bikes, the city will get 4 public toilets, "a family of way-finding signage", and JCDecaux would reduce their current billboards by 25%.
Yet despite the contract having been already signed, MacNamara is refusing to release it to councillors on the basis it as "commercially sensitive" – with councillors now resorting to FOI requests.
Mr MacNamara also claims that "very few" objections had been received; maybe he didn't see the one from Bertie Ahern, or from Tony Gregory, or the one from Councillor Larry O' Toole. Councillor Tom Brabazon has been very busy getting in a dozen objections – while dozens of other interests have also objected, such as Dublin City Business Association whose members – Arnotts, Clerys, and Eason's – have all filed objections.
Then there's the Dublin Transportation Office's submission regarding the 70 15-feet high "metropole" applications, which states "the DTO is totally opposed" as illuminated signage "is considered to be a safety hazard".
Now councillors have begun to do their own sums regarding the advertising revenue potential; Tom Stafford estimated €13 million per annum – which over the 15 year terms is over €200 Million; i.e. enough to buy 2 million bikes...
Anybody feel as if they have been taken for a ride?
© Phoenix Magazine
While media reports have concentrated on the bicycles, the real story is that councillors are outraged at the deal being already agreed by officials, with councillor Tom Stafford's criticisms of the plan as a "terrible, terrible application" typifying representatives' views.
Councillors were simply not aware of the scheme's details – that is until 70 simultaneous applications to erect billboards was made by JCDecaux during December, with another 50 in January. These roadside units are to display adverts on one side, with "civic information" on the other – and all to be located on public footpaths.
Strangely there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment, nor a council motion selling public land – while councillors are also puzzled as to why, if the council is to be a beneficiary, that the applications were not addressed to Bórd Pleanála.
More interesting is that by virtue of the project being applied for as more than 120 individual applications, it would cost over €25 grand for total adjudication by the Bórd.
However, Executive Planning Manager Ciaran MacNamara has been busy at council meetings defending the "public realm enhancements". Describing the proposed billboards as a "new departure for the industry", MacNamara claims
that along with the 500 rental bikes, the city will get 4 public toilets, "a family of way-finding signage", and JCDecaux would reduce their current billboards by 25%.
Yet despite the contract having been already signed, MacNamara is refusing to release it to councillors on the basis it as "commercially sensitive" – with councillors now resorting to FOI requests.
Mr MacNamara also claims that "very few" objections had been received; maybe he didn't see the one from Bertie Ahern, or from Tony Gregory, or the one from Councillor Larry O' Toole. Councillor Tom Brabazon has been very busy getting in a dozen objections – while dozens of other interests have also objected, such as Dublin City Business Association whose members – Arnotts, Clerys, and Eason's – have all filed objections.
Then there's the Dublin Transportation Office's submission regarding the 70 15-feet high "metropole" applications, which states "the DTO is totally opposed" as illuminated signage "is considered to be a safety hazard".
Now councillors have begun to do their own sums regarding the advertising revenue potential; Tom Stafford estimated €13 million per annum – which over the 15 year terms is over €200 Million; i.e. enough to buy 2 million bikes...
Anybody feel as if they have been taken for a ride?
© Phoenix Magazine
Friday, 19 January 2007
M3 toll firm to make €590m
Paul Melia tells us that Commuters from Meath to Dublin would each pay €2,000 per year
THE operator of the proposed M3 motorway linking Dublin to north Meath is expected to take in almost €590m in tolls over a 30-year period.
The is €13m more than the estimated €577m cost of building the 47km motorway, even though the company will not be expected to meet the full cost of construction.
Yesterday, an oral hearing into the proposed toll scheme was told that commuters travelling from Meath to Dublin would each pay over €2,000 a year in tolls, assuming they use the motorway.
Drivers using the full length of carriageway would pay a total of €2.60 at two toll booths, and the National Roads Authority expects 72,000 motorists a year to be paying tolls by 2024, of which 13,000 users will pay at both tolls.
The NRA said that based on tolls decided in 2000 - where a car using both tolls would pay a total of €1.75 - the toll revenue per year would be €13.2m.
However, given that the proposed charge when the motorway opens is €2.60 to use both toll booths, the likely operator - the Eurolink consortium - stands to take in some €586m during the 30-year concessionary period. The construction figure is not yet available as contracts must still be signed, but the consortium will bear some of the construction costs, with the taxpayer paying the rest.
Eurolink stand to make considerable profits during the 30-year arrangement.
Speaking at the oral hearing yesterday, the head of Public Private Partnerships and Tolling at the NRA, Gerry Murphy, said the proposed tolls
would be the lowest charge on the national roads network. Charges were "significantly below" levels that would maximise revenues, he said.
"A toll-charge sensitivity analysis indicated that a 20pc higher car charge at the southern plaza and at certain interchange ramps would increase revenues by the order of 25pc," he said.
"The NRA proposed instead to apply lower toll charges in order to reduce the diversionary effect.
Charges
"The charges proposed are less than the charges adopted by the NRA in toll schemes for the Waterford bypass, the Fermoy bypass, the Limerick tunnel, the M1 motorway at Drogheda and the Galway-Ballinasloe scheme."
There were angry scenes at yesterday's hearing as objectors to the tolling system - who include members of Meath Co Council - said the road would impose an unfair burden on commuters. The other objectors include members of An Taisce, local residents and conservation objectors to the motorway, which will run beside the Hill of Tara.
These groups said the tolls would result in drivers avoiding the motorway and lead to congestion on the existing N3.
There was also criticism that the hearing into the tolling scheme was only taking place yesterday, five years after the motorway was announced. The NRA said this was because of legal challenges to the motorway, which had to be concluded first.
