Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]
Options
Comments
-
After reading the article I'm delighted the planning was turned down, just think of removed 100 thousand tonnes of soil from the site, or trying to get the foundations right to hold such a massive structure in place.
Project was bound to cost billions0 -
@MadsL
Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout. Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor. Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.
Put it this way, religion is important but in a decision on blood transfusion it is not the priority concern. Medical opinion will win out if Jahovah Witnesses try and exert their religious wishes over the care of their child.
Here we have a choice of compromising on medical grounds to adhere to planning guidelines or bending the planning guidelines to accommodate best medical practice. ABPs 'input' should be considered but it should not take priority over best medical advise.
As for your point on James's and Crumlim, did you not read the report? These sites were considered and then excluded. James's actually reached the final two and was ruled out based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont. Really don't scold me on my reading skills when you haven't read the report you criticise.
@rodento
That article is pure rubbish. The headline of most expensive 1bullion euro carpark? in the article it says the carpark and foundations cost 120million?
And I agree with FS that the previous 'businessman' chairperson is an idiot. He compares the high rise hospital with Ballymun FFS. He also seems to lack any medical expertise caring only of a possible free site at Newlands Cross. He obviously doesn't even acknowledge the importance of co-location. He moans of soaring costs at the Mater and welcomes a report from an expert group on the cost issue. News flash that group reported and their conclusion was that nowhere would be much cheaper. Yet you still tow Mr Lynchs line on the Mater? The report he welcomed proved him wrong. The article was from a year ago - information has emerged since that prove him wrong and his views irrelevant.Project was bound to cost billions
And that's your 'expert' opinion after all your 'analysis'?
It's amazing - Mr Lynch pulls figures out his ass and you believe him, he suggests another site based on his thorough back of a cig packet analysis and you go along with him. Meanwhile an expert group recommends the Mater and a second expert group reports on relative costs and you quote an opinion piece from Mr Lynch....
Until there is expert medical opinion on the benefits of another site I still maintain we shouldn't compromise on best medical practise to assuage the planners for uniformity and blandness.0 -
Planning is about far, far more than aesthetics. It's about thinking forward. It's about developing places to live, work and socialise in. It's about providing for infrastructure, amenities and services. It's about setting priorities and making decisions that stand the test of time.Laminations wrote: »@MadsL
Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout. Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor. Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.
There are plenty of good planning reasons for voting down the Mater proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that at least the the planners were doing their job. The proposers of the development clearly did not. It seems they were ready to assume the project would be railroaded past normal channels, and were happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable. That sails far too close to cronyism for my liking.
The 'medical concerns' point is to my mind a canard. It's not a matter of medicine versus planning. The hospital proposal was simply ill-considered.
As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.0 -
It's about choosing a site and building something that works on that site both aesthetically and functionally. Whether one likes it or not, this hospital at the Mater site would have been as functional as anywhere else in the city. There are drawbacks to all locations; the Mater had the least. Say what you want about cosmetics, to each their own, but nothing higher than 4-5 floors will ever be liked by the majority of people in this country. IDK why, but that's just the way it is.Planning is about far, far more than aesthetics. It's about thinking forward. It's about developing places to live, work and socialise in. It's about providing for infrastructure, amenities and services. It's about setting priorities and making decisions that stand the test of time.
But isn't it equally as poor to push for a greenfield site owned by you and your corporate bedfellows?There are plenty of good planning reasons for voting down the Mater proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that at least the the planners were doing their job. The proposers of the development clearly did not. It seems they were ready to assume the project would be railroaded past normal channels, and were happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable. That sails far too close to cronyism for my liking.The 'medical concerns' point is to my mind a canard. It's not a matter of medicine versus planning. The hospital proposal was simply ill-considered.
As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.
If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.
Plus you'd think that these people who are complaining about traffic to the Mater have literally never been on the M50. Far more potential for traffic on the M50 than N1.0 -
happy to ignore all the implicit and explicit warnings that their proposal was unsuitable.
