M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Sponge Bob

serfboard wrote: »

Agreed. A complete nothing article. Like, what kind of crap is this

That was Brian Walsh trying to get publicity for himself, Enda Kenny has not promised anything to do with th ebypass in public and the priority 1 major road job is Newlands Cross as we know.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote:

Politicians and their games. Deputy Kyne has to be seen to ask the question (given newspaper scaremongering and rampant idiocy).

The political decision was apparently made 10 or so years ago when the scheme information was published. Otherwise they're be a plan for a toll plaza. All that's happening there is the usual two step of avoiding accountability.

The GCOB is one of the 4 proposed projects in the Second PPP Roads Programme, which was announced in 2009. As I said earlier there are no proposed tolls on any of these projects.

The PPP model allows for, but does not dictate tolling. It means that the contractor will have to fund some or all of the initial cost of the project, with the government paying them back over a set time. For more coverage on this I suggest you take a read of the M17/18, NX & N11 schemes on the roads forum, as it has been done to death (especially since BAM are having trouble getting funding for these projects, despite having won them with financing "in place").

Just received this comment made by a TD in one of the government parties. Second-hand, but a verbatim quote all the same:

[The GCOB will] be funded under a Public Private Partnership model and this could well involve tolling at some juncture of the bypass.

Call it political posturing if you will, but that's their current position on the matter. It is therefore accurate to say that tolling is still on the agenda, or at least is not definitively off it.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just received this comment made by a TD in one of the government parties. Second-hand, but a verbatim quote all the same:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Typically hypocritical of you - second had quotes that have no source would not be accepted in an argument against anything you've said.

[The GCOB will] be funded under a Public Private Partnership model and this could well involve tolling at some juncture of the bypass.

Call it political posturing if you will, but that's their current position on the matter. It is therefore accurate to say that tolling is still on the agenda, or at least is not definitively off it.

So can you please explain how they'll toll if they don't have planning permission (as things stand) for a tolling booth?

Iwannahurl

I think it might be more productive, and possibly more informative, if you were to direct that question to the government parties who make the policy decisions.

I'm merely reporting what was passed on to me.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think it might be more productive, and possibly more informative, if you were to direct that question to the government parties who make the policy decisions.

I don't need to ask the government I know, off the top of my head, of at least one way that it can be done. I haven't stated it because I don't want to give the rather unimaginative public servants we have any ideas.

If you'd bother doing a search on it you'd know that there is no stated desire to toll GCOB. All the minister will say that it's possible (which we know anyways, since the road is a PPP):

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Question 548: To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he can confirm, subject to planning, that the Galway city outer bypass will be a public-private partnership project; and the likelihood of the road being a tolled one. [28776/11]


Leo Varadkar (Minister, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; Dublin West, Fine Gael)

As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding in relation to the national roads programme. The planning, design and implementation of individual national road projects, including the N6 Galway City Outer Bypass, are matters for the National Roads Authority (NRA) under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Accordingly, the identification and selection of suitable projects for implementation on a public private partnership basis is a matter in the first instance for the NRA.

In addition, the statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, to make toll bye-laws and to enter into toll agreements with private investors in respect of national roads is vested in the NRA under Part V of the Roads Acts 1993 (as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Roads Act 2007). I am currently organising a roundtable meeting with the various public authorities involved in this project.

Now I think we can agree that there's nothing in there that says anything but it's possible that there'll be a toll.

So, can you tell me from your apparently vast experience in how other countries set up their transport networks, how they can get around the little legal problem of not having planning permission for a toll booth?

Iwannahurl

I think it might be more productive, and possibly more informative, if you were to direct such questions to the government parties who make the policy decisions and the state agencies who implement them.

spacetweek

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is therefore accurate to say that tolling is still on the agenda, or at least is not definitively off it.

There was never a guarantee it wouldn't be tolled considering there's a precedent for it elsewhere (Dublin, Waterford, Limerick).

Iwannahurl

To use the journalist's disclaimer, it remains to be seen...

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just received this comment made by a TD in one of the government parties.

Please name the TD - it's one of Nolan (labor, who recently flipped sides from being opposed to GCOB), Kyne or Walsh(FG).

