€14.56m Spent so far (Not including basic wages) on policing 'Shell to Sea'

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.

Interesting, can you refer me to a specific part of the Revenue regulations or did you just make this up?

Hayte

Ehhh, on the environmental front, this matter went to Judicial Review last year and An Taisce accepted settlement from the state:

Irish Times wrote:

In a statement to the court, the State defendants acknowledged An Taisce’s case was properly brought and said, in view of the concerns raised, the State would establish an Environmental law Implementation Group through which it would formally engage with An Taisce.

The State also acknowledged, in light of the decision of the European Court of Justice in proceedings by the European Commission v Ireland, that Ireland had failed to properly transpose certain aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It was intended all necessary transposition measures would be taken by the end of this year, it added.

While acknowledging the failures of transposition, the State said it was maintaining its claims that the consents challenged in the legal actions, including a foreshore licence, were valid and were granted “only after all necessary environmental assessment under Irish and EU law”. The State would also make a contribution to the legal costs incurred by An Taisce, it said.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton was told today the actions by An Taisce, and a separate action by local residents Peter Sweetman and Monica Muiller, were being withdrawn. The cases, brought against various State parties with Shell EP Ireland and Mayo Co Council as notice parties, had been at hearing for eleven days before the judge prior to today’s development.

Mr Sweetman and Ms Muller, Rossport South, Ballina, Co Mayo, own land 500m south of the proposed pipeline and they and An Taisce, challenged An Bord Pleanala’s decision last January granting permission to Shell E&P Ireland for its third proposed route for the pipeline. No details of the settlement of the Sweetman/Muller case were disclosed.

It was claimed the proposed pipeline traverses several areas of special interest in Co Mayo governed by the EU habitats directives. Among the claims was the Bord had failed to assess, as it was required to do, failed to assess the impact of the development on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The same parties also challenged consents for the construction of sections of the pipeline issued by former minister for energy Pat Carey and Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan. An Taisce also challenged the granting of a foreshore licence by Mr Hogan earlier this year.

At this point it appears the main contention is that the Corrib project will be finished before the legislation comes into effect.

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

See, Shell has up until now had a pretty terrible record of adhering to conditional approval set down by state agencies.

Given that this is one of the most closely scrutinised construction projects in the history of the state, I don't think Shell are likely to get away with much.

I also note that Shell has constructed sections of the pipeline without consent.

Did you happen to note that they dismantled it when ordered to do so, and only rebuilt it once consent was granted?

I further note the controversy surrounding energy companies using land compulsorily acquired through the state for gas extraction through fracking in the US and UK, where the environmental impact has not been properly assessed.

Fracking is completely irrelevant to the Corrib discussion, and I can only assume you're conflating the two situations in order to muddy the water.

I understand people quipping about law and enforcement but the principle of equity doesn't seem factor in out of convenience. The rule of law and its enforcement can and should be overturned if it causes grave inequity. If there is an inequity, is it worth fighting to rectify it?

Sure. The place to do that fighting is in the courts, or the legislature as required. The courts are the logical starting point for such a fight, as they are best placed to answer the question of inequity in a disinterested manner.

I am also curious about the stigma of civil disobedience in this country, or at least how it is reflected on this forum. In all socially contentious problems there is a cost to unilateral action. In this case, one of the costs is civil disobedience, which necessitates a large and continuous police presence. I wonder how many of you would dance to a different tune if it was your home that was subject to compulsory acquisition, if all of this was happening on your doorstep. Do you fight it and how long do you fight? Far too many people are willing to capitulate, to just go with it as long as the problems do not impact them directly.

To be fair, that's a beautifully-crafted appeal to emotion, but it's an appeal to emotion nonetheless.

For one thing, it is predicated entirely on the idea that compulsory acquisition is wrong. If you believe that compulsory acquisition should never be allowed - or at least should always be subject to disorderly protest at a cost to the state of tens of millions of euros - fair enough, as long as you make it clear that you would prefer to live in a country without much in the way of infrastructure.

If, on the other hand, you are selectively deciding that this particular compulsory acquisition is wrong because it gels nicely with your belief that this particular project shouldn't go ahead, you should make that clear also, because it clarifies the subjective nature of your appeal to emotion.

