Nimbys and serial objectors

LeinsterDub

We are especially worried about potential dangers to our water supply due to the proximity of our local water aquifer to the proposed development

http://www.thejournal.ie/solar-farm-laois-ireland-3-3739967-Dec2017/

So far this year, 33 ABP decisions have gone to judicial review, several taken by the same individuals, who seem to view the High Court as a routine extension of the planning system. If the Government really wants to fast-track data centres, it must find a way of discouraging lengthy judicial reviews

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/strategic-infrastructure-quick-step-would-not-have-saved-apple-s-project-1.3282073?mode=amp

What can do done to fix the planning issues in Ireland. Projects such as the Apple data centre, Merrion gates removal and others have been delayed for years and years often coming out the far side barely unchanged from the original plan?

We've a lot of big ticket items on the agenda and we can't afford to wait 10 years for MN while someone who doesn't even live in the affected area objects.

Muahahaha

I would have no problems with objectors, people are legally entitled to object and the process must facilitate that or we would end up with developers throwing up all kinds of crap.

The planning problem lies in how long it takes the State agencies to do their job. A planning proposal which is objected to and appealed can take the Council and An Bord Pleanala 1.5-2.5 years to process, that is where the problems lie. It should be more like 8 weeks for the Council to make a ruling and max. another 12 if it is appealed to ABP.

But instead it is just a massively drawn out process that allows public servants to push paper around the place without making any decisions. Mate of mine got planning permission recently for a house, it took 15 months and the Council called him and his architect back six times over that period for more information. They literally had them running around the houses for stuff that could have easily been asked for upfront.Insane stuff.

plodder

Personally, I think the planning system is ok. It's when the courts get involved that the real problems start, eg the Apple data centre....

sdevine89

plodder wrote: »

Personally, I think the planning system is ok. It's when the courts get involved that the real problems start, eg the Apple data centre....

You realise it is the dysfunction of the planning system and the procedure regarding objectors that is leading to the Courts being involved. The Courts aren't becoming involved of their own volition.

Water John

Don't have a ref but one of the latest twists is, the king's highway. Have Govn't and LA the power to grant companies a road opening licence? If you own a field, you also own half the road, next to it. Being used to hold up Renewable Energy Projects that have passed all other planning loops.

We really need a specific time frame. some of these go on for years. Objectors, some for commercial reasons, know this and actually use the time it takes to cripple a project even when they know they have a very slim chance of it being found, in their favour.

WTF has an aquifer got to do with a solar farm?

plodder

sdevine89 wrote: »

You realise it is the dysfunction of the planning system and the procedure regarding objectors that is leading to the Courts being involved. The Courts aren't becoming involved of their own volition.

The only dysfunctional thing about the Apple case, was the objectors lost, but they succeeded in delaying and possibly scuppering it completely.

LeinsterDub

plodder wrote: »

The only dysfunctional thing about the Apple case, was the objectors lost, but they succeeded in delaying and possibly scuppering it completely.

This is the exact issue i'm referring too. You shouldn't be allowed to whinge so long that legitimate infrastructure which is in the national interest gets delayed forever.

From the point of view of those who oppose wind farm development in their areas the general approach appears to be one of sustained attrition in the hope that eventually plans are abandoned.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/wind-farm-forced-to-take-the-long-road-461158.html

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

Don't have a ref but one of the latest twists is, the king's highway. Have Govn't and LA the power to grant companies a road opening licence?

This is where the King’s Highway comes in. The group is submitting that consent is required from the landowners adjoining the road to undertake any works below surface level.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/wind-farm-forced-to-take-the-long-road-461158.html

I mean Jesus wept.

Wheety

I find that a lot of people giving out about objectors don't live in the area themselves and have no major planning applications going on in their own area.

mikep

I think the whole system needs review and if possible consolidation where planning and EPA licences are required for projects as at the moment objectors can object to planning decisions thus adding to the length of the planning process and where a licence from the EPA is required they can object using the same objections, as will be demonstrated if the incinerator in Cork gets planning

LeinsterDub

Wheety wrote: »

I find that a lot of people giving out about objectors don't live in the area themselves and have no major planning applications going on in their own area.

