THE National Roads Authority (NRA) has said it will announce its preferred option for a multi-million euro upgrade of the Jack Lynch Tunnel /Dunkettle roundabout junction by the new year or early January.
Last summer, the NRA held a public display at the Radisson Blu hotel in Little Island at which its engineers exhibited five options to upgrade what is the busiest road junction outside Dublin.
The main Dublin-Cork N8, the N25 to Wexford and the N28 to Ringaskiddy port all converge on the junction.
The NRA has repeatedly stated the junction is at capacity and needs to be upgraded urgently.
The authority has previously objected to a number of projects in the area, including O’Flynn Construction’s 1,000-plus house plan for Dunkettle — on the grounds the extra traffic it would generate would put too much pressure on the junction.
NRA spokesman Sean O’Neill said the authority was continuing to have discussions about the upgrade with Cork City Council and Cork County Council.
"We expect to make public our preferred design in December of January," Mr O’Neill said.
One of the five upgrade options could cost €100 million.
Meanwhile, a developer who wants to build a park-and-ride facility a few hundred metres from the tunnel may face an uphill battle to get planning permission for the facility as a result of the junction reconfiguration
The developer has applied to Cork County Council for outline permission for the facility on land he owns near the former Ibis Hotel, which is now a gaelscoil,
However, it is possible that his land might be subsumed under compulsory purchase orders for a series of new slip roads which may be created in the area as part of the junction upgrade.
A couple of years ago the NRA successfully objected to plans by Iarnród Éireann to build a park and ride at Dunkettle on the grounds that it might need the earmarked land to upgrade the junction.
Mr O’Neill said as far as the NRA was concerned until the preferred option was chosen "it was paramount to protect the functionality of the interchange".
Irish Examiner
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Dublin suburb sites for sale at reduced prices
Two top-class redevelopment sites in the north and south Dublin suburbs are to be offered for sale at a fraction of their original valuations, writes JACK FAGAN
Wesley Rothwell, of CB Richard Ellis, is quoting a guide price of €1.5 million for the former Shandon Bakery Mill at Phibsborough in Dublin 7, and €795,000 for the site of the former Classic Cinema at Harold’s Cross Road in Dublin 6W.
The Harold’s Cross plot of 0.12 of a hectare (0.3 of an acre) should be first to sell because of its pivotal location in a densely populated area. The cinema has already been demolished and the odds are that the site will be used for a mixed development to include a retail element as well as either offices or apartments.
It would obviously appeal to either Aldi or Lidl if it had more on-site car parking space (the two German discounters seldom settle for a site of less than an acre).
However, it may well appeal to Tesco Express or Marks Spencer, given its location in an affluent area. The vendors are Capel Developments, who are also selling the former Sunday World site in the centre of Terenure village. It bought the 0.46 of a hectare site at the height of the property market for €18.3 million. The valuation has since slipped to €5 million.
The Phibsborough site, which extends to 0.65 of a hectare (1.6 acres), is also located immediately beside a busy junction, Cross Guns Bridge. It has 150 metres of frontage onto the Royal Canal. The property includes a number of derelict inter-connecting buildings, the largest a cut-stone former mill, as well as a tower building.
The sale has been called by Kavanagh Fennell, receivers to Stateford, who were refused planning permission by An Bord Pleanála for a high-rise mixed development varying from 2 to 13 storeys and comprising mainly residential units.
Rothwell said a series of feasibility studies have shown that there was potential to develop a medium-density residential scheme with a capacity of 33 to 45 homes and including a mixture of houses and duplex units.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wesley Rothwell, of CB Richard Ellis, is quoting a guide price of €1.5 million for the former Shandon Bakery Mill at Phibsborough in Dublin 7, and €795,000 for the site of the former Classic Cinema at Harold’s Cross Road in Dublin 6W.
The Harold’s Cross plot of 0.12 of a hectare (0.3 of an acre) should be first to sell because of its pivotal location in a densely populated area. The cinema has already been demolished and the odds are that the site will be used for a mixed development to include a retail element as well as either offices or apartments.
It would obviously appeal to either Aldi or Lidl if it had more on-site car parking space (the two German discounters seldom settle for a site of less than an acre).
