An Taisce publish report card for local authorities

MadsL · 16-04-2012 11:49AM #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0416/planningreport.pdf

A few lowlights;

Mayo, Galway County, Cavan, Carlow, and Waterford County all with F grades.

Donegal had over 5,500 acres zoned for housing in 2010 - enough for an additional 180,000 people.

The worst three counties in terms of residential over-zoning were Clare, County Cork (2,500 hectares) and Donegal (2,250 hectares), which between them accounted for 20% of the entire national stock of residentially zoned land in 2010.

In 2008, at the onset of the economic collapse, Ireland had enough zoned land to almost double the national population to 8 million, with some 42,000 hectares having residential zoning, almost all of it greenfield land.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector have risen 170% over 1990 levels primarily due to development sprawl.

Because of wholly ill-advised ‘traffic level guarantees’ the NRA gave to toll road operators on the Limerick Tunnel and the M3, Irish taxpayers are now footing the bill for penalty payments, a financial burden that will run far in excess of €100m.

Despite this level of performance FG and Labour refuse to investigate planning performance around the country, parking the Dublin inquiry and doubtless finding no case to answer for other authorities.

What was that phrase about 'learning from history' again?

Sleepy · 16-04-2012 11:57AM

MadsL wrote: »

Despite this level of performance FG and Labour refuse to investigate planning performance around the country, parking the Dublin inquiry and doubtless finding no case to answer for other authorities.

Why bother wasting money investigating organisations you intend to close / merge / fundamentally re-structure?

At least, this is what I hope they're planning. Every dog in the street knows we've too many councils and they're wasting a fortune while often doing a piss-poor job...

MadsL · 16-04-2012 12:21PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Why bother wasting money investigating organisations you intend to close / merge / fundamentally re-structure?

To ensure the same level of cronyism and incompetence doesn't become the norm rather than the exception.

Why is ANY expenditure on understanding the economic mess deemed a 'waste'??

mike65 · 16-04-2012 12:21PM

Well that was a dismal overview! The level of witless "planning" in this county is extraordinary.

Sleepy · 16-04-2012 12:27PM

If the government have the same amount of sense as the average leaving cert economics student, these bodies won't be around any more. The mistakes that were made in the past were at such a macro level that a micro-level examination of who did exactly what wrong (next to impossible to find out in the arse-covering world of your average local authority) isn't really necessary to establishing proper planning practices in the future.

Yes, if we lived in an ideal country where those corrupt planners would be rooted out by such an investigation, in a way that would lead to a prosecution, it might be worth the cost. However, we live in a country which allows Messrs Ahern, Flynn et al are not only free but living on extravagant state pensions.

MadsL · 16-04-2012 12:55PM

Sleepy wrote: »

we live in a country which allows Messrs Ahern, Flynn et al are not only free but living on extravagant state pensions.

ergo we should not investigate further corruption? How the hell do we plan to get out of the mess then?

Mr.Micro · 16-04-2012 01:03PM

There is a Carlow County with a big red F right in the middle of the Leinster. No surprise to me and many others. No wonder big Phil does not appear to want investigations into County Councils and planning. It was a free for all in Carlow and what has been done about it or will be done? Nothing.

antoobrien · 16-04-2012 01:24PM

Biggest surprise of the lot Galway city council one of the top ranked. WTF?

Lads seriously, if you want to be taken seriously GCC is worse than Galway Co Co (from having dealt with both).

meglome · 16-04-2012 01:29PM

MadsL wrote: »

Mayo, Galway County, Cavan, Carlow, and Waterford County all with F grades.

Donegal had over 5,500 acres zoned for housing in 2010 - enough for an additional 180,000 people.

You only have to travel around Ireland and see the small villages with 200 house estates built in them to know things were very wrong.

MadsL · 16-04-2012 01:37PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Biggest surprise of the lot Galway city council one of the top ranked. WTF?

Lads seriously, if you want to be taken seriously GCC is worse than Galway Co Co (from having dealt with both).

Because your personal experience outweighs all those pesky statistical yokes. Did you read the report? - the grade was based on a number of factors.

mikemac1 · 16-04-2012 01:43PM

North Tipp got a D
I knew it would be better then Clare but it's still poor

North Tipp are pretty strict on the one off housing, well there is a lot out there but it's stricter then Clare

Good few section twenty one estates put into tiny villages around the area.
Not sure why, the one local to us was never finished and it's boarded up and just sitting there

Will it be knocked or will the council finish it off and put local authority tenants into it.
Nobody knows

DailyBlaa · 16-04-2012 01:54PM

Not at all surprised by the Waterford scores. Two ghost estates within 5 mins of my house. What should be the outcome of this report? What cant the councils be told this is to be reassessed in 12 months unless major improvements made jobs go simple as that. Planning offices still full with staff and no new major developments underway.

ballyrhy86 · 16-04-2012 01:59PM

Sleepy wrote: »

If the government have the same amount of sense as the average leaving cert economics student, these bodies won't be around any more. The mistakes that were made in the past were at such a macro level that a micro-level examination of who did exactly what wrong (next to impossible to find out in the arse-covering world of your average local authority) isn't really necessary to establishing proper planning practices in the future.