I see very few people on these boards expressing a desire to understand the problems and why they lead to civil disobedience. I see very little attempt to scrutinise Shell's past dealings with state agencies for the extraction of energy resources. I see alot of people just accepting their position because the cost of their action doesn't effect them personally, whilst the cost of opposition does. I see very little attempt to understand our laws, how they are created, how they are enforced, what systems of checks and balances have been implemented to curb abuse of power.

It's dangerously close to hypocritical to laud disorderly protest while simultaneously pontificating about checks and balances. What are the checks and balances on criminal behaviour dressed up as civil disobedience?

MadsL wrote: »

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.

You can suspect what you want, but until you produce documentary evidence to show that such expenses are required to be explicitly enumerated in a tax return, your suspicions don't count for a lot.

I notice you've avoided my question three or four times now. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question myself.

Godge

Hayte wrote: »

Ehhh, on the environmental front, this matter went to Judicial Review last year and An Taisce accepted settlement from the state:




At this point it appears the main contention is that the Corrib project will be finished before the legislation comes into effect.

As I previously pointed out, and this article certainly implies it clearly, the failures to transpose the Directives were minor or even technical in nature, particularly as the statement made by the State "said it was maintaining its claims that the consents challenged in the legal actions, including a foreshore licence, were valid and were granted “only after all necessary environmental assessment under Irish and EU law”. "

This is a far cry from the massive breaches of environmental law alluded to earlier in this thread.

RussellTuring

If I may be so bold as to get back to the OP, I think that it is indeed far too much to be spent on policing. Maybe people should ask if there really is a need for so many gardaí there at all. If someone witnesses a crime being committed then it would seem reasonable to call them but having the force there on a continuing basis seems like a massive waste of resources.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that this is one of the most closely scrutinised construction projects in the history of the state, I don't think Shell are likely to get away with much.

Pure speculation, and honestly putting far too much faith in the capacity of Shell to give a damn.

Did you happen to note that they dismantled it when ordered to do so, and only rebuilt it once consent was granted?

Yeah. They were actually building the thing before the safety review of the pipeline was complete. I mean seriously?

Fracking is completely irrelevant to the Corrib discussion, and I can only assume you're conflating the two situations in order to muddy the water.

Noted.

Sure. The place to do that fighting is in the courts, or the legislature as required. The courts are the logical starting point for such a fight, as they are best placed to answer the question of inequity in a disinterested manner. To be fair, that's a beautifully-crafted appeal to emotion, but it's an appeal to emotion nonetheless.

The civil courts are not the logical start point of anything. The civil courts are the logical end point of a dispute that cannot be resolved between parties and must be arbitrated by an independent party. And they found failings that vindicate protest. Its disappointing to see An Taisce settle but I'm not aware of their manner in which their legal fees are dealt with and whether or not they had the resources to proceed to judgement. As such there will be no formal written decision.

For one thing, it is predicated entirely on the idea that compulsory acquisition is wrong. If you believe that compulsory acquisition should never be allowed - or at least should always be subject to disorderly protest at a cost to the state of tens of millions of euros - fair enough, as long as you make it clear that you would prefer to live in a country without much in the way of infrastructure.

Don't boil it down to right and wrong. You will get different answers depending on whether its your land or not and whether you want to stay or not. People went to jail because they didn't want to leave their homes over this project. As for the snide poke at the end, I'm just going to ignore that because infrastructure development always goes faster when you don't have to be accountable to anyone except yourself.

If, on the other hand, you are selectively deciding that this particular compulsory acquisition is wrong because it gels nicely with your belief that this particular project shouldn't go ahead

It has nothing to do with any preconceived belief with regards to whether or not this project should or should not go ahead. I appreciate there is an appeal to emotion in my post, but your entire response is really a strawman.

What are the checks and balances on criminal behaviour dressed up as civil disobedience?

What criminal behaviour? No really, what crimes have been committed?

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

Don't boil it down to right and wrong. You will get different answers depending on whether its your land or not and whether you want to stay or not.

That's ducking the issue. Of course people will have subjective views on things that affect them directly. If you're going to take the view that nothing should ever happen that anyone objects to, then nothing would ever happen.

