The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge

steve9859

Wow. rarely have I seen someone try to make a bigger mountain out of a molehill.

I feel sorry for the woman as she is being manipulated by idiots like those on the website calling her the Queen of Trees, and just wanting to crusade against the system.....any system... in the name of an ecological cause that they dont understand. And she is the one who has suffered

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

Srameen, I'd be interested in your views (or anyone else).

Oh, I've given up trying to discuss anything with you. You are determined not to see anything other than ESB being aggressive and everybody making up figure.

I'm leaving you to your obsession.

joela

Srameen I would like to understand what loremolis is saying, I just don't get what she is saying has been done wrongly?

loremolis

Alexa Billions Pension wrote: »

Oh, I've given up trying to discuss anything with you. You are determined not to see anything other than ESB being aggressive and everybody making up figure.

Not true and not fair.

I've already apologised for previous posts where I was too hard on the ESB.

If you don't want to post on this topic then that's fine but I'm just going to think it's because I'm right and you don't want to admit it.:D

I'm leaving you to your obsession.

How did you know I like cross dressing?:)

loremolis

joela wrote: »

Srameen I would like to understand what loremolis is saying, I just don't get what she is saying has been done wrongly?

She?

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

Sarcasm. It's "faint" not "feint".

Prefixing your childish fault-finding with 'Sarcasm' does not make it sarcasm. Moreover grammar Nazism contravenes the charter. Also, I'm quite sure I could go through your posts and find errors if I was bored enough.

My point is that the type of trees, be it oaks, apple or whatever doesn't matter.

So now your problem is with procedure? Earlier in the thread you accused the ESB of creating work for it's employees. Then it was about the cost of OG versus UG.

Yet again you move the goal posts.

You're perhaps the most slippery person I have encountered on Boards.ie to date.

Borderline trolling imo.

joela

Oh I assumed you were a she for some reason I'll have to stop thinking of you as a cranky biatch in my head now

joela

danjo-xx wrote: »

When you look at the aerial view of this woodland you have to be made of steel not to feel hurt by this hugh scar cut through it.

There must have been a better way even apart from going underground, surely overhead power lines can be routed around objects.

I find it hard to accept that they can only go in straight lines but of course this is the quickest and cheapest option.


To put an old person behind bars for defending a beautiful piece of nature which shouldn't need defending anyway, in this day and age is just.........


aah I give up:(

No I don't feel sad for it being cut through, it is BETTER for the environment to have that gap. She was put behind bars for obstructing people from doing the work they were authorised to do. Where is the beauty in a monoculture planted for commerce? It is detrimental to nature to have so much non-native woodland planted commercially.

I give up too on people who refuse to understand that this is not some beautiful place of wilderness rich in species and habitats. If it were owned by Coillte everyone would be slagging it off. Get a grip for goodness sake, a scar......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

danjo-xx wrote: »

I find it hard to accept that they can only go in straight lines but of course this is the quickest and cheapest option.

From what I seen on Primetime it isn't anywhere near a straight as-the-crow-flies line.

To put an old person behind bars for defending a beautiful piece of nature which shouldn't need defending anyway, in this day and age is just.........

aah I give up:(

I don't think anyone wants to see that woman go to prison tbh. I certainly don't.

marienbad

Ok Loremolis, seeing as no one else will, I will bite- You say the ESB should have got a compulsory aquisition order. Are you now saying if they had done that then you would have no problem with the ESB on this issue ?

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

Ok Loremolis, seeing as no one else will, I will bite- You say the ESB should have got a compulsory aquisition order. Are you now saying if they had done that then you would have no problem with the ESB on this issue ?

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0045.html

45.—(1) If and whenever the Board thinks proper to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily any easement or other right over land...

The acquisition of rights from a landowner by the ESB, be they forestry rights or building rights, must be acquired under a compulsory purchase order. Unless the landowner agrees to sell or otherwise give up the right then it must be CPO'd.

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0045.html

45.—(1) If and whenever the Board thinks proper to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily any easement or other right over land...