Most people living in the cities and major towns will have had a major planning application at some stage or an other. There use to be a barn and fields 5 minutes walk from my house in North Dublin , now it's housing for miles.

Middle Man

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/solar-farm-laois-ireland-3-3739967-Dec2017/




https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/strategic-infrastructure-quick-step-would-not-have-saved-apple-s-project-1.3282073?mode=amp

What can do done to fix the planning issues in Ireland. Projects such as the Apple data centre, Merrion gates removal and others have been delayed for years and years often coming out the far side barely unchanged from the original plan?

We've a lot of big ticket items on the agenda and we can't afford to wait 10 years for MN while someone who doesn't even live in the affected area objects.

Well one thing - serial objectors frequently leave a pattern in their behaviour. There should be a provision in the law that allows the state to initiate legal proceedings against such interests with a view the recouping lost tax revenue as a result of infrastructural delays - ditto to state expenses resulting from infrastructural delays - for example, permanent injuries resulting from road traffic accidents along 'unfit for purpose' roads in the period of operational time lag caused by serial objections.

For obstructions caused by 'NIMBYism', if it is established that any local interest group has mounted a disproportionately robust legal campaign due to financial circumstances of a highly advantageous nature, provisions for the recouping of lost tax revenue and incurred expenses (from resultant delays in infrastructural provision) should also be considered. It is also important to note that for any new residents moving into a particular area, it should be up to those people to check for any infrastructural proposals in the said area. Legal provisions should allow local authorities to dismiss any objections from such parties to any new infrastructure that is laid out in a development plan/policy document predating the signing of any transfer of freehold title pertaining to residential property.

Water John

Yes, that is a particular bugbear. Seen people buying a house where planning was already given, becoming leaders in the objection group.

mikep

Middle Man wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/solar-farm-laois-ireland-3-3739967-Dec2017/




https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/strategic-infrastructure-quick-step-would-not-have-saved-apple-s-project-1.3282073?mode=amp

What can do done to fix the planning issues in Ireland. Projects such as the Apple data centre, Merrion gates removal and others have been delayed for years and years often coming out the far side barely unchanged from the original plan?

We've a lot of big ticket items on the agenda and we can't afford to wait 10 years for MN while someone who doesn't even live in the affected area objects.

Well one thing - serial objectors frequently leave a pattern in their behaviour.  There should be a provision in the law that allows the state to initiate legal proceedings against such interests with a view the recouping lost tax revenue as a result of infrastructural delays - ditto to state expenses resulting from infrastructural delays - for example, permanent injuries resulting from road traffic accidents along 'unfit for purpose' roads in the period of operational time lag caused by serial objections.  

For obstructions caused by 'NIMBYism', if it is established that any local interest group has mounted a disproportionately robust legal campaign due to financial circumstances of a highly advantageous nature, provisions for the recouping of lost tax revenue and incurred expenses (from resultant delays in infrastructural provision) should also be considered.  It is also important to note that for any new residents moving into a particular area, it should be up to those people to check for any infrastructural proposals in the said area.  Legal provisions should allow local authorities to dismiss any objections from such parties to any new infrastructure that is laid out in a development plan/policy document predating the signing of any transfer of freehold title pertaining to residential property.

That's a good suggestion as planners (and homebuyers) need to consider the current situation when making planning decisions and not expect established facilities modify their operations due to poorly located residential developments..

wakka12

Wheety wrote: »

I find that a lot of people giving out about objectors don't live in the area themselves and have no major planning applications going on in their own area.

Partly true. But it does need serious review, it could be the most ridiculous objection in the world yet if its made, no matter who or for whatever reason, it will 100% slow up the project development by several months and cost the develop money unnecessarily.
For instance the central bank development in temple bar is now being delayed because some tool with a city centre apartment felt this development will affect the privacy of his roof top garden.
You're not entitled to privacy on a roof top garden in the busiest part of a capital city.
There should be an initial very quick review to gauge whether the objection has any validity. This objection for instance should in no way have delayed the central bank development as its completely mindless and ridiclous

