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

loremolis

joela wrote: »

It isn't an OAP's plight, she made a very conscious decision to go to jail and like everyone else she could have hired a solicitor and used the law to argue her case.

Her land is hosting a forestry plantation a tiny percentage of which will be removed and then replanted. Her objections make no sense when you realise the facts of the case.

If she was a young woman there would be none of this ridiculous emotional "poor old woman" carry on. She has a classic case of nimbyism, her electricity comes from cables somewhere, hypocrisy much?

What are the facts of the case?

Are you familiar with the ESB's policy on loss of tree planting rights which they have conveniently decided to ignore in this case?

She made the mistake of not having legal advice and the ESB jumped all over it like the bullies that they are.

joela

loremolis wrote: »

What are the facts of the case?

Are you familiar with the ESB's policy on loss of tree planting rights which they have conveniently decided to ignore in this case?

She made the mistake of not having legal advice and the ESB jumped all over it like the bullies that they are.

They offered to replant trees, it was a condition of planning if you go check out the Inspectors report ABP.

She had ample opportunity to get legal advice, she has neighbours who are now fighting for her who could have ensured she got legal advice. She didn't because she assumed she could thwart the installation of a 110kV cable required for Tullamore. Again the need for the cable is outlined in the report on the ABP site. She decided she was above the law and unfortunately she was punished for it, why doesn't she just purge her contempt and come home and watch the works like a hawk and insist on the planting be done is the standards required.

bbuzz

The fact is that the ESB went through all the proper channels and she did not. That's why she's in jail, the ESB didn't choose to send her there, the judge did.

The fact is that Ireland needs to invest in wind generation (which is by it's nature very spread out, unlike power stations) to meet it's Euro 20-20-20 target, and a lot of it. For this they need to heavily develop the network of transmission lines. Even someone who's not an engineer should be able to understand this.

They don't choose routes for HV lines by accident, they choose the route that will be the most efficient to transmit electricity and lose the least amount of it. If these trees were significant in any shape or form it would never have been routed that way, let alone get past an board planala. If you look at the photos you can clearly see that these are new trees and she will be compensated for any that are cut down. Fact.

The FACT is that one woman cannot hold up the development of this country's infrastructure and if she had listened to the law she would not have gone to jail. End of.

Peetrik

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not sure you're getting it. We only have roads because we did the opposite of what you want. We wouldn't have any roads if the landowner had the right to refuse. And all we need is a couple of power lines falling down and by your logic the landowners could refuse access so you could have entire towns without power. Dreamworld. I'll ask again. Can you explain how a new road, new railway, new gas line, new water mains, new broadband connections, new electricity lines can be built if people can just refuse to sell?

I get it, I just happen to disagree with you. I happen to believe the rights of the citizens should vastly outweight the desires of companies.

Its completely incorrect to say we only have roads by doing the opposite. If that were true every road would be straight. That is very much not the case anywhere in the country.

loremolis

joela wrote: »

They offered to replant trees, it was a condition of planning if you go check out the Inspectors report ABP.

She had ample opportunity to get legal advice, she has neighbours who are now fighting for her who could have ensured she got legal advice. She didn't because she assumed she could thwart the installation of a 110kV cable required for Tullamore. Again the need for the cable is outlined in the report on the ABP site. She decided she was above the law and unfortunately she was punished for it, why doesn't she just purge her contempt and come home and watch the works like a hawk and insist on the planting be done is the standards required.

Planting new trees is a PR exercise by the ESB. Saplings would take decades to mature. The ESB has no right to cut down her trees in the first place.

Again I ask, are you familiar with the ESB policy on loss of tree planting rights?

Peetrik

bbuzz wrote: »

If these trees were significant in any shape or form it would never have been routed that way, let alone get past an board planala.

Lol the same people who evaluated the signifigance of the hill of tara before the motorway was built? Or prehaps before Glencree forrest?

Forgive me for not actually exploding with confidence

bbuzz

Peetrik wrote: »

I get it, I just happen to disagree with you. I happen to believe the rights of the citizens should vastly outweight the desires of companies.

Its completely incorrect to say we only have roads by doing the opposite. If that were true every road would be straight. That is very much not the case anywhere in the country.

ROADS AREN'T STRAIGHT BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS.

Anyway ESB Networks and Eirgrid are not run to make profits, they're run to invest and maintain our electrical infrastructure. Stop making them out to be big bad faceless companies.

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Its completely incorrect to say we only have roads by doing the opposite. If that were true every road would be straight.

Why would every road be straight? It has been pointed out several times that our legacy roads were built around private lands (and natural features such as hills & lakes obviously) precisely because of the lack of legislation to acquire private land for the national interest, hence they were built with dangerous bends.

