An Taisce

bear1

I simply can't understand how these idiots are allowed to have any say when it comes to infrastructure within a city, in this case Dublin.
First, they lodge an appeal against the Tara St tower due to the intrusive view it would have for the Four Courts :rolleyes: and now they have lodged an appeal with ABD against an 8 storey hotel behind the Four Courts because?

"An Taisce added that its appeal “had raised particular concern on the views of the Four Courts from Christchurch and Winetavern Street from across the river, and the appropriate building height levels applied in other planning decisions in the area”.

Fcuk right off, the building behind it is an utter disgrace for a city center location.

Link:

http://www.thejournal.ie/an-taisce-river-house-3529798-Aug2017/

These people should be banned from appealing such things and I sincerely hope the will lose both the Tara street scheme and this one as a nice big fcuk you to them.

Twats.

Ubbquittious

They seem like an awful shower of moaners. Complaining about people houses in the countryside, complaining about tall buildings in the city. Wasn't this the same crowd that tried to stop a fish factory from opening because of the carbon footprint from the workers having to drive to it?

8 storey isn't even tall fer feck sake.

topper75

They are just a lobby group - they have no special authority.

The problem is that aesthetics are such a subjective thing.

My issue with AT is they appear to be against everything. They don't offer workable alternatives, so for me they don't live in the real world.

Syphonax

They literally are just another layer of bureaucracy, repeat serial planning objectors. I dont see why the actually exist when there is already the EPA, Heritage offices in county councils and government departments.

EndaHonesty

bear1 wrote: »

I simply can't understand how these idiots are allowed to have any say when it comes to infrastructure within a city, in this case Dublin.
First, they lodge an appeal against the Tara St tower due to the intrusive view it would have for the Four Courts :rolleyes: and now they have lodged an appeal with ABD against an 8 storey hotel behind the Four Courts because?

"An Taisce added that its appeal “had raised particular concern on the views of the Four Courts from Christchurch and Winetavern Street from across the river, and the appropriate building height levels applied in other planning decisions in the area”.

Fcuk right off, the building behind it is an utter disgrace for a city center location.

Link:

http://www.thejournal.ie/an-taisce-river-house-3529798-Aug2017/

These people should be banned from appealing such things and I sincerely hope the will lose both the Tara street scheme and this one as a nice big fcuk you to them.

Twats.

Want to have a laugh??

An Taisce is funded by the state.

https://benefacts.ie/org/22df846e-5140-45e9-a774-5db7bf9ee6fb

Out of €3.5 million income €3.2 million comes from government departments...

Peregrine

An Taisce lodges objections to anything over two storeys. Serial objectors such as them need to be laughed out the door. Waste of time, money and precious city space hearing those ****ers out every time because their 2000th objection is somehow seen to be just as valid as the first one and not the lobbying of a miserable band of gob****es who wants to keep Ireland stuck in the 1930s.

Grayson

You could join it.

Atoms for Peace

They seem to want to keep everything outside the pale to resemble something out of the likes of Darby O'Gill and the Little People yet at the same time don't want high rise in the cities.
They appear to be bunch of institutionalised nimby's that represent a very specific class out of touch from reality who live in the leafy suburbs with holiday homes in the west.

Yamanoto

I doubt they get everything right & I'd certainly like to see high rise development happening in the docklands & Dublin Port, but my gut tells me we'd be living somewhere with all the aesthetic appeal of Mogadishu, if FF, FG & Lab schlubs on DCC had been given carte blanche to develop the city centre as they saw fit.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

I simply can't understand how these idiots are allowed to have any say when it comes to infrastructure within a city, in this case Dublin.
First, they lodge an appeal against the Tara St tower due to the intrusive view it would have for the Four Courts :rolleyes: and now they have lodged an appeal with ABD against an 8 storey hotel behind the Four Courts because?

"An Taisce added that its appeal “had raised particular concern on the views of the Four Courts from Christchurch and Winetavern Street from across the river, and the appropriate building height levels applied in other planning decisions in the area”.

Was the Tara St. issue not the Custom House?

Furthermore, are they not saying they accept current plans for the development behind the Four Courts which still have 4 years before they lapse...they disagree with the proposed increase in height?

