M20 - Cork to Limerick [preferred route chosen; in design - phase 3]

Aontachtoir · 05-07-2021 3:12pm

Another guaranteed judicial review, another three or so wasted years like the M28. Planning law in this country desperately needs a complete overhaul. "Due process" cannot mean giving individuals or environmental groups a free pass to delay much-needed infrastructure for years and years. The government should have a much freer hand to act.

It seems like an impossible fight to get anything done in this country these days.

Bazzer007 · 05-07-2021 3:58pm

I own land on the amber route and my farm will be halved if the motorway proceeds. For the last 12 year's it has been hanging over my head and the disruption it will cause. I have not complained and know the damn thing needs to be built for the greater good. I'll end up losing my house as well. Those on the navy route won't be bothered what route the road takes as long as it stays away from their neck of the woods. I'll just get on with it and live with the consequences, but I will be comforted by the fact the motorway will create jobs, improve people lives and most importantly save lives.

05-07-2021 4:12pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Another guaranteed judicial review, another three or so wasted years like the M28. Planning law in this country desperately needs a complete overhaul. "Due process" cannot mean giving individuals or environmental groups a free pass to delay much-needed infrastructure for years and years. The government should have a much freer hand to act.

It seems like an impossible fight to get anything done in this country these days.

The delays are caused by a shortage of staff in the judicial & planning systems

Appeals can be lodged, heard and ruled on within a matter of weeks if the systems are resourced appropriately

That you are so willing to eliminate rights due to resource issues is bonkers

Limerick74 · 05-07-2021 4:38pm

Bazzer007 wrote: »

I own land on the amber route and my farm will be halved if the motorway proceeds. For the last 12 year's it has been hanging over my head and the disruption it will cause. I have not complained and know the damn thing needs to be built for the greater good. I'll end up losing my house as well. Those on the navy route won't be bothered what route the road takes as long as it stays away from their neck of the woods. I'll just get on with it and live with the consequences, but I will be comforted by the fact the motorway will create jobs, improve people lives and most importantly save lives.

All respect to you for your views and consideration of the overall national objectives. ðŸ‘

ianobrien · 05-07-2021 7:26pm

Another point about the online upgrade. Don't forget the Old Mallow Rd is there from Blackpool to Rathduff. If the do build it over the current N20 from Blarney to Rathduff, there is an alternative for those who can't travel on the motorway.

steeler j · 05-07-2021 7:45pm

ianobrien wrote: »

Another point about the online upgrade. Don't forget the Old Mallow Rd is there from Blackpool to Rathduff. If the do build it over the current N20 from Blarney to Rathduff, there is an alternative for those who can't travel on the motorway.

I spend the evening looking at the maps and spotted that . Would it be able to handle the traffic if the motorway was closed?

Aontachtoir · 05-07-2021 8:18pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The delays are caused by a shortage of staff in the judicial & planning systems

Appeals can be lodged, heard and ruled on within a matter of weeks if the systems are resourced appropriately

That you are so willing to eliminate rights due to resource issues is bonkers

Nobody has an entitlement to prevent a much-needed road safety project from proceeding. I am surprised you would not view pouring resources into the planning and judicial systems to pore over vexatious objections and NIMBY complaints through appeal after appeal after appeal as a major waste of everyone's time and money.

Put more resources into the system, sure, but also make it much harder to appeal a planning decision, massively raise the bar for a successful judicial review, and disincentivise vexatious objections. A multi-pronged approach is needed. This country has to be able to build important infrastructure.

Isambard · 05-07-2021 8:27pm

steeler j wrote: »

I spend the evening looking at the maps and spotted that . Would it be able to handle the traffic if the motorway was closed?

definitely not fit for purpose with the existing traffic never mind carrying the whole lot. Not an option imo.

05-07-2021 9:00pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Nobody has an entitlement to prevent a much-needed road safety project from proceeding. I am surprised you would not view pouring resources into the planning and judicial systems to pore over vexatious objections and NIMBY complaints through appeal after appeal after appeal as a major waste of everyone's time and money.

Put more resources into the system, sure, but also make it much harder to appeal a planning decision, massively raise the bar for a successful judicial review, and disincentivise vexatious objections. A multi-pronged approach is needed. This country has to be able to build important infrastructure.

What is a nimby to one, can be someone defending their home to others, or someone protecting a vulnerable environment. I'm not stating what is or is not a "vexatious objection and NIMBY complaint", thats not my place.