Given your anti car & anti anything to do with property development bias, I've a good idea which one it was (because you likely wouldn't talk to the other two).

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think it might be more productive, and possibly more informative, if you were to direct such questions to the government parties who make the policy decisions and the state agencies who implement them.would stop asking questions I have no intention of answering because I'm just trying to obfuscate the situation as usual

fyp

So things we know:

• APB granted permission for the eastern section (N59-M6) in 2008 - there's no toll plaza in this section
• Assuming the road gets the go-ahead according to the currently approved plans there can be no toll plaza without a change to the planning permission of the road
• The proposed funding model is for a PPP, therefore its a possibility that the road could be tolled
• The minister won't say so one way or anther (considering there's a toll in/right beside his constituency, you'd think he'd try to garner support in his constituency by making them damn culchies pay a toll) but tolls are politically deeply unpopular and would probably end up costing the government 1-3 seats in the Galway constituencies (if GCOB is tolled, m17/18 is likely as well)
• His opposition to GCOB is one of the reasons why the unlamented Niall Ó Brolcháin never got elected to the Dáil, as well as losing his Seanad & city council seats

antoobrien

The ECJ hearing, which was due in early July, has been delayed until September.

CITY BY-PASS ORAL HEARING DELAYED UNTIL SEPTEMBER

June 27, 2012 - 5:39pm
CITY BY-PASS ORAL HEARING DELAYED UNTIL SEPTEMBER
An oral hearing on the long awaited Galway City Outer Bypass has been deferred until September.

Galway County Council officials have been contacted by the European Court of Justice with notice of the postponement.

More detailed story form today's Tribune

The ill-fated Galway City Outer Bypass project has been hit with a fresh delay this week with confirmation that an oral hearing by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been postponed by a further two months.

Galway County Council officials were contacted by the ECJ on Wednesday with notice that the hearing has been put back from July 5 to September 12 next due to a backlog in cases being heard by Europe’s highest court.

The bypass issue was submitted to the ECJ by Ireland’s Supreme Court, following claims that the proposed motorway from Barna to Doughiska would affect Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) along the proposed route.

A Council spokesman confirmed to the Galway City Tribune yesterday that the hearing has been deferred until September 12. It was originally hoped to begin proceedings next Thursday (July 5), before the ECJ takes its annual summer recess.

Galway West TD Brian Walsh (FG) has described the delay as “disappointing”, but insignificant given that initial design work dates to as far back as 1999.

“It is a small delay in the context of the overall project,” said Deputy Walsh. “I hope that the final judgement will be issued by the ECJ towards the end of the year.

The ECJ will decide on whether or not the proposed road, with a fifth bridge over the River Corrib, complies with EU Habitats Directives. In October 2010, the National Roads Authority (NRA) estimated that a staggering €14m had already been spent on the project.

antoobrien

It appears that the GCOB may be taken off the PPP list and be included in the proposed stimulus plan (this is coming from the new chief cheerleader, so take with a pinch of salt), if it makes it past the ECJ.

Partial article from today's sentinel

The funding obstacle to the long-delayed Galway City Outer Bypass has been removed after the road was included in a shortlist of five roads projects to be progressed under a new economic stimulus package currently being negotiated by the Government, the Sentinel has learned.

The inclusion of the project in the new capital investment plan will put funding in place for the construction of the road pending the outcome of a legal challenge currently before the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Aside from complex legal arguments and delays, a lack of funding was the greatest obstacle to the progression of the project.

Government last year had committed to continue to fund the road through the preparatory, planning and courts stages under its four-year development plan but it had given no commitment about monies for the construction stages.

Up to now, it looked unlikely that the project could be financed from international investors under a Public Private Partnership either.

Sponge Bob

Only as far as the Glenlo Abbey. The western section is being slowly redesigned and will progress ( if ever) as a Regional Road.

GalwayMagpie

September is upon us, has a date been set for the European Court of Justice hearing?

Found it:

Wednesday 12/09/2012
09:30 Hearing
C-258/11

Sweetman and Others
Court of Justice - Third Chamber
EN Courtroom I - Level 8


http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C-258/11



Questions Submitted

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 26 May 2011 — Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanala
(Case C-258/11)
(2011/C 226/29)

Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Defendant: An Bord Pleanala

Questions referred
1. What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive ( 1 ), having ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’?

2. Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?

3. What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

( 1 ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. OJ L 206, p. 7

Robbo

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

September is upon us, has a date been set for the European Court of Justice hearing?

Found it:

Wednesday 12/09/2012
09:30 Hearing
C-258/11

Sweetman and Others
Court of Justice - Third Chamber
EN Courtroom I - Level 8


http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C-258/11



Questions Submitted

A quick summary of the relevant Articles of the Habitats Directive. In short, what Sweetman needs to demonstrate is a credible alternative and a lack of an overriding public interest in seeing the GCOB built.

Also of interest is the issue of costs. Given that we've recently (after quite some delay) ratified the Aarhus Convention, it's already been used by the Greens to immunise themselves against costs orders whilst objecting to the GMO potato trial.

Iwannahurl

Robbo wrote: »

what Sweetman needs to demonstrate is a credible alternative and a lack of an overriding public interest in seeing the GCOB built.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that's a correct interpretation of these proceedings.

Sweetman may well have to demonstrate a credible alternative and a lack of an overriding public interest in the Irish Supreme Court once the ECJ has issued its findings.

However, what the ECJ is doing is considering the questions raised by the Irish Supreme Court ("criteria in law", "application of the precautionary principle", Article 6(3) vs 6(4) etc).

Sponge Bob

The Supreme court has asked the ECJ to state the principles of EU law it must apply in the Sweetman case and then they will hear the Sweetman case later.

The substantive issue in both the ECJ and Supreme court will be 'how much damage' can you cause to a cSAC (The Lough Corrib cSAC) and is there any practical alternative but to damage said cSAC. The proposed damage will be to around 20 acres of a 40,000 acre cSAC but of course 20 acres of a substantially lesser amount of Limestone Pavement within the cSAC.

They can always add some extra limestone pavement on the northern edge of the cSAC such as the ones mentioned in that link there to compensate for the loss.

I hope they slap an Isaac Wunder order on Sweetman at the end of all of this, he is an expensive and tendentious nuisance who does not pay his way when costs go against him..... ie most of the time.

Robbo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that's a correct interpretation of these proceedings.

Sweetman may well have to demonstrate a credible alternative and a lack of an overriding public interest in the Irish Supreme Court once the ECJ has issued its findings.

However, what the ECJ is doing is considering the questions raised by the Irish Supreme Court ("criteria in law", "application of the precautionary principle", Article 6(3) vs 6(4) etc).

My apologies, you're right; what's been referred to the CJEU is quite narrow.

antoobrien

Robbo wrote: »

My apologies, you're right; what's been referred to the CJEU is quite narrow.

Yes the CJEU have been asked to clarify the rules that ABP have allegedly broken (hence the high and supreme court cases). Your description is an accurate assessment of what the Irish Supreme court will have to decide based on the decision of the CJEU.

Robbo

According to the Advertisers Facebook, the oral hearings have opened this morning. Sadly, it doesn't appear to be covered live for anyone who's run out of pins to stick in their eyes and wants some turgid EU environmental law.

Sponge Bob

I'm there with the blogging and tweeting sheeut. Slept thru most of it and this is the beaks finding meself and sweetiep in contempt when i woke up a mo` back.

GalwayMagpie

Court of Justice Website here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=C%3B258%3B11%3BRP%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BC2011%2F0258%2FP&pro=&lgrec=en&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-258%252F11&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=1706498

Legal analysis of the decision or of the case
State of the case: Case in progress

Any other info link would be appreciated.

Robbo

By any chance does the Advocate General look a bit like Jeremy Irons?

Iwannahurl

Robbo wrote: »

By any chance does the Advocate General look a bit like Jeremy Irons?
http://www.tvequals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-Borgias-Truth-and-Lies-Season-2-Episode-8-5.jpg

Not really.

Admit it, you're really checking out the frocks...

Robbo wrote: »

...pins to stick in their eyes...

Best reserved for effigies of a certain environmental campaigner, perhaps?