Yes. And this is my point. It is far more important to be suitable to medical requirements than to planning requirements.As for planning, it would make far more sense to have a large development (if one is needed) on a greenfield site (or in Tallaght) close to the M50 (accessible by car from all over the country - it is after all a proposed national hospital) and serviced by public transport from Dublin city centre. How this wasn't considered as a preferred option is beyond me.
Glad to see you're happy to ignore all the medical warnings that such a site is unsuitable. Like I said, some people prefer to compromise on the medical issues to satisfy the planning issues. I, and others, disagree.0 -
Advertisement
-
The entire thread about Dublin
Did the planners even look at Cork University Hospital?
There is a site and space nearby, it's a teaching hospital and can cover maternity and as many other services of other hospitals
It's one of the best hospitals in the country
I see all these posts about sites in Dublin
Was Cork even looked at?
The border counties won't be happy but no matter where you go in Ireland somebody will be disappointed0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.
It's not a Dublin Children's Hospital, it's a national one. And the majority of children who will be benefiting from a national centre of excellence are outside Dublin. Dublin already has several children's hospitals.
Way way way way way more people with kids will be coming to this hospital from outside Dublin than within Dublin. It's stupid for it to be located in Dublin; the only reason is the ass backwards politics of Dublin that is a cancer on the country.0 -
I hope you're kidding? Why would they put a National Children's Hospital in the furthest possible location from the majority of the country?The entire thread about Dublin
Did the planners even look at Cork University Hospital?
There is a site and space nearby, it's a teaching hospital and can cover maternity and as many other services of other hospitals
It's one of the best hospitals in the country
I see all these posts about sites in Dublin
Was Cork even looked at?
The border counties won't be happy but no matter where you go in Ireland somebody will be disappointed
Also, the Greater Dublin Area has a population from the 2011 census of 1,801,040 which represents 39.3% of the population of the country. Greater Cork is about 380,000 and the entire county is only 518,218 people.
As for Cork University Hospital being one of the "best in the country", I think you'll find you got that backwards. It was listed as the absolute worst hospital in the country by the HSE in 2010 (source, source) and has slightly improved last year but is still the worst (although no longer in the "red" category).0 -
Well I'm seeing moaning on this thread about getting from around Dublin to Tallaght
Some won't be happy no matter where it goes
All I asked was if the planners looked at it0 -
High rise is allowed by plans in plenty of locations outside the city core (that includes the north inner city which is just as Georgian as the more salubrious south), Docklands, Heuston, M50. And there are plenty of existing buildings to testify to it. The Children's hospital could be built in any number of locations other than the city core.FreudianSlippers wrote: »Say what you want about cosmetics, to each their own, but nothing higher than 4-5 floors will ever be liked by the majority of people in this country. IDK why, but that's just the way it is0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not a Dublin hospital. It's a national hospital. Dublin people can just as easily drive to, e.g., Tallaght as Dorset St. And people from anywhere in Ireland can get to Tallaght more easily than Dublin city centre.FreudianSlippers wrote: »If you completely ignore the massive benefit of co-location then maybe. It also completely ignores that fact that although it is a National Hospital for Children, Tallaght is far less accessible for people actually in Dublin than a city site like the Mater or even James.0 -
No actually it is not. Any facility must conform to both. Planning law is law. It must be complied with. No ifs or buts about it.Laminations wrote: »Yes. And this is my point. It is far more important to be suitable to medical requirements than to planning
The fact that the proponents of the Mater plan chose to ignore this is their fault. And any resulting consequence for the delay to the facility must rest at their doorstep.0 -
Again, planning *law* must be complied with.Laminations wrote: »Glad to see you're happy to ignore all the medical warnings that such a site is unsuitable. Like I said, some people prefer to compromise on the medical issues to satisfy the planning issues. I, and others, disagree.