Your disdain for the right to appeal not withstanding, that you wish to extinguish such rights so easily because you want to see a road built faster is a terrifying prospect.

Today its the M20, tomorrow its a 4 lane motorway through the center of the Phoenix Park or an incinerator beside the local primary school or a chemical waste processing plant on Fota Island or a 20 storey apartment block on the main street in Westport and so on

Thankfully we do not need to worry about such nonsense as every citizen has a right to appeal planning decisions as Ireland ratified the Aarhaus Convention in 2012.

The Aarhus Convention lays down a set of basic rules to promote citizen’s involvement in environmental matters and improve enforcement of environmental law; its provisions are broken down into three Pillars:
Access to information on the environment - this allows members of the public access to a wide range of information on the environment, including information on the state of the environment, associated policies and measures, and on the state of human health and safety, where this can be affected by the state of the environment.

Public participation – requires that parties to the Convention facilitate public participation in decisions about the environment; public authorities must have mechanisms in place to enable the public affected and environmental NGOs to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment.

Access to justice – provides that the public have access to independent review procedures that are timely, equitable and not prohibitively expensive, to challenge decisions relating to the environment.

You may not like that citizens of Ireland have such rights but they do and any attempt to remove these will lose in the courts, you know, those courts you dislike so much because they are so under-resourced that they have massive back-logs.

ianobrien · 05-07-2021 9:33pm

Apologies for going off topic but I imagine most people wouldn't have a problem with having the opportunity to appeal any decision. The problem is how long it takes. Look at how long the M28 was held up. The M28 would have been almost complete by now if the appeal process didn't take YEARS!

ianobrien · 05-07-2021 9:35pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Another guaranteed judicial review, another three or so wasted years like the M28. Planning law in this country desperately needs a complete overhaul. "Due process" cannot mean giving individuals or environmental groups a free pass to delay much-needed infrastructure for years and years. The government should have a much freer hand to act.

It seems like an impossible fight to get anything done in this country these days.

I remember reading somewhere that the AG is starting a full review of planning laws and courts to quicken the process. The review is to take 18 months or so.

Yes the process to speed up planning is taking that long

Chris_5339762 · 05-07-2021 9:46pm

steeler j wrote: »

I spend the evening looking at the maps and spotted that . Would it be able to handle the traffic if the motorway was closed?

Not a hope. Its an absolutely atrocious road, thats why the current dual carriageway section is there, even back in the 80s they felt that had to bypass it.

Bass Reeves · 05-07-2021 10:19pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Not a hope. Its an absolutely atrocious road, thats why the current dual carriageway section is there, even back in the 80s they felt that had to bypass it.

As well as that you have to low that this new road will have limited access. It's likely to have no junction from Mallow to Barney turnoff. If it was do e online with existing section from Ratduff to Blarney you would have a lot of traffic using that old road. You would need to upgrade it anyway

I cannot see even part of the new road being on-line

Aontachtoir · 05-07-2021 11:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What is a nimby to one, can be someone defending their home to others, or someone protecting a vulnerable environment. I'm not stating what is or is not a "vexatious objection and NIMBY complaint", thats not my place.

Appealing a fully necessary and justified upgrade like the M28 because you are worried your land value might decrease is NIMBYism. Appealing it because you oppose roads in general is vexatious. It seems naive or deceptive to suggest otherwise.

Deleted User wrote: »

Today its the M20, tomorrow its a 4 lane motorway through the center of the Phoenix Park or an incinerator beside the local primary school or a chemical waste processing plant on Fota Island or a 20 storey apartment block on the main street in Westport and so on

Come on, you know this is absolute rubbish. A 4-lane motorway through Phoenix Park?

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully we do not need to worry about such nonsense as every citizen has a right to appeal planning decisions as Ireland ratified the Aarhaus Convention in 2012.

We seem to have adopted a very permissive reading of Aarhus, if other European nations are a comparator. So we either adopt a stricter interpretation of the treaty, or we repeal it as necessary. Slugs and quarry fauna cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of improving the lives of the people of this country, or saving lives on the roads.

That said, if more vexatious reviews speed us along to the point where partial or full repeal of these laws becomes politically desirable, I wish the NIMBYs every success.

ianobrien wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that the AG is starting a full review of planning laws and courts to quicken the process. The review is to take 18 months or so.