Predalien

I'm trying to figure this out, if the court comes back and says what is proposed adversely impacts the integrity of the site then is the project doomed? Or can it then be proposed to replace what is lost and justify the road on the basis that it is of strategic importance. Why didn't Galway County Council after the impact reports not just accept the integrity of the site would be adversely impacted and go down the route taken in that German case for a motorway?

Sponge Bob

Apparently falling asleep is very serious ...some fella was roaring at us there in Flemish for aaaages ! I cracked their wifi p/w and I can occupy myself here for the next while.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Apparently falling asleep is very serious ...some fella was roaring at us there in Flemish for aaaages ! I cracked their wifi p/w and I can occupy myself here for the next while.

You're destroying the integrity of the site, though no doubt you will claim IROPI.

antoobrien

@Predalien

It should be noted that the issue at hand does not just affect Ireland, but the wider EU as it is claimed that it has not been decided what bodies can interpret the EU Habitiats.

Predalien wrote: »

I'm trying to figure this out, if the court comes back and says what is proposed adversely impacts the integrity of the site then is the project doomed?

No because...

Predalien wrote: »

Or can it then be proposed to replace what is lost and justify the road on the basis that it is of strategic importance.

This and it can be argued for socio economic reasons that it should go ahead as it is in the Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (under certain conditions, which are hard to get to the bottom of if, like many of us on here one is a layperson).

Predalien wrote: »

Why didn't Galway County Council after the impact reports not just accept the integrity of the site would be adversely impacted and go down the route taken in that German case for a motorway?

Because at the time it was not a Natura 2000 site. That order was signed by Gormless after ABP had given permission for it to proceed.

There's more details available in the high court ruling about Sweetmans case - which was rejected as the judge stated

In all the circumstances, I am not at all persuaded that the Board, in its decision, has misinterpreted the Directive and the Regulations. On the contrary, its approach accords with the clear language of the legislation. Appeals for a purposive or teleological interpretation in the present case are misplaced. Of course, one would wish to interpret both the European and domestic legislation so as to give effect to the intention of the framers. However, no approach to interpretation authorises “guess work”, nor does it authorise a court to engage in legislating. This is not a case where it is sought to give a broad or even expanded interpretation to a particular phrase so as to cater for a particular set of facts, when doing so would clearly have been the intention of those responsible for the legislation. Neither, is it a question of interpreting the words of legislation in a broad or expansive manner so that lacunae can be filled. Instead, what is sought is that the Directive and the Regulations be read as if the reference to integrity of the site were deleted or that the phrase was entirely otiose. What is sought is not a “reading in” or a “reading up”, but rather a “reading out” and the taking of a red pencil to the clear words of both the Directive and the Regulations. I feel quite unable to engage in such an exercise.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're destroying the integrity of the site,

Thats what the judge said ( weeelll "court" not "site") when I woke up...have you an inside track?? Feckin lovely weather over here, wish I was having a nice Trappist brew out there.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

It should be noted that the issue [before the ECJ] does not just affect Ireland, but the wider EU

That would be the implication, since it concerns EU law.

Mr Justice George Birmingham may have been "unable" to engage in a teleologically otiose exercise, but it seems the Irish Supreme Court was not similarly restricted.

Sponge Bob

Not really. The "otiose" reference was to whatever sweetman advanced in argument. You are misquoting the Good Judge.

In all the circumstances, I am not at all persuaded that the Board, in its decision, has misinterpreted the Directive and the Regulations. On the contrary, its approach accords with the clear language of the legislation. Appeals for a purposive or teleological interpretation in the present case are misplaced. Of course, one would wish to interpret both the European and domestic legislation so as to give effect to the intention of the framers. However, no approach to interpretation authorises “guess work”, nor does it authorise a court to engage in legislating. This is not a case where it is sought to give a broad or even expanded interpretation to a particular phrase so as to cater for a particular set of facts, when doing so would clearly have been the intention of those responsible for the legislation. Neither, is it a question of interpreting the words of legislation in a broad or expansive manner so that lacunae can be filled. Instead, what is sought is that the Directive and the Regulations be read as if the reference to integrity of the site were deleted or that the phrase was entirely otiose. What is sought is not a “reading in” or a “reading up”, but rather a “reading out” and the taking of a red pencil to the clear words of both the Directive and the Regulations. I feel quite unable to engage in such an exercise.