If medical and other people chose to ignore the likely impact of the law, they simply didn't carry out due diligence on the project with any real care. That's testimony to their (in)competence.0 -
You've got that backwards, it's just as easy for people coming from outside Greater Dublin to get to the Mater, whereas it's more difficult for residents in Dublin to get to a location like Tallaght.It's not a Dublin hospital. It's a national hospital. Dublin people can just as easily drive to, e.g., Tallaght as Dorset St. And people from anywhere in Ireland can get to Tallaght more easily than Dublin city centre.
It is not a Dublin hospital, but we need to take into account that Dublin is just shy of 40% of the country's population.No actually it is not. Any facility must conform to both. Planning law is law. It must be complied with. No ifs or buts about it.
The fact that the proponents of the Mater plan chose to ignore this is their fault. And any resulting consequence for the delay to the facility must rest at their doorstep.Again, planning *law* must be complied with.
If medical and other people chose to ignore the likely impact of the law, they simply didn't carry out due diligence on the project with any real care. That's testimony to their (in)competence.
I think you'll find that you're incorrect here. Please cite the said "law". You're talking about development plans which are not legislation.0 -
Development plans are provided for in legislation. Challenges of decisions relating to the planning process can ultimately be appealed to An Bord Pleanala which is the statutory body. An appeal on a point of law to the High Court is possible.FreudianSlippers wrote: »I think you'll find that you're incorrect here. Please cite the said "law". You're talking about development plans which are not legislation.
An Bord Pleanala is part of a legal process.
Planning law and development plans are not some optional extra.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I hope you're kidding? Why would they put a National Children's Hospital in the furthest possible location from the majority of the country?
Also, the Greater Dublin Area has a population from the 2011 census of 1,801,040 which represents 39.3% of the population of the country. Greater Cork is about 380,000 and the entire county is only 518,218 people.
As for Cork University Hospital being one of the "best in the country", I think you'll find you got that backwards. It was listed as the absolute worst hospital in the country by the HSE in 2010 (source, source) and has slightly improved last year but is still the worst (although no longer in the "red" category).
Cork is the only Level 1 Trauma Centre in Ireland, and there are 1.8 million people within 100km of Cork city.0 -
Laminations wrote: »@MadsL
Your smart comments about doctors being on the board of ABP for their planning expertise misses the point. You've missed the point throughout.
I've referred you to planning law and the contract made between the citizens and the city. You claim that misses the point, but you are missing the enforceable contract. You even asked me to quote from it, I did. You seem to have stopped claiming that it doesn't prohibit high-rise at this site. As for 'smart comments' isn't making this decision on medical advice whilst going 'la-la-la-la-la' to the planning issues exactly what you are advocating?Planning is important, and in most cases is most important, but for major infrastructural projects where there are other concerns it should be weighed up as one concern and not the overriding factor.
But that is not what Planning Law says. Unless you think ABP should be given some sort of 'justifiable metrocide' clause.Here planning issues - which I still maintain are mainly aesthetic- took precedent Over medical concerns.
And I have shown you that those 'issues' are dealt with by documented policy in a Development Plan agreed with the people of Dublin.
Back to the emotive 'think of the children arguments'. Please stop doing this.Put it this way, religion is important but in a decision on blood transfusion it is not the priority concern. Medical opinion will win out if Jahovah Witnesses try and exert their religious wishes over the care of their child.
You make it sound like the Development Plan was a surprise someone sprung on the poor auld Hospital Board. They spent €33m on this, surely someone read the Development Plan.Here we have a choice of compromising on medical grounds to adhere to planning guidelines...or bending the planning guidelines to accommodate best medical practice.
'bending'?? - Almost 25% Over development on the site is not 'bending'. It is tearing it up.ABPs 'input' should be considered but it should not take priority over best medical advise.
After all of this do you really not understand how ABP's 'input' is a legally binding force of law.
Yes I did. Did you read what site I supported. Heuston, in proximity and co-location to James'. Read back.As for your point on James's and Crumlim, did you not read the report?These sites were considered and then excluded. James's actually reached the final two and was ruled out based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont.
Go Google Map the distances, are you seriously telling me that 5 minutes additional travel distance (probably 2.5 minutes in an ambulance) should dictate where the NPH should go.