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

Partly true. But it does need serious review, it could be the most ridiculous objection in the world yet if its made, no matter who or for whatever reason, it will 100% slow up the project development by several months and cost the develop money unnecessarily.
For instance the central bank development in temple bar is now being delayed because some tool with a city centre apartment felt this development will affect the privacy of his roof top garden.
You're not entitled to privacy on a roof top garden in the busiest part of a capital city.
There should be an initial very quick review to gauge whether the objection has any validity. This objection for instance should in no way have delayed the central bank development as its completely mindless and ridiclous

Nice idea, but the whole point of the process is that every single objection is reviewed the same. To do otherwise would open the process up to corruption, and an unholy amount of appeals for objections who disagree with the initial assessment, which would only result in further delays

Middle Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice idea, but the whole point of the process is that every single objection is reviewed the same. To do otherwise would open the process up to corruption, and an unholy amount of appeals for objections who disagree with the initial assessment, which would only result in further delays

I think what wakka12 is saying is to have a preliminary assessment routine for objections in similar fashion to the triage system in hospitals. Perhaps an assigned assessment panel could be continually renewed on a random basis in order to avoid corruption.

plodder

wakka12 wrote: »

Partly true. But it does need serious review, it could be the most ridiculous objection in the world yet if its made, no matter who or for whatever reason, it will 100% slow up the project development by several months and cost the develop money unnecessarily.
For instance the central bank development in temple bar is now being delayed because some tool with a city centre apartment felt this development will affect the privacy of his roof top garden.
You're not entitled to privacy on a roof top garden in the busiest part of a capital city.
There should be an initial very quick review to gauge whether the objection has any validity. This objection for instance should in no way have delayed the central bank development as its completely mindless and ridiclous

The problem is that no matter how absurd the grounds for appeal are, the whole application has to be considered afresh. There probably should be some kind of two track system, where in some cases, only the grounds for appeal are looked at.

Even then if you haven't delayed it for long enough, you can look for a judicial review, which should delay it for another year at least, which like in the Apple case, may well be enough to torpedo the project whether you have any chance of winning the case or not.

exaisle

plodder wrote: »

The problem is that no matter how absurd the grounds for appeal are, the whole application has to be considered afresh. There probably should be some kind of two track system, where in some cases, only the grounds for appeal are looked at.

Even then if you haven't delayed it for long enough, you can look for a judicial review, which should delay it for another year at least, which like in the Apple case, may well be enough to torpedo the project whether you have any chance of winning the case or not.

Couple of observations....

Aside from acknowledging objections made to them, am I correct in thinking that Local Authorities do not have to take objections/observations into account as each planning application has to be dealt with objectively on its own merits.

Under Section 138 of the 2000 Planning Act, ABP is empowered to dismiss appeals where it views objections as being frivolous, vexations, without foundation, or with the intention of delaying the development. I'm not sure how often this has been used, or indeed, whether it has ever been used. If not, then maybe it's about time that it was.

LeinsterDub

exaisle wrote: »

Couple of observations....

Aside from acknowledging objections made to them, am I correct in thinking that Local Authorities do not have to take objections/observations into account as each planning application has to be dealt with objectively on its own merits.

Under Section 138 of the 2000 Planning Act, ABP is empowered to dismiss appeals where it views objections as being frivolous, vexations, without foundation, or with the intention of delaying the development. I'm not sure how often this has been used, or indeed, whether it has ever been used. If not, then maybe it's about time that it was.

The issue is most likely it's quicker for the council to consider it. If they dismiss it then it's high court time again and the objectors are winning.

plodder

exaisle wrote: »

Couple of observations....

Aside from acknowledging objections made to them, am I correct in thinking that Local Authorities do not have to take objections/observations into account as each planning application has to be dealt with objectively on its own merits.

objectively on its own merits, and within the framework of any relevant statutory plans/guidelines. If an objection points out where an application contravened a development plan, they they'd have to consider that.

Under Section 138 of the 2000 Planning Act, ABP is empowered to dismiss appeals where it views objections as being frivolous, vexations, without foundation, or with the intention of delaying the development. I'm not sure how often this has been used, or indeed, whether it has ever been used. If not, then maybe it's about time that it was.