"There should, of course, be no tolls," said Councillor John Barry of Meath Co Council. "Why, on a motorway from Dublin to Newry, is there only one toll? Why are two tolls proposed? The people of Kells will travel on the old road, as will people coming from Cavan."
Councillor Philip Cantwell said the toll was a "financial gathering exercise, pure and simple", and it was "bleeding taxpayers of their wages".
Counsel for the NRA, Dermot McGuinness, said an alternative untolled route would be available.
"People will be free to use the N3 as it exists. There will be considerable degree of toll-free access."
Inspector Dom Hegarty will send his report to the NRA board. He can recommend that there be no toll, in which case the NRA would have to pay the operator the cash equivalent of the toll every year.
The Irish Indo' has them anwering objections:
Objection:
Tolls will place an 'unacceptable' financial burden on people living in Meath and commuting to Dublin.
Response:
The National Roads Authority says motorists will save time and benefit economically. Drivers can also use the untolled N3.
Objection:
Scheme is already funded by the EU and National Development Plan.
Response:
The NRA says just €2.9m has been provided by the EU, and the NDP states the need for private finance to supplement exchequer investment.
Objection:
Delays are likely to occur at toll plazas.
Response:
NRA says the plazas are designed so tolling will take a maximum of 30 seconds.
Objection:
Tolling discriminates against Meath residents compared with people commuting into Dublin from other counties, and tolling will hinder local development.
Response:
NRA says economic development will be curtailed without the motorway.
Objection:
Tolling will divert traffic onto local roads.
Response:
NRA agrees but says overall volumes will be reduced.
Objection:
Meath county council will be obliged to maintain existing N3 once M3 opens.
Response:
NRA says the council will receive commercial rates based on the annual toll revenues collected
THE operator of the proposed M3 motorway linking Dublin to north Meath is expected to take in almost €590m in tolls over a 30-year period.
The is €13m more than the estimated €577m cost of building the 47km motorway, even though the company will not be expected to meet the full cost of construction.
Yesterday, an oral hearing into the proposed toll scheme was told that commuters travelling from Meath to Dublin would each pay over €2,000 a year in tolls, assuming they use the motorway.
Drivers using the full length of carriageway would pay a total of €2.60 at two toll booths, and the National Roads Authority expects 72,000 motorists a year to be paying tolls by 2024, of which 13,000 users will pay at both tolls.
The NRA said that based on tolls decided in 2000 - where a car using both tolls would pay a total of €1.75 - the toll revenue per year would be €13.2m.
However, given that the proposed charge when the motorway opens is €2.60 to use both toll booths, the likely operator - the Eurolink consortium - stands to take in some €586m during the 30-year concessionary period. The construction figure is not yet available as contracts must still be signed, but the consortium will bear some of the construction costs, with the taxpayer paying the rest.
Eurolink stand to make considerable profits during the 30-year arrangement.
Speaking at the oral hearing yesterday, the head of Public Private Partnerships and Tolling at the NRA, Gerry Murphy, said the proposed tolls
would be the lowest charge on the national roads network. Charges were "significantly below" levels that would maximise revenues, he said.
"A toll-charge sensitivity analysis indicated that a 20pc higher car charge at the southern plaza and at certain interchange ramps would increase revenues by the order of 25pc," he said.
"The NRA proposed instead to apply lower toll charges in order to reduce the diversionary effect.
Charges
"The charges proposed are less than the charges adopted by the NRA in toll schemes for the Waterford bypass, the Fermoy bypass, the Limerick tunnel, the M1 motorway at Drogheda and the Galway-Ballinasloe scheme."
There were angry scenes at yesterday's hearing as objectors to the tolling system - who include members of Meath Co Council - said the road would impose an unfair burden on commuters. The other objectors include members of An Taisce, local residents and conservation objectors to the motorway, which will run beside the Hill of Tara.
These groups said the tolls would result in drivers avoiding the motorway and lead to congestion on the existing N3.
There was also criticism that the hearing into the tolling scheme was only taking place yesterday, five years after the motorway was announced. The NRA said this was because of legal challenges to the motorway, which had to be concluded first.
"There should, of course, be no tolls," said Councillor John Barry of Meath Co Council. "Why, on a motorway from Dublin to Newry, is there only one toll? Why are two tolls proposed? The people of Kells will travel on the old road, as will people coming from Cavan."
Councillor Philip Cantwell said the toll was a "financial gathering exercise, pure and simple", and it was "bleeding taxpayers of their wages".
Counsel for the NRA, Dermot McGuinness, said an alternative untolled route would be available.
"People will be free to use the N3 as it exists. There will be considerable degree of toll-free access."
Inspector Dom Hegarty will send his report to the NRA board. He can recommend that there be no toll, in which case the NRA would have to pay the operator the cash equivalent of the toll every year.
The Irish Indo' has them anwering objections:
Objection:
Tolls will place an 'unacceptable' financial burden on people living in Meath and commuting to Dublin.
Response:
The National Roads Authority says motorists will save time and benefit economically. Drivers can also use the untolled N3.
Objection:
Scheme is already funded by the EU and National Development Plan.
Response:
The NRA says just €2.9m has been provided by the EU, and the NDP states the need for private finance to supplement exchequer investment.
Objection:
Delays are likely to occur at toll plazas.
Response:
NRA says the plazas are designed so tolling will take a maximum of 30 seconds.
Objection:
Tolling discriminates against Meath residents compared with people commuting into Dublin from other counties, and tolling will hinder local development.
Response:
NRA says economic development will be curtailed without the motorway.
Objection:
Tolling will divert traffic onto local roads.
Response:
NRA agrees but says overall volumes will be reduced.
Objection:
Meath county council will be obliged to maintain existing N3 once M3 opens.
Response:
NRA says the council will receive commercial rates based on the annual toll revenues collected
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)