As I quoted for you earlier, perhaps you could point me to where James' was ruled out "based on lack of proximity to the specialities in Beaumont".
I believe pediatric oncology will still be at James' will it not? What about those patients?
Also given that the whole Metro North thing is likely cancelled (ok, deferred if you a strage kind of optimist) doesn't that swing the whole balance back to James'?
Equally I believe all modelling has ben done on a 20% expansion rate. Crumlin has expanded 40% in a similar timeframe. What happens when the Mater site reaches it's 25% capacity?
"The HSE is allowing for an expansion of 20% to 21% on the Mater site, whereas Crumlin has had a 40% expansion in 10 years." 'Mater site could risk children's lives'Really don't scold me on my reading skills when you haven't read the report you criticise.
Well you seem to find it hard to read what I wrote a few pages back, this thread is a lot shorter than that report. To my reading consideration of James' seem a bit 'thin'.
linkyA further evaluation of the two remaining sites, St James’ Hospital and the Mater Hospital was undertaken which was focused on site capacity. The outcome of the evaluation exercise was that the Mater Hospital
site was chosen as the preferred option on the basis of their submission.
So if you add in site lands at Heuston/Steeven's where the failed high-rise developments are. Doesn't that change the proposition?0 -
If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.Development plans are provided for in legislation. Challenges of decisions relating to the planning process can ultimately be appealed to An Bord Pleanala which is the statutory body. An appeal on a point of law to the High Court is possible.
An Bord Pleanala is part of a legal process.
Planning law and development plans are not some optional extra.
ABP is an administrative tribunal and there is legislation (2006 Act) which says you can apply to the High Court by Motion on Notice to have their decision quashed. But ABP are not a "part of the legal process" and there is nothing in planning law that puts height restrictions on buildings; they allow for development plans as guides, but they are not legislation.
It is not "against the law" to build over a certain height. Sure, the development plan gives a guide to height restrictions, but these are not law. Again, if one doesn't understand these things it can give that impression... but there is no legislation that describes what you are referring to.0 -
We must all be missing it. There is no contract "made between the citizens and the city" - please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one. Spoiler alert: the development plan is not a contract and is not "law".I've referred you to planning law and the contract made between the citizens and the city. You claim that misses the point, but you are missing the enforceable contract.
What does "planning law" say about height restrictions? Other than allowing developments plans to be set which recommend height restrictions.But that is not what Planning Law says. Unless you think ABP should be given some sort of 'justifiable metrocide' clause.
What part of the Development Plan did this design not comply with?You make it sound like the Development Plan was a surprise someone sprung on the poor auld Hospital Board. They spent €33m on this, surely someone read the Development Plan.
Nope, it can be brought to the High Court by Motion on Notice - that decision is legally binding.After all of this do you really not understand how ABP's 'input' is a legally binding force of law.
If the NCH was built; no it would be there.
I believe pediatric oncology will still be at James' will it not? What about those patients?
The plan had expansion space of an additional 20%, but the current design was sufficient to 2025 IIRC.Equally I believe all modelling has ben done on a 20% expansion rate. Crumlin has expanded 40% in a similar timeframe. What happens when the Mater site reaches it's 25% capacity?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.
Arguing 'legal process' with a lawyer, sigh - here we go....
So, in a nutshell, is ABP's decision legally binding on the developer? - that is if they build it anyway would that be in breach of Planning Law? Try for a Yes/No answer.ABP is an administrative tribunal
Established by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976 and given legal powers under that and subsequent Acts. It is actually an Administrative Court - and unless you want to dismiss powers f the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal i think you would find it hard to argue that it's findings are not binding.and there is legislature (2006 Act) which says you can apply to the High Court by Motion on Notice to have their decision quashed.
Now you are being very simplistic...