The Constitution recognises that a balance needs to be struck between private property rights and the public good. Do you disagree?

People went to jail because they didn't want to leave their homes over this project.

Which of the Rossport five was asked to leave his home?

As for the snide poke at the end, I'm just going to ignore that because infrastructure development always goes faster when you don't have to be accountable to anyone except yourself.

I don't know what you mean by that.

It has nothing to do with any preconceived belief with regards to whether or not this project should or should not go ahead. I appreciate there is an appeal to emotion in my post, but your entire response is really a strawman.

With the greatest of respect, I don't believe you. Your post only makes sense in the context of a strongly-held view on one side of this issue. Are you denying that you are opposed to the project, or claiming that your opposition hasn't informed your posts on the subject?

What criminal behaviour? No really, what crimes have been committed?

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's ducking the issue. Of course people will have subjective views on things that affect them directly. If you're going to take the view that nothing should ever happen that anyone objects to, then nothing would ever happen.

The Constitution recognises that a balance needs to be struck between private property rights and the public good. Do you disagree?

No I don't disagree.

Which of the Rossport five was asked to leave his home?

I'm not clear on that. However, all of them had compulsory acquisition orders against them so at the very least, construction of the onshore pipeline was occuring on their land (which became the government's land) and they resisted it. I know they were found to be in contempt of that order and were jailed. I know that Ms. Justice Laffoy later struck down those orders and required Shell to seek landowner consent for construction on their land.

For the sake of clarity, I'll err on the side of caution, concede this point and say "none".

With the greatest of respect, I don't believe you. Your post only makes sense in the context of a strongly-held view on one side of this issue. Are you denying that you are opposed to the project, or claiming that your opposition hasn't informed your posts on the subject?

I have no direct stake in the outcome of the Corrib project so whether or not you believe me is frankly irrelevant. It would be just as irrelevant as me asserting that your posts only make sense in the context of a strongly held belief in the fairness of Shell's dealings with An Bord Pleanala.

I have not questioned your beliefs in this thread, only what you have stated as fact and what you have asserted is law. I would appreciate if you do me the courtesy of responding in kind.

The striking out of the original Shell CAOs and the judicial review proceedings brought by An Taisce and Peter Sweetman go some ways to vindicate the idea that injustice is at the root of this round of civil disobedience. That is the context I am working from.

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

I'm asking because I don't see any criminality unless civil disobience has suddenly become a criminal offence. If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

antoobrien

Hayte wrote: »

I'm asking because I don't see any criminality unless civil disobience has suddenly become a criminal offence. If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

Google a few of their names, you'll be surprised how easy it is to find this info.

Marua Harrington (one of the spokespeople for the protest) was jailed for assaulting a Garda during a fracas at the site.

Another article indicates that she had been jailed 3 times in 2009 (up to July).

n.b. unfortunately the articles are behind the paywall

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

The striking out of the original Shell CAOs and the judicial review proceedings brought by An Taisce and Peter Sweetman go some ways to vindicate this idea that injustice is at the root of this round of civil disobedience. That is the context I am working from.

The problem with that context is that you're mistaking the subjective perception of injustice for the objective reality of injustice. If someone believes they are the victim of an injustice, they may be, or they may not. If someone brings judicial review proceedings, it suggests that they feel an injustice has been done. When the same party withdraws those proceedings, the implication is that the injustice has been redressed.

If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

Maura Harrington has been convicted of assault and public disorder offences. There have been numerous examples of protesters appearing in court on public order and criminal damage charges.

Are you genuinely unaware of these (as you were unaware of the circumstances of the jailing of the Rossport five), or are you blithely ignoring them for some reason?

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote:

or are you blithely ignoring them for some reason?

Theres no need for this. I am aware of Maura Harrington and I have given the circumstances of her imprisonment some thought. Initially I felt that a slap doesn't really constitute assault and in the context of the protest up until that point I felt it was somewhat justified. The CAO was not been overturned until 2011 and this incident occured in 2007. Part of this reasoning is informed by the idea that civil disobedience must necessarily be violent if there is no recourse through other means.