Yes the process to speed up planning is taking that long

It's a joke at this stage. The only good thing about the number of developments having their permission overturned by judicial review on environmental grounds is that it may finally spur the government to do something about it. Giving NIMBYs veto power over much-needed housing, infrastructure and the like should never have been done, but here we are.

markodaly · 06-07-2021 1:50am

Deleted User wrote: »

The delays are caused by a shortage of staff in the judicial & planning systems

Appeals can be lodged, heard and ruled on within a matter of weeks if the systems are resourced appropriately

That you are so willing to eliminate rights due to resource issues is bonkers

Is it about rights though? How about the right to ride in a bike lane, or buy an affordable house, or not die due to a very dangerous road?

We have seen over the past 10 years or so the court system is basically a proxy for the planning system. We see it time and time again, with various groups and people with some cash to try and stop developments be it infrastructures like roads or rail or metro, to bike lanes to housing, and so on.

No one would care all that much if the system was more efficient and cases ruled upon in a matter of a few months, but it takes years and years for this stuff to get through all the courts, various appeals, and so on. Just look at the M28 saga.

Also, the idea that these objections are just from a few poor ordinary folks doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Often there are wealthy business people or landowners funding these adventures through the Irish court system. They will put some ordinary person in front of the camera but behind the scenes, there will be a small set of very wealthy and privileged people pulling the strings.

It is not grassroots, it's astro turf!

markodaly · 06-07-2021 1:54am

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Nobody has an entitlement to prevent a much-needed road safety project from proceeding. I am surprised you would not view pouring resources into the planning and judicial systems to pore over vexatious objections and NIMBY complaints through appeal after appeal after appeal as a major waste of everyone's time and money.

Put more resources into the system, sure, but also make it much harder to appeal a planning decision, massively raise the bar for a successful judicial review, and disincentivise vexatious objections. A multi-pronged approach is needed. This country has to be able to build important infrastructure.

The planning process is imo overly complex and messy. Often when someone is bringing a case to court, they are appealing it over some I not dotted or a t not crossed, that sort of thing. They will say some snail, or frog is on some protected species list therefore the EIS or something else is incomplete and therefore void, so that means the whole planning process would need to start again or some crap like that.

Does anyone remember the whole saga about the M3 at the time? Do people even care today that that road exists? I doubt it.

Pete_Cavan · 06-07-2021 6:41am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

As well as that you have to low that this new road will have limited access. It's likely to have no junction from Mallow to Barney turnoff. If it was do e online with existing section from Ratduff to Blarney you would have a lot of traffic using that old road. You would need to upgrade it anyway

I cannot see even part of the new road being on-line

The new road is almost certain to be largely online between Blarney and close to Burnfoot. The existing N20 can't simply be left as is, whatever option is chosen. If a new motorway was built offline, the existing road still needs a major rebuild at significant cost. Building a new road entirely offline plus rebuilding the existing road would likely be a lot more expensive than rebuilding the existing N20 as dual carriageway plus upgrading and realigning existing alternative roads.

Isambard · 06-07-2021 8:31am

the existing road from Blarney north to Rathduff is almost new and the section North of Rathduff to Burnfort is 2+1 built less than 20 years ago and extensively rebuilt about 3 years ago. An offline R road will be needed to replace all this if it is used for the M20 online.

The suggestion there will be no junction between Mallow and Blarney is pure fiction

Bass Reeves · 06-07-2021 9:15am

Isambard wrote: »

the existing road from Blarney north to Rathduff is almost new and the section North of Rathduff to Burnfort is 2+1 built less than 20 years ago and extensively rebuilt about 3 years ago. An offline R road will be needed to replace all this if it is used for the M20 online.

The suggestion there will be no junction between Mallow and Blarney is pure fiction

Mallow to the Blarney junction is about 20 km. Assuming a Mallow South junction the distance will be about 17 km. It highly unlikely there will be a junction in that distance

cjpm · 06-07-2021 10:04am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Mallow to the Blarney junction is about 20 km. Assuming a Mallow South junction the distance will be about 17 km. It highly unlikely there will be a junction in that distance

No. That isn’t correct. In 2010 it was proposed that the Mallow south junction would be at Burnfort Cross, exactly where the M20 widening of the N20 moves offline to avoid Mallow town. It’s the perfect place as the existing N20 will handle the Mallow South traffic joining the M20.