Hard to draw a line between what's frivolous, and sincere but clearly wrong. ABP will err on the cautious side imo with the courts looking over their shoulder. That's why I think you need to look at the whole question of re-examining the application from scratch in all cases.

exaisle

exaisle wrote: »

Under Section 138 of the 2000 Planning Act, ABP is empowered to dismiss appeals where it views objections as being frivolous, vexations, without foundation, or with the intention of delaying the development. I'm not sure how often this has been used, or indeed, whether it has ever been used. If not, then maybe it's about time that it was.

Wouldn't apply to Daly's objection. He is rightly objecting on environmental issues that have not been properly considered.

This data center will never be built and here's why...

Apple thought they were being smart by splitting the whole thing into loads of small planning applications. This meant that the environmental considerations were only made on one DC building. This is the exact thing Daly's objecting to. That the energy consumption and the implications of such, be considered for the entire project.

Now here's Apples problem. If they go ahead, they will build a single DC. If they want more, 8 planned according to the site drawings, they have to submit additional applications for planning approval. Guess what, the same objection holds true if the entire project is not assessed.

If it is assessed in full, it won't stand up against environmental concerns and will not receive permission.

The Supreme Court will need to tread carefully with his appeal. I honestly hope that this ends up going to the European Courts. They will likely hand down a judgement forcing these developments to be assessed in full, across the EU, thereby driving improvements in energy efficiency, cooling, etc etc. All round, a win for everyone, environmentally speaking

Well done Mr Daly, I applaud you sir

I would encourage all of you to read the actual objection in detail before slinging mud. These are valid concerns, which will impact energy generation, grid capacity etc etc etc for a generation to come and should not be dismissed lightly.

Water John

So, your argument is, a company building a number of Wind Farms around the country should now be forced to bundle them all into one planning application.
I presume the logical follow on being, that would be Strategic Infrastructure and go straight to ABP and not LAs.

Seth Brundle

wakka12 wrote: »

You're not entitled to privacy on a roof top garden in the busiest part of a capital city.
There should be an initial very quick review to gauge whether the objection has any validity. This objection for instance should in no way have delayed the central bank development as its completely mindless and ridiclous

So where are you entitled to privacy?
Is anyone in a city entitled to privacy on their own property?
Just because you have no problem with a development should not rule out others having one.
As for the delays, these are not the fault of the objector. If the developer factored residents in when designing the development it may have been avoided but far too often developers only see the small picture and have no interest in anything else.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

So, your argument is, a company building a number of Wind Farms around the country should now be forced to bundle them all into one planning application..

You have added 1 and 1 and gotten 3

Water John

Not in the least. Your arguing, on the demand side, I'm parralleling the supply side. They mirror each other, remarkably.

wakka12

kbannon wrote: »

So where are you entitled to privacy?
Is anyone in a city entitled to privacy on their own property?
Just because you have no problem with a development should not rule out others having one.
As for the delays, these are not the fault of the objector. If the developer factored residents in when designing the development it may have been avoided but far too often developers only see the small picture and have no interest in anything else.

You are not entitled to privacy in an outdoor elevated space in the busiest part of the CBD of a capital city. I think that much we can all agree on.

Seth Brundle

wakka12 wrote: »

You are not entitled to privacy in an outdoor elevated space in the busiest part of the CBD of a capital city. I think that much we can all agree on.

Says who?
Define the boundaries to who can have privacy and who can't as I can't find it.

wakka12

kbannon wrote: »

Says who?
Define the boundaries to who can have privacy and who can't as I can't find it.

Some things are not definable . Like what a garda might consider loud and disorderly behaviour or something .
Privacy to that extent is not possible in such a densely populated city centre area, especially considering the building is already built. Its not like its a new building being built beside his garden.

Anyway this is irrelevant as his objection will be completely discarded and not have any effect on the project as its ridiculous. Whats more ridiculous is that his ridiculous complaint is allowed to delay the project by any amount of time

Seth Brundle

wakka12 wrote: »

Some things are not definable . Like what a garda might consider loud and disorderly behaviour or something .
Privacy to that extent is not possible in such a densely populated city centre area, especially considering the building is already built. Its not like its a new building being built beside his garden.