The acquisition of rights from a landowner by the ESB, be they forestry rights or building rights, must be acquired under a compulsory purchase order. Unless the landowner agrees to sell or otherwise give up the right then it must be CPO'd.

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

So if they had done so we would still have reached the same impasse, correct ? Furthermore is there any doubt that they would have been granted a cpo had they sought one ?

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

So if they had done so we would still have reached the same impasse, correct ?

Your first question is unanswerable.

If the ESB had sought an easement under Section 45 then the CER would have had the final say on the matter. As part of the process the CER would likely have held a public hearing where both parties would have had the opportunity to air their respective issues.

I can't say what Ms. Treacy would or wouldn't have done if the ESB had approached the matter in a proper fashion other than to say that an independent body would have assessed the matter in full before the ESB went onto her land.

You may recall that while Ms. Treacy was in prison it was reported (and possibly mentioned on the primetime program) that the ESB had reduced the width of the area through the trees which was required for the line.

If a narrower strip was possible, why did they look for the wider one in the first place?

If the CER were involved then issues like that would have been considered and aired fully before any trees were cut down.

Furthermore is there any doubt that they would have been granted a cpo had they sought one ?

Seeing how the ESB have rarely (and possibly never) sought the approval of the CER for the compulsory acquisition of an easement who can say?

The point is that there is a statutory process for the compulsory acquisition of an easement and the ESB chose to do it another way thereby denying Ms. Treacy of a statutory process.

The ESB's own policy on loss of tree planting rights, which I have posted earlier in this thread, says that they need an easement to prevent a landowner from planting trees under or within a specified distance of an electricity line.

For anyone interested in the differences between a wayleave and an easement:

http://www.rapleys.co.uk/Upload/News/2010%20-%2007%20-%20CPS%20-%20G.pdf

http://www.hamer-associates.co.uk/faqs/

http://www.experts123.com/q/what-is-the-difference-between-a-utility-easement-and-wayleave.html

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/LO/ElectricityAgreements/

http://www.utilityserve.co.uk/wayleaves_and_easement.php

From the last link:

Generally speaking, landowners and utility companies choose between either annual payments through a Wayleave or a one off payment through an Easement. (my emphasis)

This is the ESB's form for annual wayleave payments to landowners:

http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/domestic-customers/farming/mast_interference_payments.jsp

steve9859

Wow. I'll say again what I have said before: 'Mountains out of molehills'. A few trees that were going to be harvested anyway.

And a poor woman who has been wound up by anti establishment figures into fighting some land infringement, ending up with her in jail. When it is really about some nonsense and misunderstood eco-agenda

I have invented a new term: NIMBYism By Proxy. ie a protest made by people whose back yard is many miles away!

Capt'n Midnight

loremolis wrote: »

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.
...

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

This is the IFA deal
http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VBX0MgPWbDs%3D&tabid=1069

This Chapter has been agreed with the ESB and complies with the IFA/ESB agreement of 7th
September 1992. It gives guidelines on how to deal with ESB lines in forestry and allows for each
case to be examined on an individual basis. Landowners reserve the right to negotiate their own
deal with the ESB.
...
Corridor areas do not qualify for Forest Service grant
assistance but maybe used to satisfy the 15 % biodiversity requirement
...
Where grant-aided afforestation has to be
removed to allow for the installation of power lines grants and premiums already paid will be
recovered from the landowner by the Forest Service.
...
Where the landowner proposes to plant an area which has not been recently purchased a sum
equivalent to 75% of the value of the land shall be paid by the ESB. The value of the land is that
which would have prevailed had the land been recently purchased.

Capt'n Midnight

joela wrote: »

She gets paid compensation which factors in the loss of tree planting in a 20m (I think) corridor.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100498

Teresa Treacy stood to gain up to approximately 150,000 euro in 3 staged payments if she agreed to the project and on condition that no legal costs were incurred by the ESB if they had to go to court, in which case the last 2 payments would be 'forfeited'.

So she is now down at least €100,000. IF the legal costs and delay costs were less than this the the nett effect is that she has actually saved Eirgrid some money.

How much is that part of her land worth on the open market / for compulsory purchase ? Because I can't see it being worth anything close to that value.