The rest of the Mallow traffic will join the M20 at Olivers Cross. At the junction of the Fermoy road and the Mitchelstown road. In fairness to the planners, a great idea.

In 2010 there was also a junction proposed at Rathduff. For Grenagh and the Landfill in Bottlehill.

cjpm · 06-07-2021 10:16am

From Burnfort to Blarney the road pavement thickness is almost good enough to handle motorway levels of traffic. Substandard sections were upgraded about 7 years ago. It will need some relatively minor widening for sure.

The parallel side roads that are proposed for local traffic will have tiny levels of traffic (due to the Rathduff and Mallow south junctions) and will be built accordingly. To local road standard.

It’s a complete no brainer. An offline build between Burnfort and Blarney will cost an absolute bomb and will be held up in the courts for years. And we’ll be left with the current N20 lying practically idle.

Isambard · 06-07-2021 11:04am

certainly south from Rathduff will be ideal for online M20 with junctions eliminated and some widening (and a new local road alongside). It's almost a new road. Rathduff will have to be bypassed I guess but then the 2+1 is wide enough to upgrade North to the Burnfort interchange, a local road already runs alongside here, but it would need a lot of upgrading, parts of it are the original Cork to Mallow road from the 17/1800s.

Isambard · 06-07-2021 11:11am

cjpm wrote: »

No. That isn’t correct. In 2010 it was proposed that the Mallow south junction would be at Burnfort Cross, exactly where the M20 widening of the N20 moves offline to avoid Mallow town. It’s the perfect place as the existing N20 will handle the Mallow South traffic joining the M20.

The rest of the Mallow traffic will join the M20 at Olivers Cross. At the junction of the Fermoy road and the Mitchelstown road. In fairness to the planners, a great idea.

In 2010 there was also a junction proposed at Rathduff. For Grenagh and the Landfill in Bottlehill.

Yes, I'd expect Cork-bound traffic from my neck of the woods (N72 west of Mallow to use the N20 to Burnfort. It really should retain it's N status or at least a 100km/h speed limit (Cork at good at that so should be on the cards) I don't know where the next junction north of Olivers Cross will be, but if there is a Buttevant Junc, it may be better for our traffic to use that

Pete_Cavan · 06-07-2021 1:01pm

Isambard wrote: »

Yes, I'd expect Cork-bound traffic from my neck of the woods (N72 west of Mallow to use the N20 to Burnfort. It really should retain it's N status or at least a 100km/h speed limit

With the N72 to follow the new road north of Mallow, the N72 will likely continue south on what is currently N20, to meet the existing N72 at the roundabout. The N73 could then take over the N72 through the town and N20 south of that roundabout to the M20 Mallow South Junction. That would keep the current N20 around and through Mallow as National roads.

BelfastVanMan · 06-07-2021 2:56pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

With the N72 to follow the new road north of Mallow, the N72 will likely continue south on what is currently N20, to meet the existing N72 at the roundabout. The N73 could then take over the N72 through the town and N20 south of that roundabout to the M20 Mallow South Junction. That would keep the current N20 around and through Mallow as National roads.

I like this idea, seems to make sense in theory.

Markcheese · 06-07-2021 3:05pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

. Slugs and quarry fauna cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of improving the lives of the people of this country, or saving lives on the roads.

That said, if more vexatious reviews speed us along to the point where partial or full repeal of these laws becomes politically desirable, I wish the NIMBYs every success.
.

Neither slugs not quarry animals will delay a major development , but failing to account for them ( or to visibly include them in environmental impact studies ) will ...
The objectors to the n28 couldn't give a fiddlers about the quarry , nor could those against the west Kerry green way give a thought for the Kerry slug ,
Usually the objections gain traction because of somebody not doing their job properly - or just a legal interpretation of the current laws .

06-07-2021 3:27pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Appealing a fully necessary and justified upgrade like the M28 because you are worried your land value might decrease is NIMBYism. Appealing it because you oppose roads in general is vexatious. It seems naive or deceptive to suggest otherwise.

Come on, you know this is absolute rubbish. A 4-lane motorway through Phoenix Park?

We seem to have adopted a very permissive reading of Aarhus, if other European nations are a comparator. So we either adopt a stricter interpretation of the treaty, or we repeal it as necessary. Slugs and quarry fauna cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of improving the lives of the people of this country, or saving lives on the roads.