But after some thought, I revised this position and concede this point. Slapping can constitute battery and we are not in Aparthied South Africa. We do have a judicial system that offers recourse through non violent means and in fact, such relief was sought and obtained. In that context, slapping a Gard was unnecessary, exposed Maura Harrington to criminal prosecution and did nothing to stop Shell's access to the land. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, when I'm actually wrong.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, can you refer me to a specific part of the Revenue regulations or did you just make this up?

I didn't claim to be a tax expert. However;

http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/60/tb07.htm
http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/60/tb11.htm

Planning applications
Section 372AL(1A) TCA 1997 provides the legislative basis for the extended deadline of 31 July 2006 for the residential element of the various schemes mentioned above. Sections 372AA, 372L, 372A(1B) and 372U TCA 1997 do likewise for the commercial and industrial elements of the town renewal, rural renewal, living over the shop and park and ride schemes respectively. The provisions ensure that expenditure incurred on or before 31 July 2006 will qualify for relief provided that it is expenditure incurred on work that is covered by a valid application for full planning permission that was received by the relevant local authority on or before 31 December 2004. The time extension does not apply to projects where the application for planning permission was received after that date. It should also be noted that where a valid planning application for full planning permission was received on time, relief is only available in respect of expenditure on actual work covered by that particular application. It does not extend to expenditure on additional work as would arise where the applicant decides to extend the scale of the project subsequent to the qualifying planning application deadline.
In this regard, Revenue is concerned at some notices that have appeared in newspapers after the 31 December 2004 deadline indicating that “significant further information has been lodged with ____ County Council under planning reference xxx, 2004". In some cases the ”significant further information" referred to would have the effect of substantially increasing the scale of projects already submitted. Where a project proceeds on the basis of the planning application that is submitted by 31 December 2004, only expenditure incurred on the basis of the original project will qualify for relief and that expenditure incurred on any extension or addition to a project will not qualify for relief. In such a situation it will be necessary for the total expenditure to be apportioned between the qualifying and the non-qualifying work. If, on the other hand, the planned extension gives rise to the need to make a further planning application after 31 December 2004 to cover the revised or extended project, then none of the expenditure incurred on that project will qualify for relief. The position is the same where an applicant is required for any other reason to submit a further planning application in respect of a project after 31 December 2004. In all such cases no relief is available.

Sale of Site/Building
A person who owns a site or a building that is to be refurbished or converted may wish to sell the site or the building after he or she has applied for or obtained planning permission. In such a situation the purchaser of the site or the building will be treated in exactly the same way as the original applicant or vendor and will only qualify for relief to the extent that the work that is carried out on the project is that provided for in the original valid application for full planning permission received on or before


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.ie%2Fen%2Fabout%2Ffoi%2Fs16%2Fincome-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax%2Fpart-09%2F09-01-01.pdf%3Fdownload%3Dtrue&ei=Rmw9T9G8GOTU2AXHrcizCA&usg=AFQjCNG0H0LiKVramz4-mWsp1shSz_jIng&sig2=W4gjJ1VxnGiAkmJG1-e12w


Qualifying period
The scheme applies in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 15 May 2002 for private hospitals generally and from 28 March 2003 for day-case hospitals. The termination date for incurring qualifying expenditure is 31 December 2009 unless certain conditions are met, in which case a later termination date may apply. Where the work to be carried out does not require planning permission, the termination date is 30 June 2010, provided at least 30% of the construction or refurbishment costs have been incurred on or before 31 December 2009. Where the work to be carried out requires planning permission, a termination date of 31 December 2013 applies, provided a full and valid application for planning permission was submitted on or before 31 December 2009 and was acknowledged by the relevant planning authority.


Would satisfy me that the general view of Revenue is that planning permissions are relevant to claiming tax relief and incentives.

If you feel that strongly call Revenue and ask them.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

Good question dodge.

Do you see any crimes here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DrMoBpbJiA

Or here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSMF4GgnC_I

or here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNM3aH323zw

or here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9_wIeXKn4

or here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrgkYk74xk

Apparently it is difficult to report crimes if you are a protester.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Good question dodge.

I wasn't dodging the question. I was genuinely gobsmacked that anyone with more than a passing interest in the Corrib situation could conceivably be unaware of the track record of the protesters.