However, it may well appeal to Tesco Express or Marks Spencer, given its location in an affluent area. The vendors are Capel Developments, who are also selling the former Sunday World site in the centre of Terenure village. It bought the 0.46 of a hectare site at the height of the property market for €18.3 million. The valuation has since slipped to €5 million.
The Phibsborough site, which extends to 0.65 of a hectare (1.6 acres), is also located immediately beside a busy junction, Cross Guns Bridge. It has 150 metres of frontage onto the Royal Canal. The property includes a number of derelict inter-connecting buildings, the largest a cut-stone former mill, as well as a tower building.
The sale has been called by Kavanagh Fennell, receivers to Stateford, who were refused planning permission by An Bord Pleanála for a high-rise mixed development varying from 2 to 13 storeys and comprising mainly residential units.
Rothwell said a series of feasibility studies have shown that there was potential to develop a medium-density residential scheme with a capacity of 33 to 45 homes and including a mixture of houses and duplex units.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Warning of delay in flood defences
CONSTRUCTION OF vital flood defences to protect Clontarf from the sea could be delayed by up to eight years, Dublin City Council has warned.
The council has had planning permission from An Bord Pleanála to build flood defences up to 2.75m high since 2008.
It has now agreed to reduce the height of the protective embankment to a maximum of 2.17m.
The cost of the project, including the construction of a new watermain is estimated at €9.8 million, which would be jointly funded by the Office of Public Works (OPW) and the Department of Environment. A contractor has been appointed and is ready to start work.
The council said it has been warned by the OPW that funding may be withdrawn if the project is not confirmed by the end of this year.
The reduction in height followed objections from residents and business people in Clontarf who said the defences, which would run along a 3km stretch of the promenade, would ruin the local amenity and the views of Dublin Bay.
The combined residents and business associations were last Friday presented with the proposals for the reductions in height which would see the grass covered mound vary in height from a minimum of .45m to 2.17m along the bay. In the previously approved scheme the minimum height was .85m while the maximum was 2.75m.
Residents and businesses said the reductions were inadequate and that they would continue to fight against the project.
The embankment would create a “muggers and rapist’s paradise” and would be an act of “national sabotage” local independent councillor Niall Ring told a city council meeting last night.
Executive manager with the council Tom Leahy said it was not possible to make the defences any lower and still provide protection to properties in Clontarf. “There is no point in investing in defences which do not protect people.” If they council did go ahead with the revised scheme now and had to restart the design and planning process, flood defences for Clontarf which was at “daily risk of flooding” could be delayed for up to eight years Mr Leahy said.
“It could require six to eight years to get back to where we are now, even if there is a willingness on the part of the two funding agencies to fund a complete abandonment of the current project and a total redesign.” Construction of the defences, which would take two years is due to start in the new year. If it did not progress at this stage Mr Leahy said, the OPW had indicated that funding was likely to be withdrawn.
“Dublin City Council has been informed that funding is available in 2011 from OPW and that this funding may not be available subsequently due to review of all Government Capital funding.” Councillors last night agreed to reconsider the issue next month following public consultation on the new heights.
Separately Mr Leahy last night told councillors that the rainfall which resulted in extreme flooding in Dublin two weeks ago “considerably exceeded” Met Éireann forecasts.
Some 95mm of rain fell over a 24 hour period on October 24th. Met Éireann had issued severe weather alerts, updated during the day, which predicted rainfall of 40mm to 70mm over two days, he said.
Referring to reports that the fire brigade had to be called to operate a flood gate on the river Dodder near Lansdowne Road because the key could not be found to open it Mr Leahy said the lock had malfunctioned but that it was a tidal gate which operates automatically if there is tidal, rather than rain, flooding.
Irish Times
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
The council has had planning permission from An Bord Pleanála to build flood defences up to 2.75m high since 2008.
It has now agreed to reduce the height of the protective embankment to a maximum of 2.17m.
The cost of the project, including the construction of a new watermain is estimated at €9.8 million, which would be jointly funded by the Office of Public Works (OPW) and the Department of Environment. A contractor has been appointed and is ready to start work.
The council said it has been warned by the OPW that funding may be withdrawn if the project is not confirmed by the end of this year.
