Edenderry looses planning permission

fclauson

So in a single move the courts have reduced CO2 output from electricity generation

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/59901538db4c321780257ee700362a4c?OpenDocument

What is more interesting is Para 73

73. The court is of the opinion that the respondent has interpreted the relevant legislation applying Article 3 of the directive too narrowly. The first named applicant is entitled to a declaration in accordance with para. 3 of the order for leave of 17th January, 2004, that is a declaration that where the environmental effects of extracting the peat fuel source for the thermal power plant were not properly assessed for the purposes of the EIA Directive, the respondent is obliged to ensure the effectiveness of the EIA Directive by subjecting those environmental effects to Environmental Impact Assessment before granting planning permission for the thermal power plant.

This has a massive implication for wind farms which have consistently failed to assess noise impact on local residents - finally Article 3 enters the decision process with more teeth than before

ted1

fclauson wrote: »

So in a single move the courts have reduced CO2 output from electricity generation

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/59901538db4c321780257ee700362a4c?OpenDocument

What is more interesting is Para 73

73. The court is of the opinion that the respondent has interpreted the relevant legislation applying Article 3 of the directive too narrowly. The first named applicant is entitled to a declaration in accordance with para. 3 of the order for leave of 17th January, 2004, that is a declaration that where the environmental effects of extracting the peat fuel source for the thermal power plant were not properly assessed for the purposes of the EIA Directive, the respondent is obliged to ensure the effectiveness of the EIA Directive by subjecting those environmental effects to Environmental Impact Assessment before granting planning permission for the thermal power plant.

This has a massive implication for wind farms which have consistently failed to assess noise impact on local residents - finally Article 3 enters the decision process with more teeth than before

An absolute disgrace , this really affects us all. We as an island nation are solely reliant an the generosity of private companies to meet our energy requirements.

Should the oil and gas suppliers choose to triple their prices or seize supply we now have no way of meeting our energy needs

Macha

This is such fantastic news.

Peat is a filthy fuel, second only to lignite in air pollution. Case in point, the industry has been desperately fighting tougher EU air pollution standards that would increase the cost of running their plants post-2020 but reduce cases of respiratory diseases, etc and save millions in related health costs.

Then of course there are the savings in carbon emissions from cutting into bogs and burning peat and the destruction of precious bogland with high biodiversity value. Added to that, we all know the huge impact Bord na M na's industrial scale peat cutting has on the debate with "small scale" cutters.

I think I'll go have a drink to celebrate.

Macha

[mod] also, we have enough live threads discussing wind (to be honest, every thread on energy seems to turn into one these days). This one should stick to discussion on peat. [/mod]

J.pilkington

It's fantastic news for the people of Edenderry and all the workers of bord na mona....

Insensitive much to be raising a glass to an announcement like this which will involve job losses? There are going to be a lot of devestated families with bleak futures out there. The midlands is a enough tough place (economically) to live in. The last thing someone from this town wants to read is of people celebrating their hardship

This semi state company is going to be in real trouble and the cost to the Irish tax payer will far out weigh and carbon tax saving you mention

Macha

Oh please. Would you say the same about the closure of a cigarette factory?

Let's spell out how this company works. It relies on massive state subsides to dig up important biodiverse bogland, releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. It chucks it in a shamefully inefficient plant (c. 30%), which belches out air pollution like NOx, dioxins and Mercury, that in turn cause respiratory disease, reduced IQ and more. And we should keep going to save some jobs? You just couldn't make it up. Jesus Christ I really despair for humanity sometimes.

kimokanto

I am in agreement with JPilkington, "celebrating" an event that involves job losses & economic hardship is biased & insensitive.
Perhaps, Macha, a moderator should be capable of more moderate/balanced/mature comments? Change is rarely well managed if people are polarised & alienated.
I acknowledge that we need to drastically overhaul our energy production but these moves need to have scope for sensitive re-deployment & assistance for the workers affected. The method of energy production is unarguably foul, but the workers were just trying to provide for their families & as such should not be vilified.

fclauson

it all depends on which horse you ride

the imported fuel cost horse
the jobs horse
the CO2/other pollutants horse
the PSO levy horse
the environmental protection horse
.....

each of the above has a price, an effect and an implication

the court case calls out that the environmental piece was not full investigated and asked the developer to look again.
Peat burning in my view looses on balance - but I am open to persuasion

Macha

I was posting as a regular poster, not a moderator so you can that nonsense out. Also, no one is "vilifying" the workers.