Given that you're accusing me of dodging the question, and as someone who has an interest in the subject, are you going to claim that you're unaware of any criminal behaviour on the part of any of the protesters?

Do you see any crimes here?

I see carefully edited propaganda videos designed to put forward one side of the story. Are you going to claim that the Garda behaviour is completely unprovoked, and that model citizens were viciously attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Because if you're willing to believe that, we have no common frame of reference for this discussion.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wasn't dodging the question. I was genuinely gobsmacked that anyone with more than a passing interest in the Corrib situation could conceivably be unaware of the track record of the protesters.

Given that you're accusing me of dodging the question, and as someone who has an interest in the subject, are you going to claim that you're unaware of any criminal behaviour on the part of any of the protesters? I see carefully edited propaganda videos designed to put forward one side of the story. Are you going to claim that the Garda behaviour is completely unprovoked, and that model citizens were viciously attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Because if you're willing to believe that, we have no common frame of reference for this discussion.

I'm not in any way disputing that propaganda exists on both sides if the debate, but in those videos I clearly see examples of assault, theft, excessive force, and failure to comply with the law regarding identification and assault by a private security guard not wearing ID or producing it when asked. I also see members of AGS refusing to take complaints on the scenes of those crimes.

So, over to you. What crimes on the part of protesters would you take issue with other than accepted peaceful protest and civil disobedience tactics such as blocking a public road or lock-ons to equipment?

As to how well you considered the evidence propaganda I'm impressed you watched all videos and type a reply in just 10 minutes...perhaps you speedwatch?

Bullseye1

Dublin City Council have spent more on a incinerator project which more than likely will never see the light of day.

MadsL

The HSE has spent more than 10 times that on a fecking payroll system

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

So, over to you. What crimes on the part of protesters would you take issue with other than accepted peaceful protest and civil disobedience tactics such as blocking a public road or lock-ons to equipment?

What makes you think I don't take exception to self-righteous people blocking public highways and padlocking themselves to other people's equipment?

If I went out right now and blocked traffic on the N5, I'd be arrested on a public order charge. If I padlocked myself to a local businessman's machinery in order to prevent him from going about his lawful business, ditto. If I padlocked myself to your car tomorrow morning to prevent you from going to work, you'd call the cops and be well within your rights to do so.

Maybe Shell should block the road leading to Maura Harrington's house in order to prevent her from getting to the protests; or some of their employees padlock themselves to Willie Corduff's tractor. Presumably you'd be at the forefront of cheerleading them in these "accepted" peaceful protests?

And that's just so-called "peaceful" protest. Over the past several years there has been a litany of stories in the local media about protesters clogging up the courts on public order and criminal damage charges.

So, again: are you genuinely unaware of any aspect of the controversy up here other than what you've seen from one side's propaganda?

As to how well you considered the evidence propaganda I'm impressed you watched all videos and type a reply in just 10 minutes...perhaps you speedwatch?

I watched the first two. After a good giggle at the definition of "archaist", I didn't bother watching any more. I don't watch Shell promo videos either, and they at least have decent production values.

I've seen enough S2S propaganda to last me a lifetime. Anyone can edit a video to paint someone else in the worst possible light and themselves as the entirely innocent victims.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think I don't take exception to self-righteous people blocking public highways and padlocking themselves to other people's equipment?

If I went out right now and blocked traffic on the N5, I'd be arrested on a public order charge. If I padlocked myself to a local businessman's machinery in order to prevent him from going about his lawful business, ditto. If I padlocked myself to your car tomorrow morning to prevent you from going to work, you'd call the cops and be well within your rights to do so.

Maybe Shell should block the road leading to Maura Harrington's house in order to prevent her from getting to the protests; or some of their employees padlock themselves to Willie Corduff's tractor. Presumably you'd be at the forefront of cheerleading them in these "accepted" peaceful protests?

And that's just so-called "peaceful" protest. Over the past several years there has been a litany of stories in the local media about protesters clogging up the courts on public order and criminal damage charges.

So, again: are you genuinely unaware of any aspect of the controversy up here other than what you've seen from one side's propaganda? I watched the first two. After a good giggle at the definition of "archaist", I didn't bother watching any more. I don't watch Shell promo videos either, and they at least have decent production values.