The reduction in height followed objections from residents and business people in Clontarf who said the defences, which would run along a 3km stretch of the promenade, would ruin the local amenity and the views of Dublin Bay.
The combined residents and business associations were last Friday presented with the proposals for the reductions in height which would see the grass covered mound vary in height from a minimum of .45m to 2.17m along the bay. In the previously approved scheme the minimum height was .85m while the maximum was 2.75m.
Residents and businesses said the reductions were inadequate and that they would continue to fight against the project.
The embankment would create a “muggers and rapist’s paradise” and would be an act of “national sabotage” local independent councillor Niall Ring told a city council meeting last night.
Executive manager with the council Tom Leahy said it was not possible to make the defences any lower and still provide protection to properties in Clontarf. “There is no point in investing in defences which do not protect people.” If they council did go ahead with the revised scheme now and had to restart the design and planning process, flood defences for Clontarf which was at “daily risk of flooding” could be delayed for up to eight years Mr Leahy said.
“It could require six to eight years to get back to where we are now, even if there is a willingness on the part of the two funding agencies to fund a complete abandonment of the current project and a total redesign.” Construction of the defences, which would take two years is due to start in the new year. If it did not progress at this stage Mr Leahy said, the OPW had indicated that funding was likely to be withdrawn.
“Dublin City Council has been informed that funding is available in 2011 from OPW and that this funding may not be available subsequently due to review of all Government Capital funding.” Councillors last night agreed to reconsider the issue next month following public consultation on the new heights.
Separately Mr Leahy last night told councillors that the rainfall which resulted in extreme flooding in Dublin two weeks ago “considerably exceeded” Met Éireann forecasts.
Some 95mm of rain fell over a 24 hour period on October 24th. Met Éireann had issued severe weather alerts, updated during the day, which predicted rainfall of 40mm to 70mm over two days, he said.
Referring to reports that the fire brigade had to be called to operate a flood gate on the river Dodder near Lansdowne Road because the key could not be found to open it Mr Leahy said the lock had malfunctioned but that it was a tidal gate which operates automatically if there is tidal, rather than rain, flooding.
Irish Times
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
Monday, 7 November 2011
DUBLIN’S FUTURE: NEW VISIONS FOR IRELAND’S CAPITAL CITY
A new book has been published which is of value to anyone with an interest in Dublin's planning.
Dublin’s Future: New Visions for Ireland’s Capital City is the first book to look at the future of Ireland’s most important city from a variety of perspectives. It recognises that the future of Ireland’s economic engine is about much more than the provision of infrastructure and colours on a development plan, but that a huge range of interests and activities have a role to play in making Dublin not only the best city in Ireland, but also the best city for Ireland.
The book identifies different ‘Dublins’, some concerned with economic success, some concerned with quality of life, all interlinked and interwoven in the complex fabric of a modern city.
Dublin’s Future suggests that the city now needs managers from diverse backgrounds, not necessarily commerce or engineering; that Dublin’s managers should have a proven urban ethos; and that we should even consider hiring a manager, not from the internal ranks of local authorities, but perhaps even from another country.
Contributors to Dublin’s Future are recognised authorities in their fields. They cross sectors of age, sectors of private and public, profit and non-profit, and each and every one has something interesting to say about the future of Dublin.
The book is published by The Liffey Press and costs €19.95.
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
Dublin’s Future: New Visions for Ireland’s Capital City is the first book to look at the future of Ireland’s most important city from a variety of perspectives. It recognises that the future of Ireland’s economic engine is about much more than the provision of infrastructure and colours on a development plan, but that a huge range of interests and activities have a role to play in making Dublin not only the best city in Ireland, but also the best city for Ireland.
The book identifies different ‘Dublins’, some concerned with economic success, some concerned with quality of life, all interlinked and interwoven in the complex fabric of a modern city.
Dublin’s Future suggests that the city now needs managers from diverse backgrounds, not necessarily commerce or engineering; that Dublin’s managers should have a proven urban ethos; and that we should even consider hiring a manager, not from the internal ranks of local authorities, but perhaps even from another country.
Contributors to Dublin’s Future are recognised authorities in their fields. They cross sectors of age, sectors of private and public, profit and non-profit, and each and every one has something interesting to say about the future of Dublin.
