ONE OF the Rossport Five who was jailed five years ago over health and safety concerns about the Corrib gas project has said there is “no significant change” to the community concerns.
Rossport resident Vincent McGrath, who is chairman of north Mayo community group Pobal Chill Chomáin, was commenting on Shell’s new proposal to run the last link in the gas pipeline through Sruwaddacon estuary, avoiding Rossport village.
The new 5,000 page submission by Shell and its Corrib gas partners to An Bord Pleanála was published on the internet yesterday.
Shell proposes tunnelling under Sruwaddacon estuary, which is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), from the Glengad landfall. Shell says the new routing is 234 metres away from the nearest occupied house – more than three times the original distance.
It is expected that an oral hearing into Shell’s revised submission will resume in early autumn, following the four-week public consultation which ends on July 28th.
Mr McGrath said there was “no significant change to the project” which would reassure the communities living on both sides of Sruwaddacon estuary.
“It’s still the same plan,” he added.
“We have a right and a duty to oppose this project because it threatens our health, safety and our environment,” he said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Sounds like a plan? Tell that to the planners
Article by Isobel Morton:
RECENTLY, I made the huge mistake of trying to explain the Irish planning process to English clients who wish to renovate their recently purchased period home in Dublin.
After 45 minutes of their questions and my total inability to provide them with adequate answers, we gave up.
I am absolutely sure they thought I was lying through my teeth, mentally unhinged and suffering from some sort of planner phobia (the latter I will admit to, as it may well be the case).
They spoke very slowly and smiled through gritted teeth as they politely rephrased their questions for the umpteenth time, in the hope that this tragically simple Irish woman might eventually understand.
I did, but unfortunately they couldn’t understand my responses – which was hardly surprising, as they made no logical sense to me, let alone to them.
To further complicate matters, my clients’ property was listed as a “protected structure” and the planning application would have to include a conservation report including photographic evidence and be subject to additional guidelines pertaining to protected structures.
In the vain hope that the architect involved would have better luck explaining the endless vagaries of the Irish planning process, I asked him to speak to the clients. He sighed and mumbled that he has been trying unsuccessfully to second-guess the planners for 35 years but he did at least explain the situation to the clients and reiterated my views. Now the clients are of the belief that we are both completely off the rails.
They carefully explained the simple and perfectly logical UK planning process, hoping, no doubt, that I would at some point interject and confirm that we followed a similar system. I didn’t because we don’t.
Their story included “a nice man from the council”, who would call (at a time suitable to them both) and have a cup of tea and a chat about what they proposed building.
He would then help them to fill in forms and give them tips on what things the planners favoured and what should be avoided. Then, assuming they stuck by the advice given and didn’t apply for permission to build a Trump Tower in their back garden, the planning would fly through the system.
How perfectly civilised and sensible, I thought, as I attempted to explain that there was a distinct possibility their application will be delayed by a few months, as the planners may well respond with a short few lines requesting “additional information” and indeed could subsequently come back with a further demand for “clarification of additional information”.
Looking concerned, and with a slight edge creeping into their voices, the clients told me they sincerely hoped I would remember to provide all of the necessary information the planners would require in order to avoid any unnecessary delays.
Politely, I explained that it wouldn’t matter how much information had been included with the application, the planners were still within their rights to request “additional information”.
Indeed, the term “additional information” was a useful stalling tactic, used a lot during the boom years, coming up to Christmas or summer holidays, when they hadn’t the time or the inclination to go through your planning proposal. I explained that it could include anything from a demand for details of the proposed exterior paint colour, to an engineer’s report on the condition of a disused Victorian drain running through the end of the property’s garden. In fact, it could be for anything at all or indeed for nothing in particular.
“No!”, they said in unison, “Yes” I replied emphatically. “There may be neither rhyme nor reason to the planner’s requests and demands.”
“But, surely there are rules?”
“Yes, their rules, which change like the wind.”
Watching their eyes widen, I warmed to my subject and warned them that they would probably be asked to make a “development contribution” to the planning authority towards the cost of services such as water supply, roads and sewage, which would be a condition in the grant of permission and would have to be paid prior to commencing work on their small kitchen extension.
I gave the example of another client, whose two-storey (garage with bedroom above) extension was given planning permission but with a €17,000 contribution charge. (With fewer planning applications these days, they have to earn their money from those who do apply.)
Then, of course, if permission was refused or there was an objection, they would have to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, which would be both time-consuming and expensive, with no guarantee of success, as our planning board regularly chooses to ignore its own inspectors’ reports and recommendations.