The major roads built since the introduction of the NRA legislation (our motorways) are as straight as is required to allow speeds of 100-120kph. They would never have been built if private landowners had the right to veto selected routes. They are not completely straight because they still have to show sensitivity to the natural and man-made environment (NRA do not plan motorways to run through people's houses).

If the Irish laws are so silly, then why is it that every other country in the developed world (even USA) have pretty much the same laws? Surely not every country can be wrong about it.

Z

loremolis

bbuzz wrote: »

ROADS AREN'T STRAIGHT BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS.

Anyway ESB Networks and Eirgrid are not run to make profits, they're run to invest and maintain our electrical infrastructure. Stop making them out to be big bad faceless companies.

You must be aware that the ESB made didn't set out to make hundreds of millions of euro over the last few years. It was an accident?

They try not to make a profit so they don't have to pay the fat executives at the top of the dung pile hundreds of thousands every year.

They are made out to be big bad faceless bullies because that is what they are.

Bruthal

Sack me,,,,,, i made the esb..

joela

Why haven't they the right, they have to put a cable in. Her trees were not much more than saplings either, the plantation is mid-late 90's. The pictures of her amongst her trees shows immature ash plantation. The number of trees to be removed is not high and yes they will replant them as required under the planning permission. If they don't comply with the condition you can report them and the council will act against them as they do for many other things that don't keep to planning conditions.

I do not know if ESB have a "policy" on planting trees but it would be a common mitigation/compensatory measure to replant trees and to make good any hedges etc.

What would you do if a cable was to go through your land and you knew it was to service the nearby town, hospital, homes etc. Bearing in mind you also use electricity and are not supplying it by your own means i.e you are not off grid. Also bearing in mind that you know the cables must go somewhere so if not your land it must be somewhere else. So say the somewhere else if high value habitat, fen, raised bog, species rich grasslands or newgrange or a graveyard etc. So are you going to stop a piece of infrastruture which cannnot logically go elsewhere, will service the community but requires some, a small proportion, of your less than 20 year old conifer dominated plantation to be felled? Even if it was a big proportion conifers grow back fast so it isn't exactly going to rainforest destruction. It does not add up, the line will be in the middle of the plantation and will not impact on her forestry once it is in place.

loremolis

robbie7730 wrote: »

Sack me,,,,,, i made the esb..

You'e fired.

No pension either.

loremolis

joela wrote: »

Why haven't they the right, they have to put a cable in. Her trees were not much more than saplings either, the plantation is mid-late 90's. The pictures of her amongst her trees shows immature ash plantation. The number of trees to be removed is not high and yes they will replant them as required under the planning permission. If they don't comply with the condition you can report them and the council will act against them as they do for many other things that don't keep to planning conditions.

I do not know if ESB have a "policy" on planting trees but it would be a common mitigation/compensatory measure to replant trees and to make good any hedges etc.

What would you do if a cable was to go through your land and you knew it was to service the nearby town, hospital, homes etc. Bearing in mind you also use electricity and are not supplying it by your own means i.e you are not off grid. Also bearing in mind that you know the cables must go somewhere so if not your land it must be somewhere else. So say the somewhere else if high value habitat, fen, raised bog, species rich grasslands or newgrange or a graveyard etc. So are you going to stop a piece of infrastruture which cannnot logically go elsewhere, will service the community but requires some, a small proportion, of your less than 20 year old conifer dominated plantation to be felled? Even if it was a big proportion conifers grow back fast so it isn't exactly going to rainforest destruction. It does not add up, the line will be in the middle of the plantation and will not impact on her forestry once it is in place.

Their "policy" says that they will acquire an easement before they place the line through a planned or existing forestry plantation.

To acquire an easement the ESB requires the approval of the CER, so they avoid easements like the plague.

They also avoid compliance with their own policy, although thats not surpirsing, they don't even display it on their own website.

If you want to take the ESB's side on this matter I suggest that you read their policy on loss of tree planting rights and check if they are complying with it in this case.

Paparazzo

Peetrik wrote: »

I get it, I just happen to disagree with you. I happen to believe the rights of the citizens should vastly outweight the desires of companies.

Its completely incorrect to say we only have roads by doing the opposite. If that were true every road would be straight. That is very much not the case anywhere in the country.

One more time:
Can you explain how a new road, new railway, new gas line, new water mains, new broadband connections, new electricity lines can be built if people can just refuse to sell?