Anyway this is irrelevant as his objection will be completely discarded and not have any effect on the project as its ridiculous. Whats more ridiculous is that his ridiculous complaint is allowed to delay the project by any amount of time

It's not irrelevant.
The planning laws are there for everyone to be able to use.
In the case if the central bank, the use if the building is changing significantly and the objectors property is affected. Of course he should be allowed a voice.
Under your suggestion, should we ban curtains and darkened glass for all city centre buildings also?

wakka12

kbannon wrote: »

It's not irrelevant.
The planning laws are there for everyone to be able to use.
In the case if the central bank, the use if the building is changing significantly and the objectors property is affected. Of course he should be allowed a voice.
Under your suggestion, should we ban curtains and darkened glass for all city centre buildings also?

I never said he shouldn't be able to voice his opinion. I said there should be a preliminary filtering to get rid of such ridiclous objections so that they do not delay the project significantly.

Seth Brundle

wakka12 wrote: »

I never said he shouldn't be able to voice his opinion. I said there should be a preliminary filtering to get rid of such ridiclous objections so that they do not delay the project significantly.

Which means that an objection wouldn't be judged on all of its merits but on a whim?
What criteria would be used in your initial filtering process and who would conduct such a process? Could such a process be deemed as unfair or impartial when compared to objections that are given a full run?
Would there be an appeals process to your suggestion and on what basis?

wakka12

kbannon wrote: »

Which means that an objection wouldn't be judged on all of its merits but on a whim?
What criteria would be used in your initial filtering process and who would conduct such a process? Could such a process be deemed as unfair or impartial when compared to objections that are given a full run?
Would there be an appeals process to your suggestion and on what basis?

A board of people would review it and say whether the concerns of the objector were valid or rational. If it seemed to raise several important issues not discussed before, then it would be reviewed in greater detail and would delay the project. If not, project continues. And no because all objections would go through this preliminary period.

Anyway I don't see how you can argue for this, its crazy that so many developments can be delayed over practically nothing and cost developers and other people money so needlessly.

plodder

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldn't apply to Daly's objection. He is rightly objecting on environmental issues that have not been properly considered.

This data center will never be built and here's why...

Apple thought they were being smart by splitting the whole thing into loads of small planning applications. This meant that the environmental considerations were only made on one DC building. This is the exact thing Daly's objecting to. That the energy consumption and the implications of such, be considered for the entire project.

Now here's Apples problem. If they go ahead, they will build a single DC. If they want more, 8 planned according to the site drawings, they have to submit additional applications for planning approval. Guess what, the same objection holds true if the entire project is not assessed.

If it is assessed in full, it won't stand up against environmental concerns and will not receive permission.

The Supreme Court will need to tread carefully with his appeal. I honestly hope that this ends up going to the European Courts. They will likely hand down a judgement forcing these developments to be assessed in full, across the EU, thereby driving improvements in energy efficiency, cooling, etc etc. All round, a win for everyone, environmentally speaking

Well done Mr Daly, I applaud you sir

I would encourage all of you to read the actual objection in detail before slinging mud. These are valid concerns, which will impact energy generation, grid capacity etc etc etc for a generation to come and should not be dismissed lightly.

You're wrong about this. Apple were perfectly entitled to split the project into phases. They have no idea how demand for data centre services will develop in the coming years. The data centre they did get permission for is a large development in its own right and its sustainability doesn't depend on whether or not they get permission for future phases. If anything, you want to penalise them for thinking ahead, and being open about their thinking. I'd accept your objection isn't vexatious or frivolous. It's just wrong (in my opinion). I don't quite understand how the High Court even accepted the review. The planning acts say quite clearly that the courts don't have the right to review planning issues. But, they accepted the case, and even though they eventually threw it out, the project seems to have been torpedoed anyway due to all the delays.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Not in the least. Your arguing, on the demand side, I'm parralleling the supply side. They mirror each other, remarkably.

Like I said, 3

Water John

Plodder, has given a very cogent response and well argued point. If I want to open a chain of shops, each gets its own planning.
You have put forward no reasoned or logical argument as to why, other possible DC builds by Apple in Ireland should be tied in.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Plodder, has given a very cogent response and well argued point. If I want to open a chain of shops, each gets its own planning.
You have put forward no reasoned or logical argument as to why, other possible DC builds by Apple in Ireland should be tied in.

You have made an incorrect assumption, this is where the problem lies.

I'm referring to the planned 8 DC's at a site in Athenry, only 1 of which they have applied for, but the planning documents and drawings show the infrastructure layout for all 8.