Of course the employees should receive any support that anyone made redundant does in this country but I will not apologise for celebrating the decision not to prolong the life of a toxic power plant.

kimokanto

Not posting as a moderator eh??

Your comment regarding workers being afforded the provisions re redundancy. ...In an economically depressed region this amounts to vilification.

An apology is not required for your environmental principles which I am sure are impeccable, however when it comes to sensitivity towards your fellow countrymen? You are grossly insensitive & due to your comments definitely in need of apology.

machiavellianme

Macha wrote: »

[mod] also, we have enough live threads discussing wind (to be honest, every thread on energy seems to turn into one these days). This one should stick to discussion on peat. [/mod]

Why? There are two open cycle gas turbines at edenderry power station also. Can we not discuss them? They are particularly useful units at peak times.

machiavellianme

Plus, edenderry is a co-firing unit with biomass accounting for a significant portion of its fuel. Our one indigenous biofuel and we seek to close down the only unit burning it. At least we'll have the poolbeg incinerator soon to make up for the shortfall in MW.

Macha

kimokanto wrote: »

Not posting as a moderator eh??

Your comment regarding workers being afforded the provisions re redundancy. ...In an economically depressed region this amounts to vilification.

An apology is not required for your environmental principles which I am sure are impeccable, however when it comes to sensitivity towards your fellow countrymen? You are grossly insensitive & due to your comments definitely in need of apology.

Yes. Note how when I post as a mod, I use mod tags. Your defence of an industry that causes ill health to thousands of people is grossly insensitive and insulting to those people. Apologise immediately!

machiavellianme wrote: »

Why? There are two open cycle gas turbines at edenderry power station also. Can we not discuss them? They are particularly useful units at peak times.

Ah, my understanding is the ruling refers to and only applies to the peat-fired station. Do you have the details of these gas plants and what, if any, impact the ruling will have on them?

Ref cofiring. As you say, biomass is an important indigenous resource. But it's also very limited (I wonder how much of this plant's biomass is imported?). I don't think burning it in a c 30% efficient power plant is making best use of it.

kimokanto

I think you run with the hare & hunt with the hound. A repellent trait in any debater.
If you bothered to read my post rather than honing your invective, you would see that I, like you object to peat for energy. I am not an apologist for Bord na M.
I just object to the insensitivity you display towards the people working there out of economic necessity & your plan to celebrate what will be a potential nightmare for the workers.

Macha

[mod] OK, now I am posting as a moderator. You're getting personally insulting. Cut it out. You're also derailing this thread. Get back on topic. And I'll add a preemptive reminder that there's to be no in-thread discussion of moderation [/mod]

Markcheese

Can more biomass be put through edenderry ? Or would BNM be able to import cheap lignite to fuel the station ? ( the planning issue is over the turf extraction -no turf no problem ? Or is that a bit simplistic ? )
30 % efficency does seem low and it's not as if the station is ancient -

Nukem

This has been coming awhile for BnM. While in one respect its great news for emissions reduction but devastating for the local economy around this plant:(

I am torn that the plants are such high polluters, which are so heavily subsidised (€120 million per year by the tax payer) versus the damage to the people directly involved.

The logical person in me says it's a great thing, as we are paying to pollute with BnM subventions and would have more than likely missed our emissions targets as these were a large contributors and then would to pay fines for our energy policy blindness. Basically throwing bad money after bad money.

