Apple Athenry data centre

Greaney

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

It’s useless wasteland where the data center was to be built, good for nothing land was going to be turned into massive money spinner for the local and wider economy and create lots of construction and permanent jobs. I still can’t believe they just didn’t totally ignore the people trying to sabotage this after the first appeal, should have been shown the door and given no avenue whatsoever to stop it progressing.

This 'useless wasteland'..
1) Has an outdoor classroom
2) Has cars parked at the entrance everyday and is used as a local park
3) Is low lying karst landscape
4) Acts as a sponge to absorb water. Since they cleared out the center of the forest of trees, flooding has started at the golf course next door which will cost a fortune to deal with.

But back to the original points, our Nations resources, they are more than just a wood

And since you bring up a persons right to object... do you honestly want our planning system to have no input from the public. Be careful what you wish for...

gordongekko

Greaney wrote: »

This 'useless wasteland'..
golf course next door

Now thats a waste of land

JJJackal

Greaney wrote: »

This 'useless wasteland'..
1) Has an outdoor classroom
2) Has cars parked at the entrance everyday and is used as a local park
3) Is low lying karst landscape
4) Acts as a sponge to absorb water. Since they cleared out the center of the forest of trees, flooding has started at the golf course next door which will cost a fortune to deal with.

But back to the original points, our Nations resources, they are more than just a wood

And since you bring up a persons right to object... do you honestly want our planning system to have no input from the public. Be careful what you wish for...

The planning system should allow locals and people/businesses locally genuinely effected by building the data centre at that site to object. Random people from all over the country should not be allowed to continuously object to such projects eg I am uncertain what impact this data centre would have on someone from Leinster for example

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

And since you bring up a persons right to object... do you honestly want our planning system to have no input from the public. Be careful what you wish for...

Of course people should be allowed to appeal, but once and once the appeal fails them that’s it. At the end of all this nonsense the result was the same, the appeals were all dismissed it should never have gone past the first appeal.

Plannning granted, appealed, appeal failed then that’s it ok more avenues to stop it. Also as mentioned above only locals should be allowed to appeal and they should have proper no nonsense reasons for appealing too.

Greaney

gordongekko wrote: »

Now thats a waste of land

You may think the Golf course is a waste of land however
1) It brings employment to the area. Jobs.
2) Other than the school the only space the community can meet and socialise are the facilities in the Golf course, who've allowed for lots of meetings and fundraisers on their premises.

JJJackal wrote: »

The planning system should allow locals and people/businesses locally genuinely effected by building the data centre at that site to object. Random people from all over the country should not be allowed to continuously object to such projects eg I am uncertain what impact this data centre would have on someone from Leinster for example

If that were the case, then academics from a University couldn't object to say, works happening near a national monument.

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

Of course people should be allowed to appeal, but once and once the appeal fails them that’s it. At the end of all this nonsense the result was the same, the appeals were all dismissed it should never have gone past the first appeal.

Plannning granted, appealed, appeal failed then that’s it ok more avenues to stop it. Also as mentioned above only locals should be allowed to appeal and they should have proper no nonsense reasons for appealing too.

1) The people who appealed at every level were from the area.
2) How do you know they didn't have good reasons to appeal? Did you read the environmental reports/assessments on the matter?
3) Our planning and legal systems can often be quiet political (though it shouldn't be), that's why appeals go beyond the local court. This Issue could still go to Europe

This was an image stuck up in Athenry at the time
[IMG][/img]

Robbo

Greaney wrote: »

3) Our planning and legal systems can often be quiet political (though it shouldn't be), that's why appeals go beyond the local court. This Issue could still go to Europe

It can't go to Europe at this point. The CJEU isn't some kind of repechage system. The Supreme Court refused an Article 267 reference and that's the end of the matter.

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

1) The people who appealed at every level were from the area.
2) How do you know they didn't have good reasons to appeal? Did you read the environmental reports/assessments on the matter?
3) Our planning and legal systems can often be quiet political (though it shouldn't be), that's why appeals go beyond the local court. This Issue could still go to Europe

This was an image stuck up in Athenry at the time
[IMG][/img]

No they weren't the biggest objector was from the other side of the country and doing so for his own gain.