The book is published by The Liffey Press and costs €19.95.
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Clontarf locals reject flood proposals
DUBLIN CITY Council’s proposals to reduce the height of the planned Clontarf flood defences are inadequate and unacceptable, local residents and business people have said.
The council two weeks ago undertook to examine the possibility of lowering proposed flood defences by half a metre, following opposition to its plans to construct an embankment of up to 2.75 metres tall over a 3km stretch of the Dublin Bay promenade.
Council officials had told residents at a meeting on October 21st that it did not know whether it would be possible to reduce the height of the An Bord Pleanála-approved flood defences and still provide protection to Clontarf from flooding.
The council yesterday returned with proposals which residents said would result in reductions of an average of one foot over the length of the scheme and no reductions at key locations such as the Clontarf baths.
“Their suggested amendments to the project in no way go far enough for us to accept it,” Deirdre Tobin, chairwoman of the residents’ association said. “We have been mandated by the people to fight this project in its current format and we will continue to do so.”
Chairman of the Clontarf Business Association Gus O’Hara said the council had ignored the will of the people “and in doing so displayed a lack of sensitivity to the area, the people and the local economy there”.
The council has had permission to build flood defences up to 2.75 metres high since 2008, but is only now seeking to construct the scheme, expected to cost €9.7 million. Work had been due to begin next year.
The scheme was designed to prevent further flood damage along the seafront and to carry a new arterial water main. The area was hit by an “extreme tidal event” in February 2002 and a less severe one in October 2004.
The council yesterday said it would not comment on the new proposals ahead of their presentation to councillors on Monday night.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The council two weeks ago undertook to examine the possibility of lowering proposed flood defences by half a metre, following opposition to its plans to construct an embankment of up to 2.75 metres tall over a 3km stretch of the Dublin Bay promenade.
Council officials had told residents at a meeting on October 21st that it did not know whether it would be possible to reduce the height of the An Bord Pleanála-approved flood defences and still provide protection to Clontarf from flooding.
The council yesterday returned with proposals which residents said would result in reductions of an average of one foot over the length of the scheme and no reductions at key locations such as the Clontarf baths.
“Their suggested amendments to the project in no way go far enough for us to accept it,” Deirdre Tobin, chairwoman of the residents’ association said. “We have been mandated by the people to fight this project in its current format and we will continue to do so.”
Chairman of the Clontarf Business Association Gus O’Hara said the council had ignored the will of the people “and in doing so displayed a lack of sensitivity to the area, the people and the local economy there”.
The council has had permission to build flood defences up to 2.75 metres high since 2008, but is only now seeking to construct the scheme, expected to cost €9.7 million. Work had been due to begin next year.
The scheme was designed to prevent further flood damage along the seafront and to carry a new arterial water main. The area was hit by an “extreme tidal event” in February 2002 and a less severe one in October 2004.
The council yesterday said it would not comment on the new proposals ahead of their presentation to councillors on Monday night.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
'Fatal legal flaw' possible in children's hospital plan
THE DEPARTMENT of Health failed to comply with an EU requirement for a strategic environmental assessment of the proposed national children’s hospital in Dublin, An Bord Pleanála has been told.
In a submission to the board’s oral hearing on the hospital, the Heritage Council said the department’s failure to carry out the assessment could be a “fatal legal flaw” in the planning process.
The council, a statutory body, said much of the conflict over the hospital’s proposed height and bulk resulted from this failure by the department to assess the environmental implications before deciding in May 2006 to go ahead with the €650 million project.
An Bord Pleanála is holding oral hearings into the plan to build the 16-storey hospital on a two-hectare site on the grounds of the Mater hospital. It is due to be completed in 2016.
The National Children’s Hospital Development Board says an environmental report on Dublin City Council’s 2008 Mountjoy/ Phibsboro local area plan, which covered the Mater site, was adequate to fulfil an EU directive’s requirement for a strategic environmental assessment.
However Colm Murray, the Heritage Council’s architecture officer, said the directive, which was transposed into Irish law in 2004, related to “all decisions in respect of plans and programmes that may have an environmental effect”, such as the proposed hospital.