The leave to have a Judicial Review is complex - Motion on Notice I believe only allows gives you leave to bring Judicial Review challenge the proceedings; the case still needs to be heard and the scope is limited to the question of if the decision was improperly conducted or illegally made (in breach of other legal concerns ie: EU Law)
http://www.pleanala.ie/publications/2010/judicialreview.htmA person wishing to challenge the validity of a Board decision may do so by way of judicial review only. Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) contain provisions in relation to challenges to the validity of a decision of the Board.
The validity of a decision taken by the Board may only be questioned by making an application for judicial review under Order 84 of The Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 15 of 1986). Sub-section 50(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires that subject to any extension to the time period which may be allowed by the High Court in accordance with subsection 50(8), any application for judicial review must be made within 8 weeks of the decision of the Board. It should be noted that any challenge taken under section 50 may question only the validity of the decision and the Courts do not adjudicate on the merits of the development from the perspectives of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and/or effects on the environment. Section 50A states that leave for judicial review shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed. Section 50B contains provisions in relation to the cost of judicial review proceedings in the High Court relating to specified types of development (including proceedings relating to decisions or actions pursuant to a law of the state that gives effect to the public participation and access to justice provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC i.e. the EIA Directive and to the provisions of Directive 2001/12/EC i.e. Directive on the assessment of the effects on the environment of certain plans and programmes). The general provision contained in section 50B is that in such cases each party shall bear its own costs
In what was are they not legally constituted, and in what way do their decisions not have force of law?But ABP are not a "part of the legal process"and there is nothing in planning law that puts height restrictions on buildings; they allow for development plans as guides, but they are not legislation.
It is not "against the law" to build over a certain height. Sure, the development plan gives a guide to height restrictions, but these are not law.
A local authority has a legal duty to uphold its development plan...
Planning & Development Act 200015.—(1) It shall be the duty of a planning authority to take such steps within its powers as may be necessary for securing the objectives of the development plan.
Failing to do so leaves them open to challenge by appeal to ABP - who can issue a decision that is is binding on the local authority and the developer.
Patronise much? You seem to be making the argument that these decisions are 'optional'. Show me how that is the case if that is your contention.Again, if one doesn't understand these things it can give that impression...but there is no legislation that describes what you are referring to.
As quoted above Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) deal with the validity of ABP decisions. Do you dispute that? Or are they not legislation?
We had a bloody minister waffling about laying down a Private Member's bill a while back...does anyone understand ABP's role?0 -
Fruedian_Slippers wrote:We must all be missing it. There is no contract "made between the citizens and the city" - please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one. Spoiler alert: the development plan is not a contract and is not "law".
I quoted it above: Section 15 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The making of a Development Plan is also a statutory process governed by rule of law covered by section 12 of the same Act.
I'm sure you must have textbook on Irish Environmental Law somewhere to hand...please show the "enforceable contract" if there is one
How would I as a private citizen be able to bring an appeal to ABP if the 'contract' was unenforceable ?? Spoiler Alert: Fruedian Slippers will now patronise me as I'm not a lawyer and start banging on about torts.0 -
What part of the Development Plan did this design not comply with?
Will I quote it again???
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77496828&postcount=2030 -
As it happens, I've a pretty good understanding of law. In this case, the Oireachtas has delegated a certain function to a statutory body to make rulings on disputes arising from legislation of the Oireachtas. Local authorities adopt a plan which guides local development and helps inform An BP.FreudianSlippers wrote: »If you completely misunderstand quasi-judicial functions then I guess you could say that it is a "part of the legal process"; you'd be wrong, but ok.
I'm not arguing that An BP is a court. But it's decision is binding on the parties unless overturned by the High Court on a point of law, or by a decision of the minister. Neither am I arguing that there's a statutory height restriction. That's normally a matter of local policy, as per the development plan.
I think you're underplaying the legal function of An BP. The board has defined and potentially binding functions. Now if you want to argue that we're not talking about a legal context and rulings within it, that's your business. But as things stand, the Mater proposal has been rejected by the Board and unless overturned in the courts or by the minister, their decision will bind the parties concerned.0 -
It's not that easy. Technically ABP's decision is legally binding, but that does not mean the development plan is legally binding.Arguing 'legal process' with a lawyer, sigh - here we go....
