Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Nimbys and serial objectors

2

Comments



  • 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?




  • 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.




  • DaCor 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 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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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




  • 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 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




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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • DaCor 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.




  • 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!




  • 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.




  • 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:




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • DaCor 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 ;)




  • 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 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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • It's a real case of...

    Run with the hare and hunt with the hound!




  • 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.

    You should object yourself, just for the craic. Come up with the worst reason going and run with it.




  • CatInABox wrote: »
    You should object yourself, just for the craic. Come up with the worst reason going and run with it.

    I have to live here. It is unlikely to be granted anyway because a decision by ABP re another planning matter, which was granted with a condition that would rule this one out - unless the ground rules have changed.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    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.

    And they're not even bypassing it efficiently. Any development of over 100 housing units now goes straight to ABP but the planners in the council still have to do all of the paper work and attend the meetings but they now don't get paid for it. The fee goes straight to ABP. So effectively already-stretched planning local authorities will have a cut in funding which will result in a cut in services or an increased subvention from the government




  • pigtown wrote: »
    And they're not even bypassing it efficiently. Any development of over 100 housing units now goes straight to ABP but the planners in the council still have to do all of the paper work and attend the meetings but they now don't get paid for it. The fee goes straight to ABP. So effectively already-stretched planning local authorities will have a cut in funding which will result in a cut in services or an increased subvention from the government

    Sounds like a good opportunity to attach planning fees to the development fees for large scale developments. 2 birds......




  • I don't think I need to link to an article on the Apple data centre

    But it's a stone cold example of what will happen if this is allowed to continue

    We've seen it with the M28, there are objections on the way with the N6 Galway bypass, and plenty of other examples. This cannot continye




  • marno21 wrote: »
    I don't think I need to link to an article on the Apple data centre

    But it's a stone cold example of what will happen if this is allowed to continue

    We've seen it with the M28, there are objections on the way with the N6 Galway bypass, and plenty of other examples. This cannot continye

    It's absolutely ridiculous, and I support the right to object to proposals. Either the system needs reforming so that stuff like this can't happen, or it needs significant investment so that the current process moves faster.




  • the apple centre is probably a poor example, apple offered no proposals regarding generating their own power on site rather they just wanted to drain the national grid and have the tax payer pick up the tab for the fines that we'd be getting for not hitting our climate change targets, and the upgrades to the grid that would be required to support this type of development in parts of the country where grid infrastructure is poor. We'd end up paying out millions for a few dozen jobs.




  • cgcsb wrote: »
    the apple centre is probably a poor example, apple offered no proposals regarding generating their own power on site rather they just wanted to drain the national grid and have the tax payer pick up the tab for the fines that we'd be getting for not hitting our climate change targets, and the upgrades to the grid that would be required to support this type of development in parts of the country where grid infrastructure is poor. We'd end up paying out millions for a few dozen jobs.

    Apple were not rejected due to power issues, they pulled out due to planning delays around appeals. As CIAB said "it needs significant investment so that the current process moves faster."

    Fine if they want to deny based on power concerns (which is a different debate) but taking so long a company gives up and builds in another country entirely does not help us.


  • Advertisement


  • This timeline here says it all, especially comparing the progress of Denmark vs Ireland

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0510/961458-apple/


Advertisement