It also required an examination of alternatives. “Without real alternatives, there is no scope for choice or judgment and the environmental impact process is pointless and flawed”, he said in a submission to the oral hearing. This could be “a fatal legal flaw in the decision-making process”.
The fact that an environmental report was done on the Mountjoy/ Phibsboro local area plan, published in March 2008, was insufficient, as “the prior decision of government [to locate the hospital on the Mater site] prevented the generation of alternatives”.
An Bord Pleanála’s minutes of pre-planning consultations with the applicants record them as saying the decision to locate the hospital on the Mater site “was based on medical policy more so than planning policy and [they] acknowledged that it could be a contentious matter”.
Mr Murray said the Heritage Council “is of the view that the integrity and authenticity of Dublin as a candidate [Unesco] World Heritage Site ought to be a major material consideration in this planning decision”, because the 16-storey hospital would have negative impacts.
He noted that conservation architect Paul Arnold had conceded that “the adverse impact on St George’s Church [in nearby Hardwicke Place] will be high” and there would also be “identifiable adverse impacts” on North Great George’s Street and O’Connell Street.
An Taisce, in its submission to An Bord Pleanála’s oral hearing, drew attention to two alternatives that were not considered – a €102 million expansion plan for Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital in Crumlin and a publicly owned site between St James’s Hospital and Heuston Station. The latter site, it said, “offers more than double the footprint compared to the existing proposal” and was also “substantially co-located with a major adult teaching hospital, requiring only a 90m link to St James’s” as well as adequate space for expansion.
Lawyer James Nix, who appeared for An Taisce, also argued there was a failure to observe the EU’s strategic environmental assessment directive (SEA) and this “continues to the present day”, with the decision to opt for the Mater site “taken as a fait accompli” in the Mountjoy/Phibsboro local area plan.
“In effect, the failure to meet the SEA begins in 2006 and persists into the arms of An Bord Pleanála,” Mr Nix said. “Indeed, looking at what took place over these five years, the decision-making process is compromised by the very mischief that the SEA directive seeks to avoid.
“By failing to ascertain and study alternatives, we witness an unshakeable faith that the decision must be right in the first place. This cannot be the process, and is indeed the last thing the framers and those adopting the [SEA] directive . . . intended.”
Irish Times
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
In a submission to the board’s oral hearing on the hospital, the Heritage Council said the department’s failure to carry out the assessment could be a “fatal legal flaw” in the planning process.
The council, a statutory body, said much of the conflict over the hospital’s proposed height and bulk resulted from this failure by the department to assess the environmental implications before deciding in May 2006 to go ahead with the €650 million project.
An Bord Pleanála is holding oral hearings into the plan to build the 16-storey hospital on a two-hectare site on the grounds of the Mater hospital. It is due to be completed in 2016.
The National Children’s Hospital Development Board says an environmental report on Dublin City Council’s 2008 Mountjoy/ Phibsboro local area plan, which covered the Mater site, was adequate to fulfil an EU directive’s requirement for a strategic environmental assessment.
However Colm Murray, the Heritage Council’s architecture officer, said the directive, which was transposed into Irish law in 2004, related to “all decisions in respect of plans and programmes that may have an environmental effect”, such as the proposed hospital.
It also required an examination of alternatives. “Without real alternatives, there is no scope for choice or judgment and the environmental impact process is pointless and flawed”, he said in a submission to the oral hearing. This could be “a fatal legal flaw in the decision-making process”.
The fact that an environmental report was done on the Mountjoy/ Phibsboro local area plan, published in March 2008, was insufficient, as “the prior decision of government [to locate the hospital on the Mater site] prevented the generation of alternatives”.
An Bord Pleanála’s minutes of pre-planning consultations with the applicants record them as saying the decision to locate the hospital on the Mater site “was based on medical policy more so than planning policy and [they] acknowledged that it could be a contentious matter”.
Mr Murray said the Heritage Council “is of the view that the integrity and authenticity of Dublin as a candidate [Unesco] World Heritage Site ought to be a major material consideration in this planning decision”, because the 16-storey hospital would have negative impacts.