Capt'n Midnight

steve9859 wrote: »

I have invented a new term: NIMBYism By Proxy. ie a protest made by people whose back yard is many miles away!

BANANA is an acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone)


Just a reminder , each year we are using up about 15,000 years accumulation of fossil fuel. Also to give an indication of the scale of the problem http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090113.html

more than half of all fossil fuels ever used by humans have been consumed in just the last 20 years.

In short we are going to need a lot more renewables, which means more interconnectors and more powerlines to places with wind and wave and hydro.

Unless we all start converting our houses to passive heating and drastically reduce electricity consumption.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I can't say what Ms. Treacy would or wouldn't have done if the ESB had approached the matter in a proper fashion other than to say that an independent body would have assessed the matter in full before the ESB went onto her land.

My two cents on this are:

(1) This is a Transmission Project so it is EirGrid rather than ESB who determine and acquire the necessary land consents, including wayleaves & easements. ESB are obliged to pay for whatever consents EirGrid seek, but cannot initiate any consents themselves. This rather bizarre arrangement arises because the 1999 act was drawn up to ensure that ESB did not use their position to block the development of the Transmission system (in order to limit competition against their own generation plant).

(2) Since Ms Treacy defied one law to refuse access to her land it is beyond any reasonable doubt that she would have equally defied a CPO, so we would be facing the same farce whichever way EirGrid approached this, assuming that a negotiated settlement could not have been reached.

This situation really is a mess now. While the media (and many of the protesters) may like to portray it as a David-vs-Goliath battle, such an analogy is quite inappropriate I think. David was the future king of Israel, a great leader in the making, and Goliath was the representation of the oppressor of the people. Ms Treacy is undeserving of the comparison to David; she has no interest here on behalf of her nation, nor even her community. Her interest is simply selfish, wishing to preserve her trees (which have no strategic importance whatsoever either to the natural environment nor to the community) for which (assuming Senator Whelan is correct) she has been paid a grant to grow as commercial forestry. The additional cost of her self-interest will be paid for doubly by the community, because ultimately we will bear the costs incurred by EirGrid in our electricity costs, having already paid for Ms Treacy's trees through our taxes.

I don't mean to be unsympathetic, nor do I believe Ms Treacy belongs in prison. It is a moral requirement of citizenship that we place the interest of the country ahead of our individual needs. The idea of absolute ownership of land being a legitimate entitlement can only lead to isolation, poverty and anarchy. The protesters who rallied to this cause would have just as quickly egged Ms Treacy's house if she had been a wealthy twenty-five-year-old industrial heir who sought to stop this electricity line. The issue of right-vs-wrong has been lost in the media circus popularity contest. No company (and certainly not a company like EirGrid) can win a popularity contest, but that does not mean they are wrong in their actions.

I have never read the technical case for EirGrid wishing to have this line built, but I believe that the company was probably acting in the "best interests of our infrastructure" in seeking to do so, and as such they were acting in the interest of the nation. My children and grandchildren might derive a benefit from the improved electricity transport afforded by this completed project, but nobody but Ms Treacy can benefit from the retention of her trees.


Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

My two cents on this are:

(1) This is a Transmission Project so it is EirGrid rather than ESB who determine and acquire the necessary land consents, including wayleaves & easements. ESB are obliged to pay for whatever consents EirGrid seek, but cannot initiate any consents themselves. This rather bizarre arrangement arises because the 1999 act was drawn up to ensure that ESB did not use their position to block the development of the Transmission system (in order to limit competition against their own generation plant).

I don't believe that is correct.

Eirgrid has no statutory power to acquire wayleaves.

If what you are suggesting is that Eirgrid negotiate wayleaves then that raises a whole load of other issues.

The statutory wayleave notices for transmission lines are served on the landowner by the ESB and any easements agreed with the landowner are drafted between the ESB and the landowner as the only parties.

Last 7 pages refer to Eirgrid's lack of wayleave powers.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdf

(2) Since Ms Treacy defied one law to refuse access to her land it is beyond any reasonable doubt that she would have equally defied a CPO, so we would be facing the same farce whichever way EirGrid approached this, assuming that a negotiated settlement could not have been reached.