What does this spell on the environmental side for other peat and coal plants in Ireland and then as rightly pointed out for future wind farms,if we apply the same EIA scrutiny.

Watershed moment?

Macha

Definitely. This ruling has huge implications for other EIA cases in Ireland and possibly broader, given it's an EU Directive.

fclauson

What is more interesting is if you read the Planning and Development act 2000(as amended) - specifically around 177A,B,C,D you will see that if a development has a faulty EIA then it can apply for a "substitute planning consent"

This could lead to the specter of developments which have planning and are built having their planning invalidated

Angry bird

fclauson wrote: »

What is more interesting is if you read the Planning and Development act 2000(as amended) - specifically around 177A,B,C,D you will see that if a development has a faulty EIA then it can apply for a "substitute planning consent"

This could lead to the specter of developments which have planning and are built having their planning invalidated

I think this will happen and will see existing wind farms closed down, perhaps temporarily or for good. The substitute consent process is a very unsatisfactory process.

kimokanto

In the not so distant past we had an EU directive which dismantled beet sugar processing infrastructure on this island due to its "inefficiency" . Workers & farmers suffered & the country lost some autonomy re a potential energy crop. Now we see similar (albeit more complex) rationale being applied, but the result is the same. Loss of autonomy & jobs lost. Just saying like. ...

Markcheese

Angry bird wrote:

I think this will happen and will see existing wind farms closed down, perhaps temporarily or for good. The substitute consent process is a very unsatisfactory process.

There a very nasty scenario in there . Where no infrastructure ever gets built -because whos gonna invest if planning gets over turned after several years .
No new water system for dublin - ringsend sewerage works being turned off - all the (relativly )new gas power station being switched off and the grid shutting down. No metro north ect ect .

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

There a very nasty scenario in there . Where no infrastructure ever gets built -because whos gonna invest if planning gets over turned after several years .
No new water system for dublin - ringsend sewerage works being turned off - all the (relativly )new gas power station being switched off and the grid shutting down. No metro north ect ect .

Agreed its very messy - the humor of it is that the EU directive with its roots in Aarhaus came about partially because the Germans Greens wanting to rid itself of nuclear. The view was that if they made the public involved in decision making then none of those "nasty" developments would happen - and only "nice" ones would.

We now see this turned on its head (rightly or wrongly) and the very legislation which was supposed to protect and involve the public the public are using to protect and involve themselves not to have stuff built which they think is mad (wind, water meters, electrical infrastructure .... the list goes on)

I suppose that the benefit of living in a democracy !!

Angry bird

Markcheese wrote: »

Angry bird wrote:

I think this will happen and will see existing wind farms closed down, perhaps temporarily or for good. The substitute consent process is a very unsatisfactory process.

There a very nasty scenario in there . Where no infrastructure ever gets built -because whos gonna invest if planning gets over turned after several years .
No new water system for dublin - ringsend sewerage works being turned off - all the (relativly )new gas power station being switched off and the grid shutting down. No metro north ect ect .

Only if the relevant Planning Authority do not do their job properly, whether this be the proper enforcement of planning conditions or carrying out a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment.

Angry bird

Before the successful judgment in favour of Sweetman v's Galway bypass in 2013, Irish law was inadequate re compliamce with EU Directives. In other words, planning projects before this may not have been properly assessed. Since that judgment against the state and subsequent updating of Irish law and guidance, there is no real excuse. The Edenderry decision was basically that the relevant Planning Authority did not take into account other relevant factors in the EIA assessment. Now An Bord Pleanala has more expertise and experience in these matters than probably any of the Councils, and they're still getting it wrong. Also planning conditions of built wind farms may not be robust enough to properly protect neighbouring amenities. The Department needs to issue the new wind guidelines, taking into account the European and High Court judgements against planning decisions, and Councils and other relevant statutory bodies like the EPA for instance, need to be more proactive in enforcing conditions or basically the terms of the agreed contract. Learn from the mistakes, and don't repeat them.

djpbarry

kimokanto wrote: »

In the not so distant past we had an EU directive which dismantled beet sugar processing infrastructure on this island due to its "inefficiency" .