They are all on a single site, designed and laid out.

His issue was each would consume 30MW for a total of 240MW once they were all built. This is an equivalent demand for 25% of the houses in the country or 6.75% of the total grid. This impact was not being considered. This is his objection and its a valid and legitimate one.

I hope this clears up the confusion

Water John

Ok, Apple were upfront, with what may eventually happen. The only issue for the present planning is for the grid connection to be included. The capacity needed is not an issue for the planners.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Ok, Apple were upfront, with what may eventually happen. The only issue for the present planning is for the grid connection to be included. The capacity needed is not an issue for the planners.

Therein lies the objection. As part of the environmental impact assessment, the amount of energy consumption, if exceptional, should be considered and evaluated as part of that assessment and this assessment should be for the whole site i.e. All 8 DC's. This is his stance. Yours is the same as ABP

Water John

Unless they are now putting in a substation to download the 250Mw, it's not relevant.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Unless they are now putting in a substation to download the 250Mw, it's not relevant.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's with the courts now to decide so I guess it's wait and see.

plodder

Deleted User wrote: »

You have made an incorrect assumption, this is where the problem lies.

I'm referring to the planned 8 DC's at a site in Athenry, only 1 of which they have applied for, but the planning documents and drawings show the infrastructure layout for all 8.

They are all on a single site, designed and laid out.

His issue was each would consume 30MW for a total of 240MW once they were all built. This is an equivalent demand for 25% of the houses in the country or 6.75% of the total grid. This impact was not being considered. This is his objection and its a valid and legitimate one.

I hope this clears up the confusion

The original planning application, the appeal and the judicial review all considered this question. At each stage, it was dismissed. It's not exactly unknown for developers to try and split projects. Sometimes, it's a legitimate thing to do and sometimes it isn't. It's a planning issue which shouldn't have been a concern of the courts imo. Even at this stage, you're still talking about further appeals, even though the project has been canceled afaik. The time to raise further objections would be if they were to apply for permission for future phases of the project. It seems to me the problem we have in this country is people's inability to accept a decision when it's made. If the planning system continues to be held to ransom like this, the logical outcome will be that the appeals (or judicial review) process will be truncated in some way. That would be a bad outcome in my opinion, but it's clear to me whose fault it would be.

Seth Brundle

plodder wrote: »

The original planning application, the appeal and the judicial review all considered this question. At each stage, it was dismissed. It's not exactly unknown for developers to try and split projects. Sometimes, it's a legitimate thing to do and sometimes it isn't. It's a planning issue which shouldn't have been a concern of the courts imo. Even at this stage, you're still talking about further appeals, even though the project has been canceled afaik. The time to raise further objections would be if they were to apply for permission for future phases of the project. It seems to me the problem we have in this country is people's inability to accept a decision when it's made. If the planning system continues to be held to ransom like this, the logical outcome will be that the appeals (or judicial review) process will be truncated in some way. That would be a bad outcome in my opinion, but it's clear to me whose fault it would be.

So once a decision is made, people should not be able to object?
So ahev all planning decisions been made fairly and impartially? Has there never been reason to dispute decisions made by our councils?
Some people have really short memories!

plodder

kbannon wrote: »

So once a decision is made, people should not be able to object?

Not what I said. What I'm saying is that at some point, people have to accept the decision. Personally, I think if you are prepared to take a case to judicial review, you should pay all the costs if you lose. People should accept ABP's decisions and move on with their lives imo.

So ahev all planning decisions been made fairly and impartially? Has there never been reason to dispute decisions made by our councils?
Some people have really short memories!

The vast majority of planning decisions are made fairly and impartially.

Seth Brundle

plodder wrote: »

Not what I said. What I'm saying is that at some point, people have to accept the decision. Personally, I think if you are prepared to take a case to judicial review, you should pay all the costs if you lose. People should accept ABP's decisions and move on with their lives imo.

So ABP has never got it wrong?
We should just accept their decisions without question?

plodder wrote: »

The vast majority of planning decisions are made fairly and impartially.