He noted that conservation architect Paul Arnold had conceded that “the adverse impact on St George’s Church [in nearby Hardwicke Place] will be high” and there would also be “identifiable adverse impacts” on North Great George’s Street and O’Connell Street.
An Taisce, in its submission to An Bord Pleanála’s oral hearing, drew attention to two alternatives that were not considered – a €102 million expansion plan for Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital in Crumlin and a publicly owned site between St James’s Hospital and Heuston Station. The latter site, it said, “offers more than double the footprint compared to the existing proposal” and was also “substantially co-located with a major adult teaching hospital, requiring only a 90m link to St James’s” as well as adequate space for expansion.
Lawyer James Nix, who appeared for An Taisce, also argued there was a failure to observe the EU’s strategic environmental assessment directive (SEA) and this “continues to the present day”, with the decision to opt for the Mater site “taken as a fait accompli” in the Mountjoy/Phibsboro local area plan.
“In effect, the failure to meet the SEA begins in 2006 and persists into the arms of An Bord Pleanála,” Mr Nix said. “Indeed, looking at what took place over these five years, the decision-making process is compromised by the very mischief that the SEA directive seeks to avoid.
“By failing to ascertain and study alternatives, we witness an unshakeable faith that the decision must be right in the first place. This cannot be the process, and is indeed the last thing the framers and those adopting the [SEA] directive . . . intended.”
Irish Times
www.bpsplanningconsultants.ie
Friday, 4 November 2011
Lines and the law
Agricultural consultant and valuer Richard Collins says landowners with genuine cases for compensation for powerlines on their property should turn to arbitration. In response, Eirgrid emphasises the benefits of electrical infrastructure, and says independent arbitration is available for any dispute.
THE ESB/Eirgrid proposal to construct a large high-voltage electric powerline between Dunmanway and Clashavoon in Co Cork (about 50 km) is causing much concern to the landowners whose land will be traversed. There can be little doubt that the erection of such powerlines and pylons will reduce the value of farms along its route.
Pressure from landowners over many years about damage done by road schemes and gas pipelines eventually resulted in reasonably satisfactory levels of compensation for farm devaluation. Not so, however, in the case of powerlines and pylons.
The Entitlement to Compensation: The Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927 gave considerable powers to the ESB, but did not provide for proper compensation payments to landowners for powerlines and pylons on their land. This was legally challenged by Gormley in a landmark court case (ESB v Gormley, 1985). In the Supreme Court judgement, the judge described the right to acquire a wayleave or easement over land to facilitate the construction of powerlines, pylons and masts, as a "burdensome right over land". This opened the door, and resulted in a provision in the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1985 for full compensation to landowners for damage done by electric powerlines, poles and pylons. There is now an undisputed entitlement to full compensation for damage to property as a result of these structures.
However, poorly focused efforts by landowners mean that the ESB still steadfastly hold that no such devaluation exists, and landowners remain unpaid for property devaluation.
Why is there a resistance to powerlines? Powerlines and pylons are a visual eyesore and, like any eyesore, cause a devaluation of the property on which they are erected. More importantly, however, there is now a very strong perception that they are a health risk, and this adds further to the property devaluation. Wayleaves and easements taken by the ESB/Eirgrid for the erection of powerlines are registered on the landowner’s property deeds. What most landowners do not realise is that the power given to the ESB/Eirgrid by the various ESB Acts also entitles them to enter any part of a landowner’s property to erect the powerline and afterwards carry out inspections and maintenance, and in emergencies, prior notice does not have to be given. This can have serious animal disturbance and disease implications. Helicopter flights over the powerlines for inspections are a regular occurrence, and can seriously disturb animals, particularly horses.
The combination of the eyesore, the perceived health risk, the burden on title and the access rights, constitutes a significant devaluation of property and appropriate compensation should be paid to landowners for this devaluation.
What are landowners paid? ESB/Eirgrid generally limit compensation payments to crop loss resulting from the construction works. In recent times, there may also be a so-called "facility payment" for co-operation with the pylon construction. However, there is an absolute and total resistance to an acceptance that these structures and rights devalue property, and accordingly, landowners are not paid compensation for same. By nature, landowners are generally co-operative, and will accept crop loss compensation and allow the works continue. It is only when a landowner may wish to sell his farm or erect a dwelling house or farm building that he realises his or her mistake.