Somewhat off-topic, but I think what you’re referring to is the removal/reduction of subsidies for sugar production by the EU, which lead to sugar production in Ireland becoming unprofitable. No “dismantling” necessary.

djpbarry

kimokanto wrote: »

An apology is not required for your environmental principles which I am sure are impeccable, however when it comes to sensitivity towards your fellow countrymen? You are grossly insensitive & due to your comments definitely in need of apology.

kimokanto wrote: »

I just object to the insensitivity you display towards the people working there out of economic necessity & your plan to celebrate what will be a potential nightmare for the workers.

[MOD]Everyone is entitled to their opinion, moderators included. Nobody is required to apologise for an opinion that is not shared by others.

Less of the personal comments please.[/MOD]

fclauson

back to topic
what do people think the implications are of this decision from an EIA perspective

machiavellianme

fclauson wrote: »

Agreed its very messy - the humor of it is that the EU directive with its roots in Aarhaus came about partially because the Germans Greens wanting to rid itself of nuclear. The view was that if they made the public involved in decision making then none of those "nasty" developments would happen - and only "nice" ones would.

We now see this turned on its head (rightly or wrongly) and the very legislation which was supposed to protect and involve the public the public are using to protect and involve themselves not to have stuff built which they think is mad (wind, water meters, electrical infrastructure .... the list goes on)

I suppose that the benefit of living in a democracy !!

There'll be nothing built going forward and anything that is there will be removed.
Back to the pre-electrification era for Ireland. Then these directives won't matter as we won't have the internet to hear about them.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

back to topic
what do people think the implications are of this decision from an EIA perspective

My understanding is that the planning permission was quashed because the scope of the EIA was too narrow, ie it only looked at the on-site activities (burning peat), not the fact that peat would have to continue being extracted to supply the plant.

Logically, that means that as a result of this ruling, all EIAs must take a similarly wide view. I'm not an expert in EIAs so I can't give any concrete examples.

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

My understanding is that the planning permission was quashed because the scope of the EIA was too narrow, ie it only looked at the on-site activities (burning peat), not the fact that peat would have to continue being extracted to supply the plant.

Logically, that means that as a result of this ruling, all EIAs must take a similarly wide view. I'm not an expert in EIAs so I can't give any concrete examples.

think of a road - how wide does the indirect impact spread (traffic, noise , commuter journey times .........)
think of a wind farm - how wide does the indirect impact spread (noise, tourism, property values, electricity prices ......)
think of a water treatment works - how wide is the indirect impact (water purity, the fluoride argument, digging up the roads ....)
think of any big bit of infrastructure covered under the EIA and think of the indirect impact

I think this is a very far reaching judgement - ABP (or any other Irish or EU planning authority) now needs to be very clear that the have spread their determination wide enough to capture most things but not too wide to be classed as mad

I think it will open many more appeals/court cases because "joe" objector will think the net has not gone wide enough and it will bog down decision make no end.

Is it a good thing - well as a member of the public are you a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed on .....) or do you want to be an active member of society. (see the lack of progress of wind farms through ABP this year https://twitter.com/CAWT_Donegal/status/659819599257608192 - its effectively stopped - this list does not list the large number of projects which keep having decisions deferred

same is true for large road schemes such as the Galway bypass (which some say will never happen)

Social media has changed radically the engagement model - a single tweet to British Airways about lost bags last year went viral to 2M+ people

A single planning application can now be commented on by 100's of people - and following ABP's review if they drop the submission charges (which I think they should) then ABP will have 100's of people who rightly are expressing an opinion about how the environment is being changed.

Is this progress for the human race - well do you agree that the government know best and can do what they like ???