Well a majority is good enough then. :rolleyes:
Thankfully there is no political infludence or decisions made by agents such as the county manager that aren't in the best interests of the public. :rolleyes:

Water John

The Courts can only do a Judicial Review. It doesn't question the ABP decision. It looks to see did the methodology err, in law.
Certainly, unless the judge rules, at the start, that it's an issue of public importance, the appellant should take the legal cost risk.

plodder

kbannon wrote: »

So ABP has never got it wrong?
We should just accept their decisions without question?


Well a majority is good enough then. :rolleyes:
Thankfully there is no political infludence or decisions made by agents such as the county manager that aren't in the best interests of the public. :rolleyes:

Well I'm not aware of any that aren't in recent times. That's not to say there aren't any, but it's not right to suggest I'd be happy if it's only a majority. Even in the bad old days, most of what people complained about was zoning, which is a function of councillors, not the planners. Even recently, take a look a development plans around the country, and you might see "local objectives" inserted to build one off houses in places where the planners wouldn't normally allow it. They have no choice in the matter, once it's in the plan.

Hugh Jampton

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldn't apply to Daly's objection. He is rightly objecting on environmental issues that have not been properly considered.

This data center will never be built and here's why...

Apple thought they were being smart by splitting the whole thing into loads of small planning applications. This meant that the environmental considerations were only made on one DC building. This is the exact thing Daly's objecting to. That the energy consumption and the implications of such, be considered for the entire project.

Now here's Apples problem. If they go ahead, they will build a single DC. If they want more, 8 planned according to the site drawings, they have to submit additional applications for planning approval. Guess what, the same objection holds true if the entire project is not assessed.

If it is assessed in full, it won't stand up against environmental concerns and will not receive permission.

The Supreme Court will need to tread carefully with his appeal. I honestly hope that this ends up going to the European Courts. They will likely hand down a judgement forcing these developments to be assessed in full, across the EU, thereby driving improvements in energy efficiency, cooling, etc etc. All round, a win for everyone, environmentally speaking

Well done Mr Daly, I applaud you sir

I would encourage all of you to read the actual objection in detail before slinging mud. These are valid concerns, which will impact energy generation, grid capacity etc etc etc for a generation to come and should not be dismissed lightly.

Well it will certainly affect prosperity in East Galway for a generation to come. I, however, salute your indefatigability, excellency

Last Stop

Why are you entitled to so many appeals to an application??
To appeal to ABP, you need to have made a submission on the original planning application.
This means that if you go to ABP you have made in effect 2 appeals to the decision.
Why should you be entitled to do this and go even further to the High Court Supreme Court and even Eurpoean Court of Justice?
If you don't agree with something that's fine but if the experts in both the council and the independent ABP dismiss your appeal then that should be the end of it.
Going to the courts is akin to throwing the toys out of the pram.

Whats worrying is that because of the ability of objectors to substantially delay projects, the government are making more and more projects except from the normal planning process. Instead of fixing the problem (i.e. the book stops at ABP), they are bypassing the system.

On a similar note, I know of a case of a large factory where a neighbour has objected to every single application over the past 20 years bar one (the company in question reckon he was on holidays for the other one). This company now plan any projects timescale to allow for these objections. Its madness.

Last Stop

Last Stop wrote: »

Whats worrying is that because of the ability of objectors to substantially delay projects, the government are making more and more projects except from the normal planning process. Instead of fixing the problem (i.e. the book stops at ABP), they are bypassing the system.

That's not strictly true but I get your point.

The bypassing you mention, I'm assuming that you are referring to IROPI. There are strict guidelines under which this can be used, i.e. Environmental, in line with Natura 2000. When its used the government must prove to the commission that the project is necessary on economic or social grounds.

The government is also required to provide compensatory information

For example the Galway Bypass is needed on both economic and social grounds. The government has tried the traditional route which didn't work. They now have the option to use IROPI but will need to essentially compensate the environment by designating additional SAC's etc. or expanding pre-existing ones on a large scale.

So yes, it is possible to avoid the objections, but only after you allow objections in the first instance. It also comes at a cost.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No update, reform or other change, will ever remove or prevent anyone from objecting to development. The government would lose a legal challenge on that in a heartbeat

Sam Russell

There is a planning application near me which is put in by a person who objected to a similar development opposite himself a few years ago. Hippocracy springs to mind.