That said, if more vexatious reviews speed us along to the point where partial or full repeal of these laws becomes politically desirable, I wish the NIMBYs every success.

It's a joke at this stage. The only good thing about the number of developments having their permission overturned by judicial review on environmental grounds is that it may finally spur the government to do something about it. Giving NIMBYs veto power over much-needed housing, infrastructure and the like should never have been done, but here we are.

You really are struggling with this aren't you.

Its really very simple.

1. Everyone has the right to appeal a planning decision.

2. The appeals are deemed successful or failed by ABP or the courts as applicable.

Thats it. Whether or not their reason for appealing is justified is decided by the applicable body. If its on a point of law not adhered to during the planning process, the appeals are typically successful. If its simply nimbyism, the appeals are typically unsuccessful.

If your complaint is that its taking too long for these decisions, then your issue is with the resourcing of the courts/ABP.

Personally I may or may not agree with the justification behind various appeals however I understand that everyone has the right to make such appeals and that we as a country are better off for having that access to justice.

The alternative is projects being railroaded through, not adhering to environmental regulations, ignoring local concerns and objections not being listened to.

markodaly · 06-07-2021 4:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You really are struggling with this aren't you.

Its really very simple.

1. Everyone has the right to appeal a planning decision.

2. The appeals are deemed successful or failed by ABP or the courts as applicable.

Thats it. Whether or not their reason for appealing is justified is decided by the applicable body. If its on a point of law not adhered to during the planning process, the appeals are typically successful. If its simply nimbyism, the appeals are typically unsuccessful.

If your complaint is that its taking too long for these decisions, then your issue is with the resourcing of the courts/ABP.

Personally I may or may not agree with the justification behind various appeals however I understand that everyone has the right to make such appeals and that we as a country are better off for having that access to justice.

The alternative is projects being railroaded through, not adhering to environmental regulations, ignoring local concerns and objections not being listened to.

Just on a point of order but why would someone from say Cavan have a right to appeal a planning decision in Cork?

cjpm · 06-07-2021 4:26pm

markodaly wrote: »

Just on a point of order but why would someone from say Cavan have a right to appeal a planning decision in Cork?

The biggest issue with all of this is the amount of time these things take….

riddlinrussell · 06-07-2021 4:52pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Neither slugs not quarry animals will delay a major development , but failing to account for them ( or to visibly include them in environmental impact studies ) will ...
The objectors to the n28 couldn't give a fiddlers about the quarry , nor could those against the west Kerry green way give a thought for the Kerry slug ,
Usually the objections gain traction because of somebody not doing their job properly - or just a legal interpretation of the current laws .

I would argue Mr Peter Sweetman very much cares about the Kerry Slug, but he certainly cares more about the Government being held to their own legislation. As has been pointed out many times, if they keep being caught out by not doing the EIS properly its not really the objectors fault. Other objectors I'm sure have more selfish motives, but its one of those cases where if the government does their job properly, the case will fail at the first hurdle.

06-07-2021 4:59pm

markodaly wrote: »

Just on a point of order but why would someone from say Cavan have a right to appeal a planning decision in Cork?

Why should they not?

I live in Galway, does that mean I'm not allowed to care about how the rule of law is adhered to in Louth?

If you are to base access to justice on location how do you decide it? County boundaries? Townland boundaries? Baronies? X km's from the site?

By what classification do you determine who is or is not allowed to appeal a planning decision based on their home address?

If you have a pre-eminent environmental law expert living in Dublin, is that person excluded from using their expertise to protect other parts of the Irish environment because they are not within x km's of the site?

How do you prevent appeals by proxy using this yardstick?

Aontachtoir · 06-07-2021 5:40pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

As has been pointed out many times, if they keep being caught out by not doing the EIS properly its not really the objectors fault.

I doubt development applicants are basing massive investments on slapdash EISs. If planning permissions are repeatedly overturned based on EIS flaws, that would suggest either the requirements for the EIS are not adequately defined in law (making it easy for objectors to claim the EIS did not meet one requirement or another) or so unnecessarily complex that even experienced operators cannot deliver a bulletproof EIS. Either option is unsatisfactory and should be remedied by modifying the relevant environmental law.

And yes, it is the objectors' fault if planning permission is thrown out after they make an objection. They are responsible for the houses not constructed, the safety upgrades not built, etc.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should they not?