So, in a nutshell, is ABP's decision legally binding on the developer? - that is if they build it anyway would that be in breach of Planning Law? Try for a Yes/No answer.
Yes, ABP is a quasi-judicial body created by legislation which dictates that they must create a development plan every 6 years.
To build without permission is against the P&D Act 2000. What I'm saying is that the development plan is not law. I
The bord is not a court, it is a tribunal. It is given powers to act as a quasi-judicial body. The Labour Court is also misleading, as it isn't a court but a tribunal; not all of its decisions are legally binding either.Established by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976 and given legal powers under that and subsequent Acts. It is actually an Administrative Court - and unless you want to dismiss powers f the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal i think you would find it hard to argue that it's findings are not binding.
EAT determinations are legally binding, but open to appeal.
It doesn't make development plans "law" in any event.
Yes, judicial review of legal validity once your appeal process has been expended in ABP. My point is that the development plan is not considered a legal instrument for this purpose.
Now you are being very simplistic...
The leave to have a Judicial Review is complex - Motion on Notice I believe only allows gives you leave to bring Judicial Review challenge the proceedings; the case still needs to be heard and the scope is limited to the question of if the decision was improperly conducted or illegally made (in breach of other legal concerns ie: EU Law)
Poor choice of words on my part there. Tribunals are a part of the legal process, sure.In what was are they not legally constituted, and in what way do their decisions not have force of law?
Actually it doesn't, it has a general duty to secure the objectives of its development plan (as you correctly quoted), but there is plenty of scope to go outside of that plan.A local authority has a legal duty to uphold its development plan...
True, but it doesn't make the development plan "law"Failing to do so leaves them open to challenge by appeal to ABP - who can issue a decision that is is binding on the local authority and the developer.
Perhaps I've been taken up incorrectly: development plans are not law.Patronise much? You seem to be making the argument that these decisions are 'optional'. Show me how that is the case if that is your contention.
ABP, as a tribunal, is legally entitled to a final decision giving due considerations to the scope and intent of the plan.
I don't think we're on the same page here. You've misquoted me - I've said there is no legislation that sets a height limit.As quoted above Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as substituted by section 13 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and as amended/substituted by sections 32 and 33 of the Planning and Development (amendment) Act 2010) deal with the validity of ABP decisions. Do you dispute that? Or are they not legislation?
We had a bloody minister waffling about laying down a Private Member's bill a while back...does anyone understand ABP's role?0 -
I've seen it, SC18 or something which was breached by the general size, but I don't think there is a guideline size is what I meant. So it's hard to say that they didn't read the guidelines.0 -
My point is a simple one: the development plan is not a legally binding piece of law, the local authority or ABP can breach it with no worries. Just because legislation says that these plans must be made does not automatically make the contents binding.As it happens, I've a pretty good understanding of law. In this case, the Oireachtas has delegated a certain function to a statutory body to make rulings on disputes arising from legislation of the Oireachtas. Local authorities adopt a plan which guides local development and helps inform An BP.
I'm not arguing that An BP is a court. But it's decision is binding on the parties unless overturned by the High Court on a point of law, or by a decision of the minister. Neither am I arguing that there's a statutory height restriction. That's normally a matter of local policy, as per the development plan.
I think you're underplaying the legal function of An BP. The board has defined and potentially binding functions. Now if you want to argue that we're not talking about a legal context and rulings within it, that's your business. But as things stand, the Mater proposal has been rejected by the Board and unless overturned in the courts or by the minister, their decision will bind the parties concerned.
I'm not arguing that ABP's decisions are not binding - if I gave that impression I apologise - I'm saying that the development plan is not legally binding.0 -
That's not a contract and as I said elsewhere, requiring the creation of development plans does not make those plans themselves "law"I quoted it above: Section 15 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The making of a Development Plan is also a statutory process governed by rule of law covered by section 12 of the same Act.