And to fix your post:

Peetrik wrote: »

I get it, I just happen to disagree with you. I happen to believe the rights of one citizen should vastly outweight the desires the rest of the country.

joela

Peetrik wrote: »

I get it, I just happen to disagree with you. I happen to believe the rights of the citizens should vastly outweight the desires of companies.

Its completely incorrect to say we only have roads by doing the opposite. If that were true every road would be straight. That is very much not the case anywhere in the country.

The rights of all of us as citizens is to have access to electrricity which we can't have if people refuse to allow cables.

joela

loremolis wrote: »

Their "policy" says that they will acquire an easement before they place the line through a planned or existing forestry plantation.

To acquire an easement the ESB requires the approval of the CER, so they avoid easements like the plague.

They also avoid compliance with their own policy, although thats not surpirsing, they don't even display it on their own website.

If you want to take the ESB's side on this matter I suggest that you read their policy on loss of tree planting rights and check if they are complying with it in this case.

Sorry but this makes no sense at all, they are putting the line through planned forestry so you are saying they didn't seek an easement? Or that they put it through her land so they didn't have to seek an easement which seems strange as it is plantation.

What ESB policy on tree planting rights? That is completely different from mitigatory planting, no you can't plant under a cable or indeed over an underground one everyone knows that. However in this and all such cases they will replant trees, may not be in the EXACT same spot but they will replant trees. There should be a method statement available which details how this will be done, the contractors will be required to have submitted one for H&S reasons alone.

Really seriously I have no idea what your point is here in relation to her trees, she will get more trees. Also as a matter of interest have you been out on that site? I haven't but pictures of the "destruction" clearly show the work being carried out in an area which is already open rough grassland, a firebreak perhaps?

Peetrik

Zen65 wrote: »

Why would every road be straight? It has been pointed out several times that our legacy roads were built around private lands (and natural features such as hills & lakes obviously)

We are both making the same point Zen. Traditionally we have respected/built around private lands. It was in response to what Paparazzo said...

Paparazzo wrote: »

We only have roads because we did the opposite of what you want

We didn't do the opposite... and yet we still have roads. Proof that it is possible to develop infrastructure without forcing people to sell land or cut down their crops/forests.

Paparazzo wrote: »

...should vastly outweight the desires the rest of the country

Yes thats right Paparazzo, your desires are exactly what the whole country feel... except of course the people who have posted here in support of Teresa Treacy... and the thousands of people who have signed the petition... and the hundreds who have traveled from around the country to camp out on her land to help protect her trees. No need to think too hard about if anything you think is true or not.. just post away

Zen65 wrote: »

If the Irish laws are so silly, then why is it that every other country in the developed world (even USA) have pretty much the same laws? Surely not every country can be wrong about it

Impressive, your familiar with the laws of every country in the developed world. Or were you just making a sweeping statement that you hope is true and fingers crossed no one will challenge you on it?

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Impressive, your familiar with the laws of every country in the developed world. Or were you just making a sweeping statement that you hope is true and fingers crossed no one will challenge you on it?

Yes, actually, I am familiar with these laws . It's a result of my profession! I have not studied every country's planning consents laws, but most of them in EU and USA, Canada, & Australia. But to be clear, I'm not a lawyer.

As for the point re roads, you may have missed the point I was making:

Prior to legislation being put in place to make CPO by the NRA more readily achievable, our roads were sub-standard and dangerous. When proper CPO laws were put in place to allow NRA take land as needed, we built straight, safe roads. The underlying principle is that the greater good of the citizens is served by having a law which places essential national infrastructure as superior to the right of an individual to own land.

Our roads have never been safer. Some large farmers/landowners had their farms split in two in the course of building the roads, but they were compensated for this.

The same thing applies to electricity and gas infrastructure. In countries like Germany, once consent has been granted for an overhead line, the electric utility has 5 years to negotiate wayleaves with landowners. After 5 years if agreement has not been reached the utility can build their line without paying compensation. It puts the onus on the landowner to enter negotiations and arrive at a settlement.

By any standard that I have examined, Ireland's laws are very pro-landowner.

In this case, it appears the landowner simply refused to enter any discussion, so court action would have been the only way forward for EirGrid.

As I said earlier, I admire her conviction & passion, but fundamentally this was a selfish action on her part.

Z

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

To acquire an easement the ESB requires the approval of the CER, so they avoid easements like the plague.

Are you certain of this loremolis? I cannot find this requirement on the CER website, do you have a link for it?

My reading of the CER's web is that they regulate ESB Networks only through licences and financial instruments, but not at an operational level. I know that private developers can acquire an easement through forestry without any recourse to a licence, so it is almost certain that ESB Networks don't require regulatory approval to buy one (because it is not a licence issue).

Z

CDfm

I have been following the story of this little old lady.

This isn't about a few ESB poles, the lady created a habitat over 100 acres on her on land and the ESB is chopping it down.

The ESB have already felled 1800 trees.

Stars back OAP jailed over fight to keep out ESB


By Adelina Campos

Wednesday September 28 2011

IRISH celebrities have expressed their support for an elderly woman who was jailed after she refused to allow ESB workers on her property.
Teresa Treacy has now spent 16 days behind bars since she was jailed for contempt of court.
Clinic star Rachel Pilkington and broadcaster Ray D'Arcy have both publicly backed the 65-year-old woman, who has refused for the past six years for ESB and Eirgrid to erect power lines on her grounds.
Ms Pilkington explained in an email why she attended a vigil at Mountjoy prison yesterday for Miss Treacy.
Refuge
"She genuinely believed her rights were being violated," the actress wrote.
"She cultivated that land with her own two hands, for her home, a sanctuary, a last refuge in a material world."
Ms Pilkington compared the forest on Miss Treacy's property in Clonmore, Tullamore, Co Offaly, to a beloved relation.
"Miss Treacy never had any children of her own, she spent her time nurturing her land while mothers up and down the country brought their children up," she added. "Many people can't understand how someone can care that much for nature. But she created a sanctuary for wildlife.
"If we lived in any kind of democracy Teresa would be walking freely in her woods with her sister Mary today."
She also said that Miss Treacy had shown "tremendous amount of courage to sit in a jail cell".
Meanwhile, Today FM's Ray D'Arcy said on his show that Miss Treacy's "circumstances" should be taken in consideration as she has now spent 16 days in jail.
"It does seem daft that a 65-year-old woman is in jail for the past 15 days.
"They should have another look at her individual circumstances."
Miss Treacey thanked people who have shown up on her property to prevent workers from accessing the land on Monday for their help.
She said: "Thanks to my supporters from the bottom of my heart.
"Only for them I wouldn't be able to do anything,"
However, ESB workers started felling trees yesterday -- approximately 1,800 are believed to have already been cut.
Dozens of protesters are expected to go to Tullamore today to plant ash trees that were given by anonymous donors to replace the ones that were cut down yesterday.

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/stars-back-oap-jailed-over-fight-to-keep-out-esb-2889360.html

So much for the ESB's sponsorship of Positive Ageing.

General General

The fool... she thought she had property rights...

CardBordWindow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4

pljudge321

Did she register any sort of complaint or request during Eirgrid's public consultation period for the project? If not its just a case of her arbitrarily deciding that the law doesn't apply to her.

Chuck Stone

I don't think that she should have been sent to prison but I also think she should have compromised if there was no other reasonable alternative.

As for property rights - nobody has an absolute claim to their property. If everyone was entitled to full and inalienable property rights then there'd be no income taxes paid, no VAT, no road tax, no tax on fuel, no farm subsidies, no state police, no social workers, no public hospitals, no public schools etc etc etc

Would that be a good thing?

Who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

WindSock

Haha. Can't believe here name is Teresa. Should change her surname to Gone. :pac:

Bruthal

WindSock wrote: »

Haha. Can't believe here name is Teresa. Should change her surname to Gone. :pac:

Maybe she will, as the pressure really begins to pylon

Freddie59

bbuzz wrote: »

ROADS AREN'T STRAIGHT BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS.

Anyway ESB Networks and Eirgrid are not run to make profits, they're run to invest and maintain our electrical infrastructure. Stop making them out to be big bad faceless companies.

Roads don't suffer voltage drops because of longer routes.:)

Bruthal

Freddie59 wrote: »

Roads don't suffer voltage drops because of longer routes.:)

Thats why 110kv, 220kv transmission/distribution circuits etc are used. To minimise the power losses over long distances. 230v 1000 amps used by a housing estate would only be 2 amps on the 110kv line.

Maybe that will be of some comfort to her when she is admiring her newly landscaped land:pac:

CDfm

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

That happened my mum and the spot they picked was where the family pets were buried and they just didn't give a ****.

I picked up the discarded pet skulls from among the debris.

The law is supposed to protect the little guy too.

sdanseo

Just seen the poll. It's absurd.

The woman threw her toys out of the pram and very deliberately, with complete premeditation and intent, broke the law. Moreover she can be released whenever she chooses to comply with the court.

What sort of example would it set to set her free? You may as well put a full page ad in every paper saying "Dear Public, please feel free to thieve, rape or murder, we'll only lock you up for three days. Kind regards, the Judiciary".

It's lunacy to suggest she not be locked up. It was her choice to break the rules.