I live in Galway, does that mean I'm not allowed to care about how the rule of law is adhered to in Louth

I'm not really aware of any other area of law where a person can sue a party over a decision that doesn't directly involve them. Sure, let people who would lose their land in a CPO take an appeal if they choose (with a higher ceiling for courts to overturn permission), but I don't see why anybody else should have standing. If someone with no direct link whatsoever can get involved and overturn a project, this is like allowing me to appeal a "not guilty" verdict in a trial that I have nothing to do with just because I don't like the look of the defendant and want him to be sent to prison.

Resource the system better, make it much harder for people to appeal, and decrease their chances of success. Maybe then this country will be able to start building houses, roads, and the like once again. Without significant changes to the planning system, I doubt we'll be getting the benefits of the M20 this side of 2030.

06-07-2021 5:52pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I doubt development applicants are basing massive investments on slapdash EISs. If planning permissions are repeatedly overturned based on EIS flaws, that would suggest either the requirements for the EIS are not adequately defined in law (making it easy for objectors to claim the EIS did not meet one requirement or another) or so unnecessarily complex that even experienced operators cannot deliver a bulletproof EIS. Either option is unsatisfactory and should be remedied by modifying the relevant environmental law.

And yes, it is the objectors' fault if planning permission is thrown out after they make an objection. They are responsible for the houses not constructed, the safety upgrades not built, etc.

I'm not really aware of any other area of law where a person can sue a party over a decision that doesn't directly involve them. Sure, let people who would lose their land in a CPO take an appeal if they choose (with a higher ceiling for courts to overturn permission), but I don't see why anybody else should have standing. If someone with no direct link whatsoever can get involved and overturn a project, this is like allowing me to appeal a "not guilty" verdict in a trial that I have nothing to do with just because I don't like the look of the defendant and want him to be sent to prison.

Resource the system better, make it much harder for people to appeal, and decrease their chances of success. Maybe then this country will be able to start building houses, roads, and the like once again. Without significant changes to the planning system, I doubt we'll be getting the benefits of the M20 this side of 2030.

Your confusions between criminal law and environmental/planning regulations aside, let me see if I understand the rest of this correctly

Its the fault of the law for being too difficult to follow thats why EIS's are not completed properly
Its the fault of objectors if their appeals are successful....just because
The only people in the whole country allowed to make an appeal are the handful directly affected.....just because
Its going to be extremely difficult for them to appeal....just because
The odds are going to be stacked against any appeals they are actually able to make.....just because

I don't think I missed anything.

Thats some utopia you're setting the place up to be **shudder**

Aontachtoir · 06-07-2021 6:15pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thats some utopia you're setting the place up to be

Yup. It'll be pretty much like the one we had before Aarhus, when people could actually build things that needed to be built and the M20 got through ABP about 18 months after planning began. Remind me if the old system led to 4-lane motorways through Phoenix Park?

06-07-2021 6:37pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Remind me if the old system led to 4-lane motorways through Phoenix Park?

You do realise that what you are advocating for would remove the avenue of appeal for most people to prevent such works from happening

Aontachtoir · 06-07-2021 6:45pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You do realise that what you are advocating for would remove the avenue of appeal for most people to prevent such works from happening

We seemed to get on okay before Aarhus without people building 4-lane motorways through Phoenix Park. Why is that? Planning wasn't granted automatically - the M20 was sent back to planning to add an exit.

Also, to return to your hypothetical scenario, why would anyone build a 4-lane motorway through Phoenix Park? Do you honestly, truly believe that unlimited and cost-free judicial reviews are the only reason there is no Phoenix Park Freeway?

06-07-2021 7:34pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

We seemed to get on okay before Aarhus without people building 4-lane motorways through Phoenix Park. Why is that? Planning wasn't granted automatically - the M20 was sent back to planning to add an exit.

Also, to return to your hypothetical scenario, why would anyone build a 4-lane motorway through Phoenix Park? Do you honestly, truly believe that unlimited and cost-free judicial reviews are the only reason there is no Phoenix Park Freeway?

It was an example, same as the other examples I listed, nothing more. That you are trying to make it more is just plain silly and you know it is.

As for the rest, thankfully your world view is not likely to come to pass any time soon.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my M20 objection

Aontachtoir · 06-07-2021 7:55pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was an example, same as the other examples I listed, nothing more.