Yes, if we lived in an ideal country where those corrupt planners would be rooted out by such an investigation, in a way that would lead to a prosecution, it might be worth the cost. However, we live in a country which allows Messrs Ahern, Flynn et al are not only free but living on extravagant state pensions.

Do you mean corrupt planners or corrupt local councillors?

Sleepy · 16-04-2012 02:17PM

Both tbh.

ballyrhy86 · 16-04-2012 02:20PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Both tbh.

Fair enough. It's just you don't hear about corrupt planners too often, as they don't really have any power regarding zoning of land. When people hear "planning corruption" they immediately associate it with "corrupt planners", when really it just politicians up to their usual bull****.

antoobrien · 16-04-2012 02:41PM

MadsL wrote: »

Because your personal experience outweighs all those pesky statistical yokes. Did you read the report? - the grade was based on a number of factors.

Galway City council granted planning permission to a road, that has the little problem of having several houses and a retail park in the way.

The reason: Galway City council didn't have any of them on their maps, despite granting planning permission for these buildings.

Now how can a city council that doesn't know what's been built within its boundaries get a C rating for planning?

BluntGuy · 16-04-2012 03:00PM

While the report contains findings it is very hard to disagree with, I find An Taisce's complaints about urban sprawl, ghost estates and bad planning, incompatible with their systematic engagement in almost childishly opposing every single high-rise proposal that has cropped up over the last decade and noted position on high rises in general. I think they also need a report card when it comes to this area.

n97 mini · 16-04-2012 03:44PM

BluntGuy wrote: »

childishly opposing every single high-rise proposal that has cropped up

They may have good reason. When I think of high rises, the first 4 that come to mind:
1. O'Connell Bridge house. Built just before Planning Permission became law and someone should have gone to prison for it.
2. Liberty Hall. Ditto.
3. The Elysian. The tallest ghost estate in Ireland.
4. Sentinel in Sandyford. The tallest abandoned building site in Ireland.

Not to mention other acts of vandalism around the place such as the eircom building on O'Connell St., or the ESB HQ building that wrecked the Georgian Mile.

I think An Taisce generally have the right idea. We don't do planning well as a rule in Ireland.

antoobrien · 16-04-2012 04:11PM

BluntGuy wrote: »

While the report contains findings it is very hard to disagree with, I find An Taisce's complaints about urban sprawl, ghost estates and bad planning, incompatible with their systematic engagement in almost childishly opposing every single high-rise proposal that has cropped up over the last decade and noted position on high rises in general. I think they also need a report card when it comes to this area.

I'd love to see the methodology used because the areas rated seem skewed against the authorities with the largest areas to cover e.g. the sewage schemes with problems, they'll have a larger number of urban areas to deal with & one off housing %, which will be naturally higher in the larger counties (especially those that traditionally have a very high rural population).

The "best" 10 areas cover a total of 10.08% of the landmass of the county, if you take counties Meath, Wicklow & Kildare out of that the figure is 1.46%.
To put that in context Cork Co council, with a ranking of 19th covers, is responsible for services to 10.63% of the landmass of Ireland.

Meanwhile the 10 "worst" cover 46.27% of the landmass of the country.

Mr.Micro · 16-04-2012 04:40PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The "best" 10 areas cover a total of 10.08% of the landmass of the county, if you take counties Meath, Wicklow & Kildare out of that the figure is 1.46%.
To put that in context Cork Co council, with a ranking of 19th covers, is responsible for services to 10.63% of the landmass of Ireland.

Meanwhile the 10 "worst" cover 46.27% of the landmass of the country.

Meanwhile all those involved in each County are still, most likely in the job, be the CC or planner. No censure, nothing. They would do it all again.

BluntGuy · 16-04-2012 05:01PM

n97 mini wrote: »

They may have good reason. When I think of high rises, the first 4 that come to mind:

Their reasoning typically comes down to preserving their notion of the city's "low rise character", in almost every case. I agree there are some areas not suited to high rise, I also agree that some of the taller buildings such as O'Connell Bridge House are not visually appealing. But neither are the hideous 6 storey uniform glass blocks they seem to approve of, that now saturate the Docklands. Nor the bulkier designs of buildings that have had floors chopped off them.