I've seen enough S2S propaganda to last me a lifetime. Anyone can edit a video to paint someone else in the worst possible light and themselves as the entirely innocent victims.

Looks like you've made up your mind, so. Any point in debating further?

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't claim to be a tax expert. However;

http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/60/tb07.htm
http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/60/tb11.htm

Planning applications
Section 372AL(1A) TCA 1997 provides the legislative basis for the extended deadline of 31 July 2006 for the residential element of the various schemes mentioned above. Sections 372AA, 372L, 372A(1B) and 372U TCA 1997 do likewise for the commercial and industrial elements of the town renewal, rural renewal, living over the shop and park and ride schemes respectively. The provisions ensure that expenditure incurred on or before 31 July 2006 will qualify for relief provided that it is expenditure incurred on work that is covered by a valid application for full planning permission that was received by the relevant local authority on or before 31 December 2004. The time extension does not apply to projects where the application for planning permission was received after that date. It should also be noted that where a valid planning application for full planning permission was received on time, relief is only available in respect of expenditure on actual work covered by that particular application. It does not extend to expenditure on additional work as would arise where the applicant decides to extend the scale of the project subsequent to the qualifying planning application deadline.
In this regard, Revenue is concerned at some notices that have appeared in newspapers after the 31 December 2004 deadline indicating that “significant further information has been lodged with ____ County Council under planning reference xxx, 2004". In some cases the ”significant further information" referred to would have the effect of substantially increasing the scale of projects already submitted. Where a project proceeds on the basis of the planning application that is submitted by 31 December 2004, only expenditure incurred on the basis of the original project will qualify for relief and that expenditure incurred on any extension or addition to a project will not qualify for relief. In such a situation it will be necessary for the total expenditure to be apportioned between the qualifying and the non-qualifying work. If, on the other hand, the planned extension gives rise to the need to make a further planning application after 31 December 2004 to cover the revised or extended project, then none of the expenditure incurred on that project will qualify for relief. The position is the same where an applicant is required for any other reason to submit a further planning application in respect of a project after 31 December 2004. In all such cases no relief is available.

Sale of Site/Building
A person who owns a site or a building that is to be refurbished or converted may wish to sell the site or the building after he or she has applied for or obtained planning permission. In such a situation the purchaser of the site or the building will be treated in exactly the same way as the original applicant or vendor and will only qualify for relief to the extent that the work that is carried out on the project is that provided for in the original valid application for full planning permission received on or before


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.ie%2Fen%2Fabout%2Ffoi%2Fs16%2Fincome-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax%2Fpart-09%2F09-01-01.pdf%3Fdownload%3Dtrue&ei=Rmw9T9G8GOTU2AXHrcizCA&usg=AFQjCNG0H0LiKVramz4-mWsp1shSz_jIng&sig2=W4gjJ1VxnGiAkmJG1-e12w


Qualifying period
The scheme applies in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 15 May 2002 for private hospitals generally and from 28 March 2003 for day-case hospitals. The termination date for incurring qualifying expenditure is 31 December 2009 unless certain conditions are met, in which case a later termination date may apply. Where the work to be carried out does not require planning permission, the termination date is 30 June 2010, provided at least 30% of the construction or refurbishment costs have been incurred on or before 31 December 2009. Where the work to be carried out requires planning permission, a termination date of 31 December 2013 applies, provided a full and valid application for planning permission was submitted on or before 31 December 2009 and was acknowledged by the relevant planning authority.


Would satisfy me that the general view of Revenue is that planning permissions are relevant to claiming tax relief and incentives.

If you feel that strongly call Revenue and ask them.

Yeah, it is clear you are not a Revenue expert. Those provisions relate to the extension of property reliefs and the restrictions on the extensions i.e. you had to demonstrate that the property development was actually proceeding to get the relief.

Why should I call the Revenue? You have made a completely unsubstantiated claim that Revenue would take a certain attitude to certain expenses. I thought it was interesting and asked you to back it up. You failed to do so.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Yeah, it is clear you are not a Revenue expert. Those provisions relate to the extension of property reliefs and the restrictions on the extensions i.e. you had to demonstrate that the property development was actually proceeding to get the relief.