If you want to see how a tall building ruins the wonderful old architecture in a city, go see City Hall in Cork and the apartment block containing the Aldi or Lidl beside it. The utter utter morons in Cork Co Co. They had to protect one building in the entire city, one...and they couldn't manage that.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Was the Tara St. issue not the Custom House?

Furthermore, are they not saying they accept current plans for the development behind the Four Courts which still have 4 years before they lapse...they disagree with the proposed increase in height?

If you want to see how a tall building ruins the wonderful old architecture in a city, go see City Hall in Cork and the apartment block containing the Aldi or Lidl beside it. The utter utter morons in Cork Co Co. They had to protect one building in the entire city, one...and they couldn't manage that.

The thing is that one building sticks out like a sore thumb. Throw a few more in and it's a regular city skyline.

Metric Tensor

topper75 wrote: »

They are just a lobby group - they have no special authority.

They do have "special" status!

They are a "prescribed body" as per the Planning and Development Act and therefore enjoy status and benefits that other charitable or private lobby groups do not.

I could be corrected on this but I think approx. 2.3 million of their 3.3 million funding in 2015 came from public funds (with a further 280k from Irish Water, which is not counted as public funding.)


Edit: Correction - Just see EndaHonesty's post above - so 3.2 of 3.5 according to Benefacts.

Idbatterim

sn tisce are a bunch of trolls. But they dont make the decisions!

bear1

Deleted User wrote: »

Was the Tara St. issue not the Custom House?

Furthermore, are they not saying they accept current plans for the development behind the Four Courts which still have 4 years before they lapse...they disagree with the proposed increase in height?

If you want to see how a tall building ruins the wonderful old architecture in a city, go see City Hall in Cork and the apartment block containing the Aldi or Lidl beside it. The utter utter morons in Cork Co Co. They had to protect one building in the entire city, one...and they couldn't manage that.

Sorry yes the Customs house.
If it was planned properly then Tara St would not be an issue, what has been built along the docks has been a lost opportunity. Apart from Capital Docks the whole place seems to be max 7 storeys.
We can't expect to receive more business into the city if we object/kick and moan at anything remotely tall.
These planners should start realising that we cannot continue to expand outwards and build up.
Limerick recently has had two "high rises" approved or pending approval which will make the city look quite nice along the Shannon.
Cork has also their 40 storey which if approved would be an embarrassment to Dublin IMO.

Syphonax

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Want to have a laugh??

An Taisce is funded by the state.

https://benefacts.ie/org/22df846e-5140-45e9-a774-5db7bf9ee6fb

Out of €3.5 million income €3.2 million comes from government departments...

The literally use that money given by departments to object to county councils and offshore planning applications like windfarms. They take the 'government' to the courts over this with the very money the government gives to them in the first place! I wouldnt call this a paradox, just stupidity on the department that actually made a decision to fund them in the first place.

EndaHonesty

Syphonax wrote: »

The literally use that money given by departments to object to county councils and offshore planning applications like windfarms. They take the 'government' to the courts over this with the very money the government gives to them in the first place! I wouldnt call this a paradox, just stupidity on the department that actually made a decision to fund them in the first place.

:pac:

Elmer Blooker

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Out of €3.5 million income €3.2 million comes from government departments...

A pittance compared to the billions at the disposal of the National Roads Authority who successfully have turned the greater Dublin area into a gigantic car park!
Everything An Taisce have said about the need for public transport, urban sprawl, Irish mickey mouse "planning" and the long commutes that are making peoples' lives a misery has proved correct.
* not a member of AT and I don't know anyone who is.

Syphonax

EndaHonesty wrote: »

:pac:

Not a funny joke mind you.

V_Moth

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A pittance compared to the billions at the disposal of the National Roads Authority who successfully have turned the greater Dublin area into a gigantic car park!
Everything An Taisce have said about the need for public transport, urban sprawl, Irish mickey mouse "planning" and the long commutes that are making peoples' lives a misery has proved correct.
* not a member of AT and I don't know anyone who is.

It is real conservatice dog-whistle politics. Mentioning 'An Taisce', 'skyline' and 'objections' and you have the usual suspects frothing off.

3 million to independently review planning decisions, and lodge objections as appropriate seems an absolute bargain to me.

bear1

V_Moth wrote: »

It is real conservatice dog-whistle politics. Mentioning 'An Taisce', 'skyline' and 'objections' and you have the usual suspects frothing off.