I know a number of people living and working in the area and the area was overwhelmingly in favour of it and massively annoyed by the one or two people being a nuisance and stopping it by appealing, there was even a march in favour of it organised by locals if I remember correctly. I remember talking to one person the day after apple pulled out and he mentioned that there was a real depressing feeling all around his work place that it would not be going ahead (not a work place that would gain directly in anyway either).

Greaney

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

No they weren't the biggest objector was from the other side of the country and doing so for his own gain.

I know a number of people living and working in the area and the area was overwhelmingly in favour of it and massively annoyed by the one or two people being a nuisance and stopping it by appealing, there was even a march in favour of it organised by locals if I remember correctly. I remember talking to one person the day after apple pulled out and he mentioned that there was a real depressing feeling all around his work place that it would not be going ahead (not a work place that would gain directly in anyway either).

The 'biggest' objector?? What are you talking about? What on earth does 'biggest' mean? Fattest? Richest?

After the first appeal, there were two, joint objectors of the case both living in Athenry. One lived immediately beside the forest, the other in the town. I live there! The objectors families were very subtly bullied. Many in the area felt they couldn't question the development because of how nasty the pro data-centre campaign got.

?Cee?view

Greaney wrote: »

The 'biggest' objector?? What are you talking about? What on earth does 'biggest' mean? Fattest? Richest?

After the first appeal, there were two, joint objectors of the case both living in Athenry. One lived immediately beside the forest, the other in the town. I live there! The objectors families were very subtly bullied. Many in the area felt they couldn't question the development because of how nasty the pro data-centre campaign got.

But do you accept what you posted above was at best misleading?

"1) The people who appealed at every level were from the area."

Greaney

?Cee?view wrote: »

But do you accept what you posted above was at best misleading?

"1) The people who appealed at every level were from the area."

What are you talking about??

I thought folk knew all the levels of appeal ( County Planning, An Board Pleanála, The High Court, The Supreme court) it appears, I was wrong…

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

What are you talking about??

I thought folk knew all the levels of appeal ( County Planning, An Board Plean, The High Court, The Supreme court) it appears, I was wrong…

Is point is that there was a person from the other side of the county driving the appeals from start to finish.

Johnny Poor Lemonade

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

Is point is that there was a person from the other side of the county driving the appeals from start to finish.

There was a landowner from Wicklow I think that wanted it built on his land and tried to frustrate the Athenry location to that end.

He appealed yes, but his appeal was dismissed as vexatious and only the appeals from the 2 locals were taken to the Supreme Court.

Their appeals were related to the decision taken by ABP not assessing the environmental impact to a sufficient extent. They had legitimate reasons for their appeals and, despite the flag wavers, they had and still have, a significant amount of support locally

Greaney

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

Is point is that there was a person from the other side of the county driving the appeals from start to finish.

That's is simply not true. The man, from Wicklow, never appealed at county and An Board Pleanála level. He appealed at Highcourt level, and he was found to have 'no standing', maybe because he did not appeal from the beginning.

Robbo

Greaney wrote: »

That's is simply not true. The man, from Wicklow, never appealed at county and An Board Pleanála level. He appealed at Highcourt level, and he was found to have 'no standing', maybe because he did not appeal from the beginning.

For someone who's throwing shade about others knowledge of the planning process and administrative law, you surely know that a judicial review is not an appeal?

It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has previously held (thanks Peter Sweetman!) that a failure to participate in the planning process is not an absolute bar to seeking a judicial review, merely a hurdle to be overcome. It would be fairer to say that Mr McDonagh was denied locus standi because (i) he ran the case himself and (ii) significant non-disclosure.

If he'd been professionally represented, I have no doubt that he would have been able to meet the test in Grace & Sweetman.

Greaney

Robbo wrote: »

For someone who's throwing shade about others knowledge of the planning process and administrative law, you surely know that a judicial review is not an appeal?