The clients’ eyes were out on sticks. Having experienced the open and democratic planning system that operates in the UK they were horrified that the planning process here was so expensive and protracted and that it continues to be conducted behind closed doors.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
RECENTLY, I made the huge mistake of trying to explain the Irish planning process to English clients who wish to renovate their recently purchased period home in Dublin.
After 45 minutes of their questions and my total inability to provide them with adequate answers, we gave up.
I am absolutely sure they thought I was lying through my teeth, mentally unhinged and suffering from some sort of planner phobia (the latter I will admit to, as it may well be the case).
They spoke very slowly and smiled through gritted teeth as they politely rephrased their questions for the umpteenth time, in the hope that this tragically simple Irish woman might eventually understand.
I did, but unfortunately they couldn’t understand my responses – which was hardly surprising, as they made no logical sense to me, let alone to them.
To further complicate matters, my clients’ property was listed as a “protected structure” and the planning application would have to include a conservation report including photographic evidence and be subject to additional guidelines pertaining to protected structures.
In the vain hope that the architect involved would have better luck explaining the endless vagaries of the Irish planning process, I asked him to speak to the clients. He sighed and mumbled that he has been trying unsuccessfully to second-guess the planners for 35 years but he did at least explain the situation to the clients and reiterated my views. Now the clients are of the belief that we are both completely off the rails.
They carefully explained the simple and perfectly logical UK planning process, hoping, no doubt, that I would at some point interject and confirm that we followed a similar system. I didn’t because we don’t.
Their story included “a nice man from the council”, who would call (at a time suitable to them both) and have a cup of tea and a chat about what they proposed building.
He would then help them to fill in forms and give them tips on what things the planners favoured and what should be avoided. Then, assuming they stuck by the advice given and didn’t apply for permission to build a Trump Tower in their back garden, the planning would fly through the system.
How perfectly civilised and sensible, I thought, as I attempted to explain that there was a distinct possibility their application will be delayed by a few months, as the planners may well respond with a short few lines requesting “additional information” and indeed could subsequently come back with a further demand for “clarification of additional information”.
Looking concerned, and with a slight edge creeping into their voices, the clients told me they sincerely hoped I would remember to provide all of the necessary information the planners would require in order to avoid any unnecessary delays.
Politely, I explained that it wouldn’t matter how much information had been included with the application, the planners were still within their rights to request “additional information”.
Indeed, the term “additional information” was a useful stalling tactic, used a lot during the boom years, coming up to Christmas or summer holidays, when they hadn’t the time or the inclination to go through your planning proposal. I explained that it could include anything from a demand for details of the proposed exterior paint colour, to an engineer’s report on the condition of a disused Victorian drain running through the end of the property’s garden. In fact, it could be for anything at all or indeed for nothing in particular.
“No!”, they said in unison, “Yes” I replied emphatically. “There may be neither rhyme nor reason to the planner’s requests and demands.”
“But, surely there are rules?”
“Yes, their rules, which change like the wind.”
Watching their eyes widen, I warmed to my subject and warned them that they would probably be asked to make a “development contribution” to the planning authority towards the cost of services such as water supply, roads and sewage, which would be a condition in the grant of permission and would have to be paid prior to commencing work on their small kitchen extension.
I gave the example of another client, whose two-storey (garage with bedroom above) extension was given planning permission but with a €17,000 contribution charge. (With fewer planning applications these days, they have to earn their money from those who do apply.)
Then, of course, if permission was refused or there was an objection, they would have to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, which would be both time-consuming and expensive, with no guarantee of success, as our planning board regularly chooses to ignore its own inspectors’ reports and recommendations.
The clients’ eyes were out on sticks. Having experienced the open and democratic planning system that operates in the UK they were horrified that the planning process here was so expensive and protracted and that it continues to be conducted behind closed doors.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Dart underground rail plan lodged
The formal application for the Dart underground rail project in Dublin was lodged with An Bord Pleanála yesterday.
If approved, the Dart underground will deliver a high-capacity rail line through the city centre.
The twin-bore tunnels will connect the northern and Kildare rail lines with underground stations located at Spencer Dock, Pearse, Station, Stephen’s Green, Christchurch and Heuston Station, as well as a surface Dart station at Inchicore.
It is estimated that close to 7,000 people will be employed each year during its proposed construction.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
If approved, the Dart underground will deliver a high-capacity rail line through the city centre.