Right, it's an example you proposed of something that would be built if random people couldn't send planning decisions willy-nilly to judicial review like before Aarhus. I'm glad that you seem to be no longer suggesting this is in any way realistic.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for the rest, thankfully your world view is not likely to come to pass any time soon.

Right, we've got to wait at least another year before the AG reports back on ways to cut down on vexatious and spurious objections on environmental grounds. At least the process is underway, and with the housing crisis continuing to worsen, popular fury against NIMBYs using judicial review to overturn planning grants will only further encourage major streamlining of the planning system. Ultimately, this will likely be good for houses, roads, schools, and infrastructure in general, and the M20 specifically.

06-07-2021 8:03pm

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Right, we've got to wait at least another year before the AG reports back on ways to cut down on vexatious and spurious objections on environmental grounds.

Meanwhile...

Court cases are leading the fight on climate change across Europe

Full story - https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/climate-change-eu-courts-5486115-Jul2021/

AS THE PLANET burns, across Europe we are seeing young people and campaigners fight for environmental justice in the courts.

In Germany, the 2019 Luisa Neubauer case made history. Germany’s supreme constitutional court ruled that the Government’s climate measures were insufficient to protect future generations after a complaint from environmentalist groups.

In Portugal, young climate activists have taken a case to the European Court of Human Rights against all European countries. They argue that these countries breach their human rights by failing to make deep and urgent emission cuts, and not adequately addressing cross-border emissions.

The case has been fast-tracked, meaning the courts recognise the urgency with which it should be heard.

It does not end there; courts from Belgium to the Netherlands are ruling that governments and, in some cases, companies like Dutch Shell have a responsibility to protect the rights of people and future generations from environmental harm.

Recently, French courts backed the climate case brought by my French Greens/EFA colleague Damien Carême MEP and ruled that France has until March 2022 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced within its borders.

A landmark action from Climate Case Ireland saw the Supreme Court support a motion that the then Government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan lacked enough detail on meeting 2050 emission reduction targets.

Importantly, this case has left the door open to other constitutional challenges on environmental failings. Simply put, the citizen-led revolution is inspiring. But it should not be up to our young people to seek environmental justice through the courts. Politicians must act, so that citizens are not forced to take court action.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

and the M20 specifically.

Eamonn Ryan stated yesterday during an interview on Newstalk that for the cost of the M20 we could bypass 20-30 towns around Ireland which would provide far greater benefit so the case for the M20 is by no means secure.

Aontachtoir · 06-07-2021 8:30pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meanwhile...
Eamonn Ryan stated yesterday during an interview on Newstalk that for the cost of the M20 we could bypass 20-30 towns around Ireland which would provide far greater benefit so the case for the M20 is by no means secure.

We could also just cancel the Dublin Metro, bypass 40-60 towns, and build the M20.

I think the M20's future is pretty darn secure, no matter who is in power. The longer the delay in the courts, the more EVs powered by the wind will be on the roads. Shortly, roads will no longer contribute to carbon emissions, and there will be no emissions-related reason to oppose them. On safety and economic grounds, FF and FG will (rightly) never allow the M20 to be canned, and nor will an SF government if they want to keep North Cork seats.

Furthermore, if current legislation allows necessary development to be stalled in the way which seems to be happening across Europe, we will just have to change the laws to prevent this.

Either way, the M20 will be built. The only question is how much taxpayer money will be wasted fighting vexatious objections in the courts.

Cookiemunster · 06-07-2021 9:01pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meanwhile...

Eamonn Ryan stated yesterday during an interview on Newstalk that for the cost of the M20 we could bypass 20-30 towns around Ireland which would provide far greater benefit so the case for the M20 is by no means secure.

Eamonn Ryan won't be in government when this comes as far as funding for construction. And even if he was he will be overruled by FG and FF as he was recently with the with the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Road in Limerick.

Also there are three large towns and multiple villages that need to be bypassed on the N20. It would make sense to do them all together and join them up really. It's almost as if that's what's being planned here.

06-07-2021 9:14pm

Being realistic, I don't doubt the M20 will eventually get built, but I don't think its going to be an easy one to get over the line

I guess time will tell

ianobrien · 06-07-2021 9:42pm

Just thinking, the M20 will bypass Rathduff (accident black spot), Mallow, Ballybeg bends (accident black spot), Buttavent, Ballyhea, Charleville & O'Rourke's Cross (accident black spot). That leaves the narrow road from O'Rourke's Cross to Croom.