It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has previously held (thanks Peter Sweetman!) that a failure to participate in the planning process is not an absolute bar to seeking a judicial review, merely a hurdle to be overcome. It would be fairer to say that Mr McDonagh was denied locus standi because (i) he ran the case himself and (ii) significant non-disclosure.

If he'd been professionally represented, I have no doubt that he would have been able to meet the test in Grace & Sweetman.

Yer right, I was getting miffed and ranty there because it seems that folk are getting the objectors mixed up on when they objected. There seems to be a narrative in this where folk think the objectors are not local.

In fairness, I said 'maybe' Mc Donagh had not been allowed to go further because he didn't take part in the process from the start, that's speculation. Alas, I think you're right and one simply has to engage in expensive legal council to get a hearing in Irish courts.

JJJackal

Greaney wrote: »

Yer right, I was getting miffed and ranty there because it seems that folk are getting the objectors mixed up on when they objected. There seems to be a narrative in this where folk think the objectors are not local.

In fairness, I said 'maybe' Mc Donagh had not been allowed to go further because he didn't take part in the process from the start, that's speculation. Alas, I think you're right and one simply has to engage in expensive legal council to get a hearing in Irish courts.

All this aside the objection process should be quick - from day planning granted, the builder should expect all objections to be out of the way and construction started in less than 6 months

Whether its a data centre or large national park or windfarm

Gadgetman496

JJJackal wrote: »

All this aside the objection process should be quick - from day planning granted, the builder should expect all objections to be out of the way and construction started in less than 6 months

Whether its a data centre or large national park or windfarm

So it's a foregone conclusion that the objections will be defeated?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Their appeals were related to the decision taken by ABP not assessing the environmental impact to a sufficient extent. They had legitimate reasons for their appeals and, despite the flag wavers, they had and still have, a significant amount of support locally

As I said going by the number of people I know in the area the general consensus was almost 100% support for the data center aside from the handful appealing. The 2000 people who rallied in support and shunning of those appealing very clearly shows this. The appeals should have been thrown out after the first attempt and no avenue given to continue and at the end their appeals were rightly dismissed after costing co. Galway many many jobs and many millions of euro, I hope they never allows to forget the damage they have done.

JJJackal

JJJackal wrote: »

All this aside the objection process should be quick - from day planning granted, the builder should expect all objections to be out of the way and construction started in less than 6 months

Whether its a data centre or large national park or windfarm

The issue is the resourcing of ABP and the courts. Want faster turnaround times, staff those properly

Johnny Poor Lemonade

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

The appeals should have been thrown out after the first attempt and no avenue given to continue and at the end their appeals were rightly dismissed after costing co. Galway many many jobs and many millions of euro.

Thankfully that is not how the legal process works

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully that is not how the legal process works

After this fiasco there is a strong indication things will change to prevent this type of nonsense happening again.

Johnny Poor Lemonade

Johnny Poor Lemonade wrote: »

After this fiasco there is a strong indication things will change to prevent this type of nonsense happening again.

Which nonsense?

The inexorably slow appeal process?

The ability to appeal to the higher planning authority?

The ability to appeal decisions made by the higher planning authority?

The ability to escalate through the courts?

Which rights would you like to see extinguished in order to facilitate an iTunes warehouse?

JJJackal

Deleted User wrote: »

Which nonsense?

The inexorably slow appeal process?

The ability to appeal to the higher planning authority?

The ability to appeal decisions made by the higher planning authority?

The ability to escalate through the courts?

Which rights would you like to see extinguished in order to facilitate an iTunes warehouse?

I would like to see the right to appeal inexorably slowly extinguished. Happy for people to keep their other rights

JJJackal

JJJackal wrote: »

I would like to see the right to appeal inexorably slowly extinguished. Happy for people to keep their other rights

Be careful what you wish for

JJJackal

Deleted User wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for

I am happy for people to have the right to appeal quickly - its the very slow nature of appeal (the outcome/ruling should be the same) that should be changed

Greaney

weshtawake wrote: »

What a great country when a couple of crank objectors can scuttle plans for a multi Euro "green" investment by one of the biggest corporations in the world. One of the objectors I note lives in Wicklow where, obviously, he would be seriously impacted by the development....not!