Why should I call the Revenue? You have made a completely unsubstantiated claim that Revenue would take a certain attitude to certain expenses. I thought it was interesting and asked you to back it up. You failed to do so.

Will I repeat what I last said or will you do it.

Email sent to Revenue if it means that much to you.

andrew

And the cost to Shell has been enormous too. Enough to ensure any future oil companies will think twice about getting whatever oil/gas there actually is there out. S2S has significantly reduced the chance that any company will extract oil from the Irish sea, blocking development (and the associated profits and jobs) for years to come. But at least the West has plenty of other jobs to keep people from moving away, eh?

MadsL

andrew wrote: »

And the cost to Shell has been enormous too. Enough to ensure any future oil companies will think twice about getting whatever oil/gas there actually is there out. S2S has significantly reduced the chance that any company will extract oil from the Irish sea, blocking development (and the associated profits and jobs) for years to come. But at least the West has plenty of other jobs to keep people from moving away, eh?

Who do you hold accountable for that?

andrew

MadsL wrote: »

Who do you hold accountable for that?

Shell to Sea. For increasing costs by doing everything in their power by delaying and trying to prevent development.

MadsL

Shell to Sea. For increasing costs by doing everything in their power by delaying and trying to prevent development.

OK, so the fact that Govt failed to require a Environmental Impact Assessment correctly means they are entirely blameless, and Shell constructing without planning permission means they are blameless too.

A wider point is that the Irish Govt signed the Aarhus Convention over ten years ago but have inadequately transposed this into Irish Law. This would have meant that projects like this would have required, by law, community participation in the planning process. This would have prevented Shell showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'.

Shell and the Govt by the way they approached this caused the level of protests and local sentiment. That doesn't give carte blanche to protesters, but I do understand the anger, and treating protesters the way they have been treated doesn't exactly help either.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

This would have prevented Shell showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'.

If you genuinely believe that's how it went down, you must have really been hogging the S2S Koolaid.

Seriously: I live here. I read the local papers every week. I could wallpaper my house with reports of public consultations - not to mention the non-stop reports of court appearances on public order and criminal damage charges by the "peaceful" protesters.

Just this week, the MD of the Shell plant was quoted as saying that he wanted to continue to try to find a way to bring the whole community together and heal the divisions over this project. The closing quote in the article was from one of the protesters vowing that the divisions would last for decades.

There is one party to this dispute that has been completely intransigent from the beginning and remains so to this day, and it isn't Shell.

FreudianSlippers

I think at a basic level people miss the point of CPOs. The farmers get paid for the loss of land and convenience, handsomely. Either that or they purchased property with registered easements on it. So, the CPO point is a damp squib at best

professore

I have no problem with protests but the Shell to Sea protest is just wrong on so many levels. There are lots of things in Ireland more worthy of protest at the moment.

The Shell To Sea people have potentially done at least as much economic damage to this country as Anglo, and I put them at the same level. Even with our giveaway licensing at the moment there are virtually no licenses being taken up by exploration companies. One representative recently on the Frontline said they were looking at prospects in Iraq and Nigeria as time to market was much shorter due to the Corrib protests here.

This is likely to cost us tens of billions in lost revenue, as there does seem to be oil and gas out there, even at our current levels of taxation - which we could alter if significant amounts of oil and gas were found.

So the next time you see a relative or loved one on a hospital trolley, or your child not getting the help they used to get from the SNA to overcome their perfectly fixable problems with reading, think of Shell To Sea.

Also the absolutely ridiculous argument that Shell should pay - so if someone decides to protest in my front garden I should PAY their expenses ????

And, irony of ironies, how do the Shell To Sea protestors get to their protests?
In cars, buses and camper vans powered by PETROL and DIESEL powered by companies like SHELL. At least use electric hybrids or pony and traps FFS.

All this is without taking in account the violent and subversive behaviour of the criminal element in the protest group.

RussellTuring

professore wrote: »

I have no problem with protests but the Shell to Sea protest is just wrong on so many levels. There are lots of things in Ireland more worthy of protest at the moment.

There's always something else we can complain about. If there are other issues that are more important to you then do something about them yourself.