The twin-bore tunnels will connect the northern and Kildare rail lines with underground stations located at Spencer Dock, Pearse, Station, Stephen’s Green, Christchurch and Heuston Station, as well as a surface Dart station at Inchicore.
It is estimated that close to 7,000 people will be employed each year during its proposed construction.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Shell lodges new plan for gas pipeline
FIVE YEARS after the jailing of the Rossport Five, Shell has lodged a new planning application showing its Corrib gas pipeline route will not cross any land in the north Mayo village.
Full details of the third proposed routing for the last link in the project are due to be published on the internet today.
The details will also be available for inspection at the offices of Shell and An Bord Pleanála in Dublin, and Mayo County Council offices in Castlebar and Belmullet.
An Bord Pleanála has set a four-week public consultation period for the proposed routing under Sruwaddacon estuary and through forestry to the Ballinaboy gas terminal, with a deadline for submissions of July 28th.
It is expected a Bord Pleanála oral hearing held last year under the Strategic Infrastructure Act may reopen in early autumn to consider the revised application.
The new plan was drawn up by Shell after An Bord Pleanála found up to half of its second proposed routing for the onshore pipe was “unacceptable” on safety grounds, due to proximity to housing in Rossport, Glengad and Aughoose.
Shell says the new routing is 234 metres away from the nearest occupied house – more than three times the original distance.
Sruwaddacon estuary, a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), divides Rossport to the north from Glengad, Pollathomas and Aughoose to the south.
The proposed pipeline will still run over lands of at least five landowners in the Glengad area – one being Shell – and several others in Lenamore, near Ballinaboy. It will not cross any lands in Rossport. A new compulsory acquisition order for access to lands has been submitted to An Bord Pleanála.
Five men – three Rossport landowners – were jailed for 94 days on June 29th, 2005 for refusing to obey a court order in their opposition to the project. All still oppose the project’s methodology on health and safety grounds.
The third route will be 8.3km long – almost a kilometre shorter than the last proposal. Just over half of it will run through a tunnel dug under Sruwaddacon estuary.
Geotechnical work associated with the design of the pipe and tunnel is due to begin shortly in the estuary. Testing will involve drilling up to 80 boreholes during a set period when the Department of the Environment believes it will have minimal impact on wild salmon stocks and on over-wintering birds.
Shell says the new route is no longer within the Glenamoy bog complex priority habitat. It says there will be an increased volume of construction activity at Aughoose, rather than at Glengad.
A section of the pipeline already laid up to the high water mark at Glengad, which had been deemed exempted development, has been included in the new application.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Full details of the third proposed routing for the last link in the project are due to be published on the internet today.
The details will also be available for inspection at the offices of Shell and An Bord Pleanála in Dublin, and Mayo County Council offices in Castlebar and Belmullet.
An Bord Pleanála has set a four-week public consultation period for the proposed routing under Sruwaddacon estuary and through forestry to the Ballinaboy gas terminal, with a deadline for submissions of July 28th.
It is expected a Bord Pleanála oral hearing held last year under the Strategic Infrastructure Act may reopen in early autumn to consider the revised application.
The new plan was drawn up by Shell after An Bord Pleanála found up to half of its second proposed routing for the onshore pipe was “unacceptable” on safety grounds, due to proximity to housing in Rossport, Glengad and Aughoose.
Shell says the new routing is 234 metres away from the nearest occupied house – more than three times the original distance.
Sruwaddacon estuary, a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), divides Rossport to the north from Glengad, Pollathomas and Aughoose to the south.
The proposed pipeline will still run over lands of at least five landowners in the Glengad area – one being Shell – and several others in Lenamore, near Ballinaboy. It will not cross any lands in Rossport. A new compulsory acquisition order for access to lands has been submitted to An Bord Pleanála.
Five men – three Rossport landowners – were jailed for 94 days on June 29th, 2005 for refusing to obey a court order in their opposition to the project. All still oppose the project’s methodology on health and safety grounds.
The third route will be 8.3km long – almost a kilometre shorter than the last proposal. Just over half of it will run through a tunnel dug under Sruwaddacon estuary.
Geotechnical work associated with the design of the pipe and tunnel is due to begin shortly in the estuary. Testing will involve drilling up to 80 boreholes during a set period when the Department of the Environment believes it will have minimal impact on wild salmon stocks and on over-wintering birds.
Shell says the new route is no longer within the Glenamoy bog complex priority habitat. It says there will be an increased volume of construction activity at Aughoose, rather than at Glengad.