I know I'm digging this old post but I think it's fair to highlight this.... This article from The Irish Times brings up the concerns for the objectors in Atherny (from Athenry). It's a pity that folk have to suffer a besmerch on their character to highlight genuine environmental concerns where our planning authority fall short, and overlook obvious issues.

threeball

Greaney wrote: »

I know I'm digging this old post but I think it's fair to highlight this.... This article from The Irish Times brings up the concerns for the objectors in Atherny (from Athenry). It's a pity that folk have to suffer a besmerch on their character to highlight genuine environmental concerns where our planning authority fall short, and overlook obvious issues.

This is exactly it. This data centres consume massive amounts of energy and are actually reducing our capacity to meet our Kyoto targets which will then fall to the tax payer and not on apple, google etc. So we'll end up paying massive penalties them for years to come.
If the government actually forced these data centres to use their waste heat for district heating systems we might have a decent model to work off but instead they won't touch it and the data centre owners don't want to go down this route either. Their Green credentials are garbage. Buying power off a windfarm in Donegal to feed a DC in Dublin does not make you green as we're all connected to a common grid.

1641

Whether in is in Athenry, Aalborg or Anchorage these data hungry centres are going to be built. And it is not just data centres. The factors contributing to climate change know no international boundaries. The debate around this is farcial and ideological rather than practical. Are people really going to change their lifestyles drastically - in the way that is required to reduce energy and natural resource demand?

As regards our 2050 committments - why is nuclear generation ruled taboo even as an agenda topic in this country? Ironically those most vocal in shutting this down are those who most loudly proclaim their concerns about climate change. I am not suggesting the concerns themselves are not valid but they need to be open to all options. Wind alone is not going to do it.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0502/1047031-is-it-time-for-ireland-to-give-nuclear-power-a-chance/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/is-ireland-ready-to-take-on-the-nuclear-option-to-tackle-climate-change-941773.html

threeball

1641 wrote: »

Whether in is in Athenry, Aalborg or Anchorage these data hungry centres are going to be built. And it is not just data centres. The factors contributing to climate change know no international boundaries. The debate around this is farcial and ideological rather than practical. Are people really going to change their lifestyles drastically - in the way that is required to reduce energy and natural resource demand?

As regards our 2050 committments - why is nuclear generation ruled taboo even as an agenda topic in this country? Ironically those most vocal in shutting this down are those who most loudly proclaim their concerns about climate change. I am not suggesting the concerns themselves are not valid but they need to be open to all options. Wind alone is not going to do it.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0502/1047031-is-it-time-for-ireland-to-give-nuclear-power-a-chance/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/is-ireland-ready-to-take-on-the-nuclear-option-to-tackle-climate-change-941773.html

If its build in anchorage we don't end up paying the taxes every year to cover its carbon emissions so good luck to them if they want it. It creates minimal jobs, no revenue for the exchequer. Its just a massive energy consumer. Its the business version of a leech. All take no give. Talk about Nuclear is fine but taking about nuclear to supply data centres is farcical. A multibillion piece of infrastructure to provide a building that does nothing but consume.

1641

threeball wrote: »

1 If its build in anchorage we don't end up paying the taxes every year to cover its carbon emissions so good luck to them if they want it. ..........
2.Talk about Nuclear is fine but taking about nuclear to supply data centres is farcical. A multibillion piece of infrastructure to provide a building that does nothing but consume.

1.If it is to avoid possible fines funded from taxes (including massive corporation taxes, by the way) that is fine. But it does nothing in terms of global emissions and climate change.


2. No, not nuclear to supply data centres specifically. Nuclear to replace much of our carbon generated energy comsumption and to back up wind power, etc. Where is the electricity for our replacement fleet of electric cars to come from?



However, as regards data centres, seeing as they have to go somewhere I don't know that we have to get sniffy about it - are we against those aspects of modern life that require data centres or just having them here?.