The Shell To Sea people have potentially done at least as much economic damage to this country as Anglo, and I put them at the same level. Even with our giveaway licensing at the moment there are virtually no licenses being taken up by exploration companies. One representative recently on the Frontline said they were looking at prospects in Iraq and Nigeria as time to market was much shorter due to the Corrib protests here.

This is likely to cost us tens of billions in lost revenue, as there does seem to be oil and gas out there, even at our current levels of taxation - which we could alter if significant amounts of oil and gas were found.

So the next time you see a relative or loved one on a hospital trolley, or your child not getting the help they used to get from the SNA to overcome their perfectly fixable problems with reading, think of Shell To Sea.

That's some hyperbole. Anyway, I don't see how it's a bad thing that there's less hassle extracting natural resources in Iraq and Nigeria compared to Ireland. Should we just let the oil and gas companies do as they please without safeguarding our own interests? Trying to blame the protesters on cuts and poor management by the government is ridiculous.

Also the absolutely ridiculous argument that Shell should pay - so if someone decides to protest in my front garden I should PAY their expenses ????

You do. They're called taxes. And you pay a far higher proportion of your income on them than Shell do.

And, irony of ironies, how do the Shell To Sea protestors get to their protests?
In cars, buses and camper vans powered by PETROL and DIESEL powered by companies like SHELL. At least use electric hybrids or pony and traps FFS.

If you really think everyone who's against what's happening on the west coast is necessarily against the use of oil in any context, then you've shown just how misinformed you are.

All this is without taking in account the violent and subversive behaviour of the criminal element in the protest group.

Anyone who exhibits violent or subversive behaviour should be held accountable for it, whether protester or garda.

joela

MadsL wrote: »

OK, so the fact that Govt failed to require a Environmental Impact Assessment correctly means they are entirely blameless, and Shell constructing without planning permission means they are blameless too.

A wider point is that the Irish Govt signed the Aarhus Convention over ten years ago but have inadequately transposed this into Irish Law. This would have meant that projects like this would have required, by law, community participation in the planning process. This would have prevented Shell showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'.

Shell and the Govt by the way they approached this caused the level of protests and local sentiment. That doesn't give carte blanche to protesters, but I do understand the anger, and treating protesters the way they have been treated doesn't exactly help either.

The government were most surely wrong in their implementation of the EIA Directive as they have been in transposition of the Habitats Directive and in compliance with the water framework directive and a multitude of other directives. So yes it was good that An Taisce kicked their behinds on that one as it means positive changes in environmental protection in Ireland.

However S2S did not push those positive changes, they have not contributed in a positive manner at all in my opinion. They peddle propoganda and blatant lies, abuse people doing their job even when it is environmental protection-imagine shouting at a young woman just doing her job that you hope she has deformed children? The vast majority of S2S supporters have no concept about what environmental protection really means, they spout about EU Directives etc. yet they will not condemn the flagrant flouting of EU laws on the protected bogs in Mayo, the pollution from local farmers yards including some of those famously lauded as part of the movement. Furthermore due to the pressures on Shell to appear compliant to the government and general public there will be little or no mistakes of any magnitude as to constitute a significant environmental impact. Shell will be restoring the area of priority habitat within the SAC to a level which has probably never occurred in Ireland before, the best peatland ecologist in Ireland is working on it with Shell. So why is there a need for uninformed naysayers to be present blocking works and spouting evil words at people?

Look to the rest of the country to see how environmental directives and regulations are flouted on a daily basis. Drainage of wetlands with the resulting run-off polluting our watercourses far more than the single minor infringement by Shell which was reported earlier in this thread. Shell are required to mitigate for any potential impact, when have you ever seen a turf-cutter or farmer using silt fences, bunds, settlement ponds etc. when cutting turf or draining wetlands. What about illegal quarries polluting Freshwater Pearl Mussel rivers and resulting in unhealthy populations or death of same. What about malfunctioning septic tanks, sewage treatment works, illegal dumping, illegal landfills etc. etc. etc. If these people knew a single thing about the natural environment they wouldn't be focusing on bloody S2S protests. Shell are being watched but what about all these other environmentally damaging activities around the country?