I think An Taisce generally have the right idea. We don't do planning well as a rule in Ireland.

I think they have some right ideas, but I think they hold two contradictory notions. If you want to avoid sprawl in towns and cities you have to densify. The best way to go about this is a mix of high and low-rise. Their rigid attitude does not facilitate this.

MadsL · 16-04-2012 06:08PM

BluntGuy wrote: »

While the report contains findings it is very hard to disagree with, I find An Taisce's complaints about urban sprawl, ghost estates and bad planning, incompatible with their systematic engagement in almost childishly opposing every single high-rise proposal that has cropped up over the last decade and noted position on high rises in general. I think they also need a report card when it comes to this area.

Except they absolutely didn't do that. An Taisce took a position where they accepted the DEGW study in 2000 allowing for high rise in the Docklands and Heuston.

As for childishness, DCC were slavishly following a high-rise agenda based on senior planners preferences for high-rise in direct contradiction of the Dublin Development Plan, hence the number of planning permissions overturned by ABP.

DCC even gave permission for a batsh1t crazy scheme that cantilevered over the quays like an upside-down L - needless to say it was tamed by ABP. I believe the offices are still empty.

The best way to go about this is a mix of high and low-rise. Their rigid attitude does not facilitate this.

Skyscrapers actually contribute very little in combating sprawl, they tend to need slender profiles and subsequently are not as 'dense' as you might think. They also have a terrible eco-footprint.

Astonishing how many people believe An Taisce do this and that when the facts simply do not match their preconceptions.

antoobrien · 17-04-2012 04:52PM

Am I reading this right?

Did An Taisce calculate their scores correctly?

Go to the second last & last pages (Appendix 2 & 3) which "scores" each local authority.

The scoring system is outlined on page 11:

Finally, the ranking provides an overall score for each council based on the aggregates of the eight indicators used. Some councils perform better in certain indicators than in others. However, the overall rank is based on a combined score across all of the indicators. The complete result for each council broken down over the eight indicators is provided in Appendix 2.

Take the score for Carlow

Carlow 19 9 2 16 1 16 29 12 85

19 + 9 + 2 + 16 + 1 + 16 + 29 + 12 = 104

It appears that they've totally ignored the first indicator - overzoning (aggregate does mean all doesn't it?).

By the recalculated scores there are several changes:
SDCC & DLR swap, and get B's along with Galway City
Fingal gains 10% (but stays C).

There's a fair bit of shuffling but the result is that the top 6 LAs are the 4 in Dublin, Cork & Galway Cities.

The previous results were:
C: 4

13
E: 8
F: 5
F-: 4

New ones
B: 3
C: 8

9
E: 9
F: 2
F-: 3

antoobrien · 18-04-2012 06:46AM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0416/planningreport.pdf

Oh dear, An Taisce have replaced this version of their report with a new one that no longer has it's appendices.

What do you have to hide lads?

18-04-2012 12:02PM

An Taisce are an agenda driven waste of money, we just spent how much on tribunals to find out about corruption involving planning.

What we need are reforms. Take power away from councils, planners & politicians and give it to the people

antoobrien · 18-04-2012 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What we need are reforms. Take power away from councils, planners & politicians and give it to the people

Given An Tasice's abhorrence of one off housing (which apparently the people want) they'd be against this as well.

antoobrien · 20-04-2012 09:59AM

antoobrien wrote: »

It appears that they've totally ignored the first indicator - overzoning (aggregate does mean all doesn't it?).

They've admitted it - trying to explain it away as being nicer to rural areas by not including this and conveniently forgetting to mention it in their report.

Why bother including it at all then if it's inclusion will skew the results?

Why not state this on Tuesday when they removed the scores from the report they published on Monday?

Why pick indicators like one off housing planning permissions which don't take into account demolitions & rebuilds?

Why call the 3 of the 4 LAs in Dublin top of this criteria when if you take the area they were built in into consideration, they built several multiples of the county ranked worst. Dublin City council allowed 2,529 one offs within the city boundary in the 10 covered years. Mayo (which covers an area almost 50 times larger) allowed 9,836 in the same timeframe.

If one offs are bad they're bad everywhere and in a region where building land is scares it's worse still! If I was in Longford CC I'd be seroulsy pissed off with this because they only allowed 1,435 but are ranked 26th by an taisce in this cirteria, where Dublin who allowed more one offs were ranked 14th.

Why pick gross vacancy rates ignoring holiday homes (which also skews towards city councils)?

An Taisce publish report card for local authorities

Comments