A section of the pipeline already laid up to the high water mark at Glengad, which had been deemed exempted development, has been included in the new application.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Key electricity link faces long delay over Eirgrid error
DEVELOPMENT OF a critical piece of the State’s electricity network faces a long delay as a result of a mistake by the State company responsible for building it.
An error in the application for planning permission to build a high-voltage power line through Meath, Cavan and Monaghan forced the State’s electricity network operator, Eirgrid, to withdraw the application yesterday, midway through a Bord Pleanála hearing into the issue.
The public notice, which is part of the application, stated the pylons supporting the power lines would be between 23 and 37 metres high, but it should have read 23-44 metres.
Eirgrid will have to resubmit its application for permission to build the €200 million power line to An Bord Pleanála and go through a second public hearing.
A spokesman said it would resubmit the application within months. He confirmed the error has left the project, which Eirgrid says is critical to developing Ireland’s electricity network and guaranteeing northeastern power supplies, facing a serious delay.
The original application was made last December, and the public hearing began last month.
An Bord Pleanála may not now be able to make a decision until next year, when the lines had been scheduled to be in place.
The mistake only appeared in the public notice. Measurements in all other elements of the planning application were correct.
The mix-up was put down to human error. A spokesman said it ultimately intends to “assign blame” for what happened. He said Eirgrid takes full responsibility for the mistake.
The line is intended to continue into Tyrone and forms part of a second connection between electricity grids in the Republic and Northern Ireland, both of which Eirgrid operates. Along with supplying power to key population centres in the northeast, the line is crucial to developing the all-Ireland electricity market, which is designed to boost competition and help control energy prices.
Yesterday’s development will not affect the planning process in the North, which Northern Ireland Electricity is managing.
Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan said he was disappointed at the delay and stressed the line is a “crucial part of our energy infrastructure”.
The North East Pylon Pressure group (NEPP), which opposes the development and wants the line placed underground, described what happened as a disgrace and called for a full investigation. It pledged to continue its opposition.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
An error in the application for planning permission to build a high-voltage power line through Meath, Cavan and Monaghan forced the State’s electricity network operator, Eirgrid, to withdraw the application yesterday, midway through a Bord Pleanála hearing into the issue.
The public notice, which is part of the application, stated the pylons supporting the power lines would be between 23 and 37 metres high, but it should have read 23-44 metres.
Eirgrid will have to resubmit its application for permission to build the €200 million power line to An Bord Pleanála and go through a second public hearing.
A spokesman said it would resubmit the application within months. He confirmed the error has left the project, which Eirgrid says is critical to developing Ireland’s electricity network and guaranteeing northeastern power supplies, facing a serious delay.
The original application was made last December, and the public hearing began last month.
An Bord Pleanála may not now be able to make a decision until next year, when the lines had been scheduled to be in place.
The mistake only appeared in the public notice. Measurements in all other elements of the planning application were correct.
The mix-up was put down to human error. A spokesman said it ultimately intends to “assign blame” for what happened. He said Eirgrid takes full responsibility for the mistake.
The line is intended to continue into Tyrone and forms part of a second connection between electricity grids in the Republic and Northern Ireland, both of which Eirgrid operates. Along with supplying power to key population centres in the northeast, the line is crucial to developing the all-Ireland electricity market, which is designed to boost competition and help control energy prices.
Yesterday’s development will not affect the planning process in the North, which Northern Ireland Electricity is managing.
Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan said he was disappointed at the delay and stressed the line is a “crucial part of our energy infrastructure”.
The North East Pylon Pressure group (NEPP), which opposes the development and wants the line placed underground, described what happened as a disgrace and called for a full investigation. It pledged to continue its opposition.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Cork council planning defended
Cork county manager Martin Riordan has expressed confidence that planning procedures in the council will prove to be of the highest standard when examined as part of a review announced last week by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
Mr Riordan said Mr Gormley raised issues identified by An Taisce where it had appealed Cork County Council decisions to An Bord Pleanála. The majority of the 42 cases identified by An Taisce in its correspondence with the Minister referred to single rural housing applications, said Mr Riordan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Riordan said Mr Gormley raised issues identified by An Taisce where it had appealed Cork County Council decisions to An Bord Pleanála. The majority of the 42 cases identified by An Taisce in its correspondence with the Minister referred to single rural housing applications, said Mr Riordan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Court orders demolition of home
The High Court has ordered the demolition within two years of the two-storey home of a couple and their three children in Co Meath built by them after Meath County Council refused planning permission for a house half its size.