The extent of devaluation: No two situations are the same. Clearly, the erection of a low voltage powerline across one corner of a very large holding, several hundred metres from the dwelling house and farm buildings, will not cause the same level of devaluation as a high voltage powerline with a number of pylons in close proximity to the dwelling house, through the centre of a small or medium-sized holding. This latter situation could be so serious as to ruin a potential farm sale, because intensive farmers and bloodstock owners would have no interest in acquiring such land, with the problems referred to above. In the former situation, the level of devaluation is likely to be insignificant, and generally would not justify a reference to arbitration for compensation.
What can landowners do? To disrupt or prevent the erection of powerlines is illegal. ESB/Eirgrid will absolutely refuse, except in extremely exceptional circumstances, to put powerlines underground — and there is no law to compel them to do so. Major protests aimed at having powerlines put underground have seldom been successful, and have generally been a wasted effort. The only realistic route for landowners is to pursue the matter by demanding appropriate compensation.
There is provision in the legislation for compensation for property devaluation, and if ESB/Eirgrid refuse to acknowledge genuine devaluation (as they invariably will), the landowner can have the matter determined by an independent property arbitrator whose decision is binding on both parties.
Landowners with genuine cases should not be afraid of the arbitration process. However, the case must be realistic, worthwhile, and must be properly prepared.
There is little point going before a property arbitrator without evidence and professional expertise to support the case. There is now real evidence that land with large powerlines has been selling at much lower prices than similar land without such structures.
It is not advisable to break the law, while there is a mechanism to get fair play within the law. The threat of having to pay legal costs should not deter landowners, because it is slight, in the right circumstances. As in all such matters, good and reliable legal and valuation advice should be sought at the outset.
Farmer discussion groups are now emerging as a useful forum for having the pros and cons of major issues debated. Large scale protests have been tried throughout the country, but do not appear to have achieved any worthwhile success, mainly because they have been aimed in either illegal or unachievable directions. In the final analysis, such actions are only a distraction from the really worthwhile opportunities that exist for getting fair compensation for property devaluation.
Experience: Having been involved in trying to get compensation for landowners for the past several years, my experience informs me that satisfactory results can be achieved if the approach is correct. The official ESB/Eirgrid position is that they will comply with the entitlement, as covered by the Gormley Supreme Court judgement, but as powerlines do not devalue a property, the compensation for same will always be zero, and if landowners think otherwise, they should go to arbitration. Unfortunately, this then frightens landowners, and the relevant compensation is foregone.
Despite the Gormley success in the Supreme Court, ESB/Eirgrid have succeeded in getting powerlines erected throughout the country, without having to concede that there is devaluation of property.
This has been achieved by powerful and professional management and PR work. Farmers should try the same approach.
Richard Collins is an agricultural consultant and valuer and can be contacted at FBA House, Fermoy, Co Cork
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
THE ESB/Eirgrid proposal to construct a large high-voltage electric powerline between Dunmanway and Clashavoon in Co Cork (about 50 km) is causing much concern to the landowners whose land will be traversed. There can be little doubt that the erection of such powerlines and pylons will reduce the value of farms along its route.
Pressure from landowners over many years about damage done by road schemes and gas pipelines eventually resulted in reasonably satisfactory levels of compensation for farm devaluation. Not so, however, in the case of powerlines and pylons.
The Entitlement to Compensation: The Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927 gave considerable powers to the ESB, but did not provide for proper compensation payments to landowners for powerlines and pylons on their land. This was legally challenged by Gormley in a landmark court case (ESB v Gormley, 1985). In the Supreme Court judgement, the judge described the right to acquire a wayleave or easement over land to facilitate the construction of powerlines, pylons and masts, as a "burdensome right over land". This opened the door, and resulted in a provision in the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1985 for full compensation to landowners for damage done by electric powerlines, poles and pylons. There is now an undisputed entitlement to full compensation for damage to property as a result of these structures.
However, poorly focused efforts by landowners mean that the ESB still steadfastly hold that no such devaluation exists, and landowners remain unpaid for property devaluation.