3 million to independently review planning decisions, and lodge objections as appropriate seems an absolute bargain to me.

Why do you feel their objection to both Tara St and this hotel are appropriate?

Metric Tensor

V_Moth wrote: »

... to independently review planning decisions ....

That's the job of An Bord Pleanala.

markpb

V_Moth wrote: »

3 million to independently review planning decisions, and lodge objections as appropriate seems an absolute bargain to me.

That's not what they do. They review planning applications, just like any person in the country can do. We pay the local authorities to make land use strategies. We then pay the local authority to review planning applications against those strategies. And then we pay ABB to review the planning decisions made by the local authorities. Why do we need to pay An Taisce to help out?

FWIW I agree with a lot of what An Tasice say but they do seem to have a tendency to object to absolutely everything and sometimes their objections can be a bit silly. Dublin has some beautiful buildings and some amazing heritage that people around the world appreciate and we should do everything possible to protect that. But we should also accept that it's a city and cities change over time. The needs of Dublins residents now are not the same as the needs of those in the 1800s. The number of people living in Dublin has doubled in the last 50 years.

Syphonax

Metric Tensor wrote: »

That's the job of An Bord Pleanala.

Thats until groups like An Taisce judicial review their decisions.......with tax payers money no less.

whisky_galore

Can you imagine the monstrosities that would be built if An Taisce didn't exist?
The place would look like Soviet Russia, but filled with expensive developments that manage to look cheap.

Peregrine

whisky_galore wrote: »

Can you imagine the monstrosities that would be built if An Taisce didn't exist?
The place would look like Soviet Russia, but filled with expensive developments that manage to look cheap.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No, it wouldn't. We have the planning departments in the city and county councils and then An Bord Pleanala. All extremely conservative too. Above that, we have judicial reviews of ABP decisions.

An Taisce is a third party lobby in the planning system and it'd ludicrous to suggest that we need to keep funding them to object to everything.

bear1

whisky_galore wrote: »

Can you imagine the monstrosities that would be built if An Taisce didn't exist?
The place would look like Soviet Russia, but filled with expensive developments that manage to look cheap.

It would yeah...

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

Above that, we have judicial reviews of ABP decisions.

Not really, unless they err in a point of law. You realistically won't get the Courts to act as another planning body that will consider or review the merits of an application, Judges see that as the area for planning officers...

Metric Tensor

I was under the impression that the law was specifically written that way so as to make ABP the top level planning decider and prevent every planning contentious planning decision being brought through the courts?

Rather than judges' reluctance I mean.

Peregrine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not really, unless they err in a point of law. You realistically won't get the Courts to act as another planning body that will consider or review the merits of an application, Judges see that as the area for planning officers...

Rightly so. I said judicial review of ABP's decisions. I was careful to mention it separately. I didn't say the courts reviewed the planning applications themselves.

Funding an NGO with no qualifications, with their own interests and does not answer to anyone to object to planning applications being described as what stops us from looking like Soviet Russia and 'a bargain' is uninformed ironic hyperbolic nonsense.

Metric Tensor

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I was under the impression that the law was specifically written that way so as to make ABP the top level planning decider and prevent every planning contentious planning decision being brought through the courts?

Rather than judges' reluctance I mean.

It is, in terms of issues that go through that route, it's really a reserved function with in theory an appeal to the a Courts but only on a very narrow grounds But in other planning areas that can be subject to review, usually where there is an allegation of breach of planning, or in town planning in general, even where one can appeal to the Courts on broader grounds, Judges are reluctant to substitute their own theories and the Courts should not be seen as a review body at all.

topper75

Metric Tensor wrote: »

They do have "special" status!

They are a "prescribed body" as per the Planning and Development Act and therefore enjoy status and benefits that other charitable or private lobby groups do not.

I could be corrected on this but I think approx. 2.3 million of their 3.3 million funding in 2015 came from public funds (with a further 280k from Irish Water, which is not counted as public funding.)


Edit: Correction - Just see EndaHonesty's post above - so 3.2 of 3.5 according to Benefacts.

Was utterly unaware of all this. Quite shocked to be honest.

We are a republic in name only. How can a band of unqualified gobdaws just band together and receive that public money all for offering their opinion which is no greater than that of the man in the street?

They should be dispensed with.