You are probably correct in that Ms. Treacy may have refused all offers and may not have settled even if a CPO was used.

However, there is a statutory process involved in a CPO for an easement and she was denied that process.

IMO the lack of a CPO is where the ESB/Eirgrid have a problem if this ends up back in court and Ms. Treacy has legal representation.

This situation really is a mess now. While the media (and many of the protesters) may like to portray it as a David-vs-Goliath battle, such an analogy is quite inappropriate I think. David was the future king of Israel, a great leader in the making, and Goliath was the representation of the oppressor of the people. Ms Treacy is undeserving of the comparison to David; she has no interest here on behalf of her nation, nor even her community. Her interest is simply selfish, wishing to preserve her trees (which have no strategic importance whatsoever either to the natural environment nor to the community) for which (assuming Senator Whelan is correct) she has been paid a grant to grow as commercial forestry. The additional cost of her self-interest will be paid for doubly by the community, because ultimately we will bear the costs incurred by EirGrid in our electricity costs, having already paid for Ms Treacy's trees through our taxes.

I don't mean to be unsympathetic, nor do I believe Ms Treacy belongs in prison. It is a moral requirement of citizenship that we place the interest of the country ahead of our individual needs. The idea of absolute ownership of land being a legitimate entitlement can only lead to isolation, poverty and anarchy. The protesters who rallied to this cause would have just as quickly egged Ms Treacy's house if she had been a wealthy twenty-five-year-old industrial heir who sought to stop this electricity line. The issue of right-vs-wrong has been lost in the media circus popularity contest. No company (and certainly not a company like EirGrid) can win a popularity contest, but that does not mean they are wrong in their actions.

I have never read the technical case for EirGrid wishing to have this line built, but I believe that the company was probably acting in the "best interests of our infrastructure" in seeking to do so, and as such they were acting in the interest of the nation. My children and grandchildren might derive a benefit from the improved electricity transport afforded by this completed project, but nobody but Ms Treacy can benefit from the retention of her trees.
Z

Well put.

There is no doubt that the line has to be and eventually will be erected across her land.

Just because I believe that the ESB/Eirgrid have not acted correctly doesn't mean that the line is not necessary or that it shouldn't be completed.

While I say that they are her trees on her land, if there is a compulsorily acquisition of the trees/land then the trees must be and will be removed as per the order. Until a CPO is served they remain her trees on her land.

If Ms. Treacy wants to continue blocking the ESB she should do it through the courts with a legal team making her case. If she continues to block access without appealing the injunction then her position will be considerably weaker as time goes on and she will be seem as a crank who cannot be dealt with and who did not avail of the statutory appeal process.

Any idea how long she has to make a valid appeal to the Supreme Court?

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I don't believe that is correct.

Eirgrid has no statutory power to acquire wayleaves.

If what you are suggesting is that Eirgrid negotiate wayleaves then that raises a whole load of other issues.

Yes, you are partly correct. I meant to edit my post to replace "acquire" with "negotiate" but I got distracted by another thread. EirGrid are not allowed to own any transmission asset, so only ESB can acquire the wayleave. However, they are not allowed negotiate terms. There is an agreement between ESB Networks and EirGrid called the Infrastructure Agreement which sets out how their responsibilities are shared / separated, but I don't think it has been published, although it has full legal status (because it is incorporated into the act establishing EirGrid).

I'm fairly sure EirGrid must have the power to acquire wayleaves & easements however, because they have done this for the East-West interconnector. That asset is not part of the Transmission System, and it is owned by EirGrid.


Z

Zen65

There is an agreement between ESB Networks and EirGrid called the Infrastructure Agreement which sets out how their responsibilities are shared / separated, but I don't think it has been published, although it has full legal status (because it is incorporated into the act establishing EirGrid).

Oops, I'm wrong. The Infrastructure Agreement was published here.

Funny how I couldn't find it last year when I needed it for something.

Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

Oops, I'm wrong. The Infrastructure Agreement was published here.

Funny how I couldn't find it last year when I needed it for something.