Sure we'll call it a major combined bypass scheme to keep people happy......

Chris_5339762 · 06-07-2021 9:47pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I would argue Mr Peter Sweetman very much cares about the Kerry Slug, but he certainly cares more about the Government being held to their own legislation. As has been pointed out many times, if they keep being caught out by not doing the EIS properly its not really the objectors fault. Other objectors I'm sure have more selfish motives, but its one of those cases where if the government does their job properly, the case will fail at the first hurdle.

Peter Sweetman is just a serial objector. And recently has become a serial objector for hire.

06-07-2021 9:55pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Peter Sweetman is just a serial objector. And recently has become a serial objector for hire.

Point of fact, he only objects where the law has not been followed by applicants and there is a risk to the environment.

Look at every single case he has taken and you will see the same pattern.

Given that he wins the majority of his cases speaks volumes about the amount of non-adherence to environmental regulations when it comes to planning applications.

Its quite easy to avoid an objection from Peter, simply do what is required. Do that and he has no grounds upon which to object

markodaly · 07-07-2021 2:00am

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should they not?

I live in Galway, does that mean I'm not allowed to care about how the rule of law is adhered to in Louth?

If you are to base access to justice on location how do you decide it? County boundaries? Townland boundaries? Baronies? X km's from the site?

By what classification do you determine who is or is not allowed to appeal a planning decision based on their home address?

If you have a pre-eminent environmental law expert living in Dublin, is that person excluded from using their expertise to protect other parts of the Irish environment because they are not within x km's of the site?

How do you prevent appeals by proxy using this yardstick?

The rule of Law? Yes, we know all these people who object to things like cycle lanes, houses, metros and roads are all really concerned about the rule of law.....

The most known case of course is the object my a wealthy landowner in Wicklow to the Apple Datacentre for Athenry. If was really concerned about the rule of law I heard, but maybe we just didnt want a datacentre to be built anywhere but his land. A lot of times its about pure hard cash. People object to things because they fear it will hit their wealth. That is why so many objections submitted against housing developments.

I think its ridiculous that someone from the other side of the country can submit an object against a development and then launch legal challenges that tie up said development for years.

As I said, this is Astrotruf. Big money from other parts of the country interferrring against the wishes of the majority in another part of the country. Very undemocratic if you ask me, all passed off under the venner that these people really actually care about the rule of law!!

markodaly · 07-07-2021 2:07am

Aontachtoir wrote: »

We seemed to get on okay before Aarhus without people building 4-lane motorways through Phoenix Park. Why is that? Planning wasn't granted automatically - the M20 was sent back to planning to add an exit.

Also, to return to your hypothetical scenario, why would anyone build a 4-lane motorway through Phoenix Park? Do you honestly, truly believe that unlimited and cost-free judicial reviews are the only reason there is no Phoenix Park Freeway?

The slippery slope fallacy on display.

If we change the planning laws to make it harder to object to developments this will lead to motorways in the Phoneix Park, incinerators next to primacy schools, a chemical plant next in Fota, and so on...:rolleyes:

It is called a fallacy for a reason.

markodaly · 07-07-2021 2:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

Point of fact, he only objects where the law has not been followed by applicants and there is a risk to the environment.

Look at every single case he has taken and you will see the same pattern.

Given that he wins the majority of his cases speaks volumes about the amount of non-adherence to environmental regulations when it comes to planning applications.

Its quite easy to avoid an objection from Peter, simply do what is required. Do that and he has no grounds upon which to object

Does he have a 100% record? I
f not, then he objected to a development which in law had no grounds. Therefore the bit in bold is wrong.

Suffice to say that Peter Sweetnam would still be objecting regardless. His objections are usually won on technicalities, which put the development back a bit but doesn't stop it.

Has he ever actually stopped any development from happening?

Chris_5339762 · 15-07-2021 10:52am

Slane was completely stopped at the time.

I think that's the only one though off the top of my head. No - the original plans for the Buttevant bypass were complained away, as were N22 Ballincollig - Macroom many years ago. But those didn't make litigation the way things do now.

Limerick74 · 09-09-2021 10:24pm

Some positive news from Michael McGrath regarding NDP

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40694462.html

M20 - Cork to Limerick [preferred route chosen; in design - phase 3]

Comments