Why is there a resistance to powerlines? Powerlines and pylons are a visual eyesore and, like any eyesore, cause a devaluation of the property on which they are erected. More importantly, however, there is now a very strong perception that they are a health risk, and this adds further to the property devaluation. Wayleaves and easements taken by the ESB/Eirgrid for the erection of powerlines are registered on the landowner’s property deeds. What most landowners do not realise is that the power given to the ESB/Eirgrid by the various ESB Acts also entitles them to enter any part of a landowner’s property to erect the powerline and afterwards carry out inspections and maintenance, and in emergencies, prior notice does not have to be given. This can have serious animal disturbance and disease implications. Helicopter flights over the powerlines for inspections are a regular occurrence, and can seriously disturb animals, particularly horses.
The combination of the eyesore, the perceived health risk, the burden on title and the access rights, constitutes a significant devaluation of property and appropriate compensation should be paid to landowners for this devaluation.
What are landowners paid? ESB/Eirgrid generally limit compensation payments to crop loss resulting from the construction works. In recent times, there may also be a so-called "facility payment" for co-operation with the pylon construction. However, there is an absolute and total resistance to an acceptance that these structures and rights devalue property, and accordingly, landowners are not paid compensation for same. By nature, landowners are generally co-operative, and will accept crop loss compensation and allow the works continue. It is only when a landowner may wish to sell his farm or erect a dwelling house or farm building that he realises his or her mistake.
The extent of devaluation: No two situations are the same. Clearly, the erection of a low voltage powerline across one corner of a very large holding, several hundred metres from the dwelling house and farm buildings, will not cause the same level of devaluation as a high voltage powerline with a number of pylons in close proximity to the dwelling house, through the centre of a small or medium-sized holding. This latter situation could be so serious as to ruin a potential farm sale, because intensive farmers and bloodstock owners would have no interest in acquiring such land, with the problems referred to above. In the former situation, the level of devaluation is likely to be insignificant, and generally would not justify a reference to arbitration for compensation.
What can landowners do? To disrupt or prevent the erection of powerlines is illegal. ESB/Eirgrid will absolutely refuse, except in extremely exceptional circumstances, to put powerlines underground — and there is no law to compel them to do so. Major protests aimed at having powerlines put underground have seldom been successful, and have generally been a wasted effort. The only realistic route for landowners is to pursue the matter by demanding appropriate compensation.
There is provision in the legislation for compensation for property devaluation, and if ESB/Eirgrid refuse to acknowledge genuine devaluation (as they invariably will), the landowner can have the matter determined by an independent property arbitrator whose decision is binding on both parties.
Landowners with genuine cases should not be afraid of the arbitration process. However, the case must be realistic, worthwhile, and must be properly prepared.
There is little point going before a property arbitrator without evidence and professional expertise to support the case. There is now real evidence that land with large powerlines has been selling at much lower prices than similar land without such structures.
It is not advisable to break the law, while there is a mechanism to get fair play within the law. The threat of having to pay legal costs should not deter landowners, because it is slight, in the right circumstances. As in all such matters, good and reliable legal and valuation advice should be sought at the outset.
Farmer discussion groups are now emerging as a useful forum for having the pros and cons of major issues debated. Large scale protests have been tried throughout the country, but do not appear to have achieved any worthwhile success, mainly because they have been aimed in either illegal or unachievable directions. In the final analysis, such actions are only a distraction from the really worthwhile opportunities that exist for getting fair compensation for property devaluation.
Experience: Having been involved in trying to get compensation for landowners for the past several years, my experience informs me that satisfactory results can be achieved if the approach is correct. The official ESB/Eirgrid position is that they will comply with the entitlement, as covered by the Gormley Supreme Court judgement, but as powerlines do not devalue a property, the compensation for same will always be zero, and if landowners think otherwise, they should go to arbitration. Unfortunately, this then frightens landowners, and the relevant compensation is foregone.
Despite the Gormley success in the Supreme Court, ESB/Eirgrid have succeeded in getting powerlines erected throughout the country, without having to concede that there is devaluation of property.
This has been achieved by powerful and professional management and PR work. Farmers should try the same approach.
Richard Collins is an agricultural consultant and valuer and can be contacted at FBA House, Fermoy, Co Cork
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)