Z

Thanks Z,

I'll have a read of it during the week.

I'm fairly sure EirGrid must have the power to acquire wayleaves & easements however, because they have done this for the East-West interconnector. That asset is not part of the Transmission System, and it is owned by EirGrid.

Interconnectors appear to be the exceptions to the rule. For those they get the full wayleave powers from the CER.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I'll have a read of it during the week.

I wish you luck, it seems like turgid stuff. However in relation to wayleaves and easements I scanned it and found this:

7.6 Public planning and right to land

7.6.1 All activities connected with seeking and obtaining Planning Permission (if needed) and any other consents required by the TSO to discharge its Transmission Obligations shall be the sole responsibility of the TSO. These include:

(a) the identification of alternative routes and substation sites and route and site selection;
(b) requiring the Board to issue Survey Notices and preparation of designs and surveys;
(c) landowner relationships, with regard to planning permission, acquisition, wayleaves and easements including the matters referred to in clause 7.6.2 below;
(d) handling of publicity associated with TSO’s functions under this clause subject to the terms of clause 13;
(e) preparation of any Environmental Impact Statement that may be required;
(f) preparation and submission of applications for Planning Permission (if needed);
(g) discussions with local authority officials including planning officials; and
(h) managing, attending and arranging representation at oral hearings, planning appeals and other legal processes.

7.6.2 The Board, irrevocably for as long as this Agreement exists, hereby appoints the TSO as its agent to:-
(a) exercise all the powers vested in the Board for the compulsory acquisition of any land;
(b) make and process all applications for the acquisition of wayleaves and rights of entry on behalf of the Board; and
(c) exercise all rights of entry on land vested in the Board pursuant to Regulation 29 of Statutory Instrument or any other relevant statutory provision insofar as these rights may be required for the development of the Transmission System.

In this document "TSO" is EirGrid, and the "Board" is ESB. The document states that EirGrid have sole responsibility to act as the agent for ESB for the acquisition of wayleaves and easements for Transmission assets.


Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

I wish you luck, it seems like turgid stuff. However in relation to wayleaves and easements I scanned it and found this:

In this document "TSO" is EirGrid, and the "Board" is ESB. The document states that EirGrid have sole responsibility to act as the agent for ESB for the acquisition of wayleaves and easements for Transmission assets.
Z

Thanks.

It appears that pages 15 to 19 of the document at the end of this link say that the power to acquire wayleaves cannot and has not been transferred to Eirgrid by the 1999 Regulations (or by the Infrastructure agreement).

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdf

I don't doubt that Eirgrid undertake the preparation and submission of planning applications, the preparation of an EIS where necessary and all of the other functions you listed from the Infrastructure agreement but they have no statutory power to place electricity transmission lines over private property under a wayleave.

I would think that is a bit of a problem for them when they claim to be the body responsible for such matters.

This leaves Eirgrid having to negotiate wayleaves which makes it far more expensive than if a wayleave is acquired under statute.

That point is made in an earlier post where the figure of €150,000 compensation for Ms. Treacy is quoted. That figure is way bigger than the value of her land let alone the trees thereon.

joela

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

marienbad

joela wrote: »

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

Time to pack up and fcuf off when unmediated rubbish is now what passes for commentary. No wonder the country is banjaxed .

joela

Unreal, just unreal.........

loremolis

joela wrote: »

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

You mean you didn't know that they had television in Mountjoy women's prison?:)

I thought it was quite entertaining for the mid-monday morning prime time slot on TV3.

At least I figured out what Ms. Treacy and the protestors have in common apart from a love of apple tart and a dislike for the ESB.

DRUGS!!!!

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

You mean you didn't know that they had television in Mountjoy women's prison?:)

I thought it was quite entertaining for the mid-monday morning prime time slot on TV3.

At least I figured out what Ms. Treacy and the protestors have in common apart from a love of apple tart and a dislike for the ESB.

DRUGS!!!!

Sure it was entertaining, but it is not that hard to be both accurate and entertaining .

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

Sure it was entertaining, but it is not that hard to be both accurate and entertaining .

It is when you're drugged till you can't talk properly.:D