Michael and Rose Murray, who have lived in the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, near Navan, since December 2006, had pleaded against the demolition order.
With “very great regret”, Mr Justice John Edwards agreed with the council that the unauthorised development carried out by the couple was not a “minor infraction” but “a flagrant breach of the planning laws” which was “completely unjustified”.
“They have sought to drive a coach and four through the planning laws and that cannot be permitted no matter how frustrated they may have felt on account of earlier refusals,” he said.
While demolition would impose a great hardship especially as Mr Murray was now a victim of the general downturn in the building industry, the law “must be upheld”.
It was “simply preposterous for the couple to argue the house was a farm when it was “a very large and imposing stone clad two-storey dwelling house with a curved drive leading up to it and extensive laws in front of it”, he added.
On humanitarian grounds, and “in light of the particularly hard economic times we live in”, the judge said he would place a two-year stay on the demolition order.
In opposing the order, Mrs Rose Murray said after they were refused permission for several sites, she felt there was no prospect they would ever get permission. It was “in desperation” they decided to proceed and build the house and their only motive was to secure a safe and nice place in which to bring up their children.
In June 2006, the Council had refused Mr Murray permission for a house on the lands.
In February 2007, following a complaint from a member of the public, the council became aware a large house of some 588 square metres (6,229 sq feet) had been built on the lands and the Murrays were living there. The house was about twice the size of the dwelling for which the Council had refused permission.
In March 2007, the council wrote to Mr Murray stating the house had no planning permission and should be immediately demolished. On March 12th, Mr Murray applied for permission to retain an unauthorised development.
In May 2007, the council refused retention permission on grounds it would result in excessive density of development and excessive concentration of waste water treatment systems in an unserviced rural area, seriously injuring the visual amenities of the area and militating against preservation of the rural environment.
The council also said the two-storey dwelling was out of character with existing dwellings in terms of scale, height and design and represented “an unduly prominent and incongruous feature” in the local landscape.
Mr Murray appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which on June 5th 2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council’s view of the development.
In opposing the application for demolition, Mr Murray said he had married on August 14th 1999 and was a native of the area. His family home was less than half a mile away from the house, and he and his wife were very involved in the local community.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Michael and Rose Murray, who have lived in the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, near Navan, since December 2006, had pleaded against the demolition order.
With “very great regret”, Mr Justice John Edwards agreed with the council that the unauthorised development carried out by the couple was not a “minor infraction” but “a flagrant breach of the planning laws” which was “completely unjustified”.
“They have sought to drive a coach and four through the planning laws and that cannot be permitted no matter how frustrated they may have felt on account of earlier refusals,” he said.
While demolition would impose a great hardship especially as Mr Murray was now a victim of the general downturn in the building industry, the law “must be upheld”.
It was “simply preposterous for the couple to argue the house was a farm when it was “a very large and imposing stone clad two-storey dwelling house with a curved drive leading up to it and extensive laws in front of it”, he added.
On humanitarian grounds, and “in light of the particularly hard economic times we live in”, the judge said he would place a two-year stay on the demolition order.
In opposing the order, Mrs Rose Murray said after they were refused permission for several sites, she felt there was no prospect they would ever get permission. It was “in desperation” they decided to proceed and build the house and their only motive was to secure a safe and nice place in which to bring up their children.
In June 2006, the Council had refused Mr Murray permission for a house on the lands.
In February 2007, following a complaint from a member of the public, the council became aware a large house of some 588 square metres (6,229 sq feet) had been built on the lands and the Murrays were living there. The house was about twice the size of the dwelling for which the Council had refused permission.
In March 2007, the council wrote to Mr Murray stating the house had no planning permission and should be immediately demolished. On March 12th, Mr Murray applied for permission to retain an unauthorised development.
In May 2007, the council refused retention permission on grounds it would result in excessive density of development and excessive concentration of waste water treatment systems in an unserviced rural area, seriously injuring the visual amenities of the area and militating against preservation of the rural environment.
The council also said the two-storey dwelling was out of character with existing dwellings in terms of scale, height and design and represented “an unduly prominent and incongruous feature” in the local landscape.
Mr Murray appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which on June 5th 2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council’s view of the development.
In opposing the application for demolition, Mr Murray said he had married on August 14th 1999 and was a native of the area. His family home was less than half a mile away from the house, and he and his wife were very involved in the local community.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)