Thankfully, no.I'm sure you must have textbook on Irish Environmental Law somewhere to hand...
It's legislative rather than contract. *insert irrelevant condescending tort comment here I guess* :PHow would I as a private citizen be able to bring an appeal to ABP if the 'contract' was unenforceable ?? Spoiler Alert: Fruedian Slippers will now patronise me as I'm not a lawyer and start banging on about torts.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »It's not that easy. Technically ABP's decision is legally binding, but that does not mean the development plan is legally binding.The former Attorney general disagrees...‘The plan is a statement of objectives; it informs the community, in its draft form, of the intended objectives and affords the community the opportunity of inspection, criticism, and, if thought proper, objection. When adopted it forms an environmental contract between the planning authority, the council, and the community, embodying a promise by the council that it will regulate private development in a manner consistent with the objectives stated in the plan . . .’ The Attorney General (McGarry) v. Sligo County Council [1991] 1 I.R. 99Yes, ABP is a quasi-judicial body created by legislation which dictates that they must create a development plan every 6 years.
They are an administrative court with similar powers to the Labour Court are they not? That is they have powers to make legally binding decisions on 3rd parties not present.
. But it is the basis on which legal argument is made for or against a development is it not?To build without permission is against the P&D Act 2000. What I'm saying is that the development plan is not lawThe bord is not a court, it is a tribunal. It is given powers to act as a quasi-judicial body. The Labour Court is also misleading, as it isn't a court but a tribunal; not all of its decisions are legally binding either.
But some of them are, as are ABP's decisions.
ABP detirminations are open to judicial review, what is your point?EAT determinations are legally binding, but open to appeal.It doesn't make development plans "law" in any event.
They are the foundation for the legality of development.
You are misrepresenting again. The reason it is not considered in matters relating to appeal is because the courts cannot be held to have expertise;Yes, judicial review of legal validity once your appeal process has been expended in ABP. My point is that the development plan is not considered a legal instrument for this purpose.
O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala (1993) 1 I.R. 39.The Court held inter alia that:
Under the provisions of the Planning Acts the legislature has unequivocally and firmly placed questions of planning, questions of the balance between development and the environment and the proper convenience and amenities of an area within the jurisdiction of the planning authorities and the Board which are expected to have special skill, competence and experience in planning questions. The court is not faced with that jurisdiction, nor is it expected to, nor can it, exercise discretion with regard to planning matters. I am satisfied that in order for an applicant for judicial review to satisfy a court that the decision-making authority has acted irrationally in the sense which I have outlined above so that the court can intervene and quash its decision, it is necessary that the applicant should establish to the satisfaction of the court that the decision-making authority had before it no relevant material which would support its decision."
Poor choice of words on my part. I would have stated 'legal process' rather than law earlier.Poor choice of words on my part there. Tribunals are a part of the legal process, sure.Actually it doesn't, it has a general duty to secure the objectives of its development plan (as you correctly quoted), but there is plenty of scope to go outside of that plan.
Which leaves it liable to appeal to ABP. The vast majority of 3rd Party appeals to ABP in recent times have been the result of an LA granting permission in breach of the development plan.
Forgive my shorthand in using a lay definition. It has legal standing, how about that. See the AG remarks on an 'environmental contract'.True, but it doesn't make the development plan "law"
Hair splitting tbh. Same outcome.Perhaps I've been taken up incorrectly: development plans are not law. ABP, as a tribunal, is legally entitled to a final decision giving due considerations to the scope and intent of the plan.I don't think we're on the same page here. You've misquoted me - I've said there is no legislation that sets a height limit.
No, but there is no legislation that says that An Post cannot paint the GPO bright yellow either. But you could bring plenty of evidence that shows that it should not be legally permitted based on Development Plan Policies and Objectives.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I've seen it, SC18 or something which was breached by the general size, but I don't think there is a guideline size is what I meant. So it's hard to say that they didn't read the guidelines.
read Chapter 17 of the Development Plan...
You have height and plot ratio issues with the Mater Plan.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement