Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Windmills- Corrupt payment for neighbours?

1…567911

Comments

  • #242
    pburns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭pburns


    rancher wrote: »
    I don't care whether they're built or not but my aim is to ensure that our farmers have the same rights to planning as other counties, we need a national policy published immediately. Everything has to be allowed go to an bord planala. The government took it out of the hands of local county councillors for a reason.
    On the agreement, I don't think it's our place to discuss it

    The government took it out of the hands of local councillors to stymie the democratic will of the majority of local people. Something you and your ilk don't seem to have a problem with. You trumpet the IFA wind policy document but have no response to the points I've made about the cynical attitude towards ploughing ahead with current developments BEFORE set-back can be reviewed.

    You prattle on about farmers rights but what you don't seem to get is this is escalating into an issue far greater.
    Markcheese wrote: »
    Is distance such a big deal ?? 500meters set back is half a km away( yes I know they're tall )
    Should Any restriction be on decibels 500meters away ... it's fine for the wind farm company to say you'll be grand it's only a bit of noise,but if their planning conditions stipulate no more than x decibels at the nearest house 500 meters away or shutdown wouldnt that take a lot of the risk from the homeowner nearby and pass it to the wind farm developer ... ?

    Distances are easier to measure and legislate for I guess and they need to be measuring for the right type of low-frequency sound.
    JustAThought wrote: »
    The noise.

    Didn't a few houses slide away into the bog from them when first built ( where was it again - remember seeing the half a house on RTE news) ; pressure & subsidence. We have a few out here & while I don't mind the concept or look of them the noise would wreck my head. Has to be heard to be believed.

    The land-slide was possibly an isolated case but , yes, noise would be one of my biggest concerns too but also the scale and sheer monsterous size.
    grazeaway wrote: »
    perhaps they do share the same ideal's as politicains, out to make sure that they geat as much as they can for them selves.

    Yep, that's wahat all the opposition is about - trying to get a nice big wad of cash. :rolleyes: Don't judge everyone by the same low standards.


  • #243
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    pburns wrote: »
    The government took it out of the hands of local councillors to stymie the democratic will of the majority of local people. Something you and your ilk don't seem to have a problem with. You trumpet the IFA wind policy document but have no response to the points I've made about the cynical attitude towards ploughing ahead with current developments BEFORE set-back can be reviewed.

    You prattle on about farmers rights but what you don't seem to get is this is escalating into an issue far greater..

    If its as bad as you and your ilk proclaim, National policy will reflect that,
    We have no problem if a development proposal is thrown out, if its a decision of competent planners or if it goes against national policy.
    A lot of bad information out there (from both sides) which will have to be investigated.
    You must think IFA very powerful if you think us capable of stopping these companies


  • #244
    pburns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭pburns


    rancher wrote: »
    If its as bad as you and your ilk proclaim, National policy will reflect that,
    We have no problem if a development proposal is thrown out, if its a decision of competent planners or if it goes against national policy.
    A lot of bad information out there (from both sides) which will have to be investigated.
    You must think IFA very powerful if you think us capable of stopping these companies

    It must be great to have such confidence in national policy. I guess that's easy when you are inside the tent pissing out. It was 'competent' planners and 'national policy' which led to the pletora of ghost estates being built under the last administration.
    rancher wrote: »
    You must think IFA very powerful if you think us capable of stopping these companies

    How disingenuous can you be? Stopping them!? You have been actively facilitating them! Not only that but it seems IFA members who question the party line are being ignored and threatened:
    Chairperson of last Tuesday’s meeting Brian Ramsbottom said they, he along with two other farmers, who are members of the IFA had attempted on three separate occasions to engage the executive council of the Laois IFA in meaningful discussions on wind farms developments. He said that on one occasion they were threatened to be removed from the meeting if they persisted in trying to place the issue on the agenda.

    http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/news/2013/09/20/free/


  • #245
    reilig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭reilig


    pburns wrote: »
    It was 'competent' planners and 'national policy' which led to the pletora of ghost estates being built under the last administration.



    You are very wrong. Planners were well trained and still are and you are spouting a populist farse!

    The pletera of ghost estates that you refer to were built because councillors were lobbied (and paid in some instances) to deviate from the county development plans. All of the estates were never planned. But people looked after number 1. They didn't follow the plans or the rules as per their county development plans - one deviation led to another and a snowball effect emerged.

    It is just like last week when we saw westmeath co co jump the gun with planning laws in order to create a short term stop gap and look after a small group of people who made a lot of noise without thinking about the impact of their decision on people living in other parts of the county or in other counties. It may have solved the problem in the short term, but what does it mean for planning for rural dwellers in the future???


  • #246
    maidhc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭maidhc


    reilig wrote: »
    You are very wrong. Planners were well trained and still are and you are spouting a populist farse!

    The pletera of ghost estates that you refer to were built because councillors were lobbied (and paid in some instances) to deviate from the county development plans. All of the estates were never planned. But people looked after number 1. They didn't follow the plans or the rules as per their county development plans - one deviation led to another and a snowball effect emerged.

    No, you are wrong. All the estates were planned and zoned and had planning permission.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    reilig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭reilig


    maidhc wrote: »
    No, you are wrong. All the estates were planned and zoned and had planning permission.

    Untrue.

    In Westmeath, villages like Ballymore, Rathowen, Milltownpass, Ballynacargy were not in the county development plan as zoned for estates. The plan was amended to allow these areas to be zoned - this was due to lobbying from developers on councillors who subsequently voted to amend the County Development plan. As a result of these amendments, planners granted planning permission.

    Similarly in Longford, villages like Ballinalee, Aughnacliff, Kenagh and Cloondra were never zoned for construction in any original CDP. All were subsequently added by Councillors.

    Roscommon is probably the best example. Over 100 houses built in 2 estates in Scramogue. there are no local shops, and just 1 local pub. There were no sewerage facilities pre the development. Are you telling me that the Roscommon CDP intended building these houses of which over 80 are still empty? They may have received planning permission, but if Roscommon CoCo had followed their CDP, they would have never build houses there. And not only did they do it once, but they allowed it to happen a second time in the small village of Ballinamene. Over 200 houses. 8 miles from the nearest town. One pub and one shop to serve them all.

    As i said, planners are not to blame. They will allow people to build on zoned land. It's the people who jumped the gun and zoned the land that are to blame!


  • #248
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,001 ✭✭✭✭Birdnuts


    reilig wrote: »
    Untrue.

    In Westmeath, villages like Ballymore, Rathowen, Milltownpass, Ballynacargy were not in the county development plan as zoned for estates. The plan was amended to allow these areas to be zoned - this was due to lobbying from developers on councillors who subsequently voted to amend the County Development plan. As a result of these amendments, planners granted planning permission.

    Similarly in Longford, villages like Ballinalee, Aughnacliff, Kenagh and Cloondra were never zoned for construction in any original CDP. All were subsequently added by Councillors.

    Roscommon is probably the best example. Over 100 houses built in 2 estates in Scramogue. there are no local shops, and just 1 local pub. There were no sewerage facilities pre the development. Are you telling me that the Roscommon CDP intended building these houses of which over 80 are still empty? They may have received planning permission, but if Roscommon CoCo had followed their CDP, they would have never build houses there. And not only did they do it once, but they allowed it to happen a second time in the small village of Ballinamene. Over 200 houses. 8 miles from the nearest town. One pub and one shop to serve them all.

    As i said, planners are not to blame. They will allow people to build on zoned land. It's the people who jumped the gun and zoned the land that are to blame!

    The problem with planning in this country(and many other areas) is that best practice is often an "option" not a "condition" in existing legislation. This means many dodgy developments can still get through with appeals to Bord Pleanala often people's only chance to make sure best practice is actually followed.


  • #249
    maidhc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭maidhc


    reilig wrote: »
    Untrue.

    In Westmeath, villages like Ballymore, Rathowen, Milltownpass, Ballynacargy were not in the county development plan as zoned for estates. The plan was amended to allow these areas to be zoned - this was due to lobbying from developers on councillors who subsequently voted to amend the County Development plan. As a result of these amendments, planners granted planning permission.

    Similarly in Longford, villages like Ballinalee, Aughnacliff, Kenagh and Cloondra were never zoned for construction in any original CDP. All were subsequently added by Councillors.

    Roscommon is probably the best example. Over 100 houses built in 2 estates in Scramogue. there are no local shops, and just 1 local pub. There were no sewerage facilities pre the development. Are you telling me that the Roscommon CDP intended building these houses of which over 80 are still empty? They may have received planning permission, but if Roscommon CoCo had followed their CDP, they would have never build houses there. And not only did they do it once, but they allowed it to happen a second time in the small village of Ballinamene. Over 200 houses. 8 miles from the nearest town. One pub and one shop to serve them all.

    As i said, planners are not to blame. They will allow people to build on zoned land. It's the people who jumped the gun and zoned the land that are to blame!

    And how is building thousands of wind turbines without proper guidelines better did you say?


  • #250
    reilig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭reilig


    maidhc wrote: »
    And how is building thousands of wind turbines without proper guidelines better did you say?

    The only person to say that was you!

    I said that once again, the CoCo jumped the gun instead of allowing the provisions and safeguards that they have in place to come into force. I said that this will have major implications for rural dwellers in the future on a raft of issues - not just wind turbines!


  • #251
    maidhc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭maidhc


    reilig wrote: »
    The only person to say that was you!

    I said that once again, the CoCo jumped the gun instead of allowing the provisions and safeguards that they have in place to come into force. I said that this will have major implications for rural dwellers in the future on a raft of issues - not just wind turbines!

    I know, but the problem is there are no safeguards really.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    reilig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭reilig


    maidhc wrote: »
    I know, but the problem is there are no safeguards really.

    Going back to the example of the ghost estates, the County Development Plans were the safeguards. They were developed through a consultation process which any body, councillor, individual, environmental group etc. was allowed to feed in to. By over-riding the CDP, County Councillors removed the safeguard of the knowledge and expertise of everyone who worked together to create a CDP which would be most beneficial for each local area, individuals and the environment for the sake of a minority of people.

    Thus we were left with ghost estates.

    Now with the wind turbine debate, a county council have changed their CDP again. Why didn't they allow it to go through the planning process and be turfed out as a result of this if there were enough objections to it? This is the safeguard. Many people would argue that by making these amendments, county councillors bought themselves a lot of votes for the local elections just around the corner. But the bigger concern lies with the precedents that the change of the CDP sets for the future. It takes the power away from the trained planners and puts it in the hands of the councillors and ultimately the people who can shout the loudest (or pay the most - as with some of the ghost estates of the building boom)

    Yes - the anti wind lobbiests got what they wanted. But for people who don't have the concern of wind turbines in their locality, what precedent does allowing councillors make the decision set for future development???


  • #253
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    The County Development Plans are fairly meaningless. In many instances in the midlands people have been surprised to find that areas not zoned for wind energy in the CDPs are included in the Greenwire and Energy Bridge wind farms. Presumably the councillors decided to bypass the "trained planners" when the wind energy lads lobbied them last year; AFAIK the wind companies only started approaching farmers once the county councils had given them the nod.

    What has happened in Westmeath is a response to a huge public outcry. It would be nice to be able to call it democracy but it's actually just the whole parish-pump politics thing: the councillors will get reelected and the wind farms will probably go ahead anyway because these projects are going straight to An Bord Pleanala.


  • #254
    Marooned75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Marooned75


    An bird pleanala in there wisdom in a recent application allowed planning for turbines 145 mts tall to be build even though there own planners more or less stated that the building of these is detrimental to the local envoirnment.So what faith is there for these people to listen to there own experts in these matters.Dysart in Roscommon


  • #255
    maidhc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭maidhc


    reilig wrote: »
    Going back to the example of the ghost estates, the County Development Plans were the safeguards.

    In Cork the CDP did countenance development in many places where there shouldn't be. Further Councils and An Bord are granting planning for turbines in areas not coutenanced by the CDP.

    Im not sure if I would equate the religious fervour for(and against) turbines with any actual real planning issue a person is likely to face.

    Farming for the most part is an accepted and respected aspect of Irish life. It is an important industry, and really I don't sense farmers have ever been impacted by the planning code. Im not sure many county councillors would want to be seen to be anti farming or anti rural development.

    I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!


  • #256
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,977 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!

    Aren't we all interested in our own business /area for our own reasons...
    I'd be a bit disbelieving if the wind companies said they were more interested in the sustainability of rural Ireland...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #257
    Manoffeeling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭Manoffeeling


    Markcheese wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!

    Aren't we all interested in our own business /area for our own reasons...
    I'd be a bit disbelieving if the wind companies said they were more interested in the sustainability of rural Ireland...

    Wind companies don't give 2 fooks about people in rural Ireland. At the end of the day, it's return on capital invested. It's called Capitalism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


  • #258
    pburns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭pburns


    reilig wrote: »
    Yes - the anti wind lobbiests got what they wanted. But for people who don't have the concern of wind turbines in their locality, what precedent does allowing councillors make the decision set for future development???

    Aye, there's the rub - it won't effect you. I'm sorry, but for those of us who are in close proximity to these planned structures concerns about what precedent a CDP alteration sets for some indeterminable point in the future is pretty academic.
    Manoffeeling wrote: »
    Wind companies don't give 2 fooks about people in rural Ireland. At the end of the day, it's return on capital invested. It's called Capitalism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

    True enough, you don't expect big business to behave any differently. It is quite shocking however how deeply our government is mired in this. For example, Brendan Halligan, chairman of SEAI and former general secretary of the Labour Party is a director in Mainstream. Conflict of interest? Surely not:rolleyes:...

    As for the IFA - who supposedly represent Irish farmers - as usual they are looking after the narrow interests of their own clique and hiding behind a whitewash of a wind energy strategy.

    BTW seems Mainstream CEO Eddie O'Connor has 'apologised' for his behavior on last Monday's Prime Time:
    https://twitter.com/griffinniamh/status/384265174792028160/photo/1


  • #259
    Manoffeeling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭Manoffeeling


    pburns wrote: »

    BTW seems Mainstream CEO Eddie O'Connor has 'apologised' for his behavior on last Monday's Prime Time:
    https://twitter.com/griffinniamh/status/384265174792028160/photo/1

    The harm has been done. Arrogant beyond belief.


  • #260
    Conmaicne Mara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,543 ✭✭✭Conmaicne Mara


    Manoffeeling wrote: »
    The harm has been done. Arrogant beyond belief.

    Not often I watch RTE but Jesus smug didn't describe him, sniggering at people on TV.


  • #261
    Sharpshooter82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,825 ✭✭✭Sharpshooter82


    http://youtu.be/3Uiww-w1_wQ
    terrible man


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Manoffeeling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭Manoffeeling


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-council-as-wind-power-fails-to-light-up-20m-park-29709815.html


  • #263
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,977 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Manoffeeling wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-council-as-wind-power-fails-to-light-up-20m-park-29709815.html

    Just proves local authorities shouldn't build energy projects...it was just a( very expensive) puff piece anyway.... Probably had an implementation group, feasibilty study,engineering oversight group, yaddy yaddy yadda.....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #264
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    rancher wrote: »
    They have to go back for public consultation again now, probably won't be a vote now again for 3-4 mths.....national policy will surely be decided by then....interesting times ahead

    I see the co council got their knuckles rapped by both the IWEA. and the Department of the environment for what they did to the county devlopememt plan re windfarm planning.
    Westmeath IFA was right.... county councillors had no right to do what they did.
    We were protecting property rights, the fact that it pertained to wind turbines was just incidental.


  • #265
    Marooned75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Marooned75


    rancher wrote: »
    I see the co council got their knuckles rapped by both the IWEA. and the Department of the environment for what they did to the county devlopememt plan re windfarm planning.
    Westmeath IFA was right.... county councillors had no right to do what they did.
    We were protecting property rights, the fact that it pertained to wind turbines was just incidental.

    Of course the IWEA is going to speak out and the Dept of environment because anybody that goes against their policy will get attacked,as for IFA policy and being right I doubt that,everyone has rights and are entitled to fight for them pity the IFA didn't think of that when this was first mooted might have saved a lot of stress on all sides.as for presidential candidate Jer Bergin I see no mention of his stewardship of wind energy policy for the IFA on his manifesto.


  • #266
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    Marooned75 wrote: »
    Of course the IWEA is going to speak out and the Dept of environment because anybody that goes against their policy will get attacked,as for IFA policy and being right I doubt that,everyone has rights and are entitled to fight for them pity the IFA didn't think of that when this was first mooted might have saved a lot of stress on all sides.as for presidential candidate Jer Bergin I see no mention of his stewardship of wind energy policy for the IFA on his manifesto.

    All I know is that article in the Westmeath Examiner today has the same criticism of the co. council as I had of them at the time of the vote.....damn it, I could've wrote it.
    There'll be egg on someones face yet over this


  • #267
    pburns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭pburns


    rancher wrote: »
    There'll be egg on someones face yet over this

    There already is... ;)


  • #268
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    pburns wrote: »
    There already is... ;)

    Windfarm companies are too confident, I suspect they have been given positive vibes by the government. They have invested too much money around here. The new draft guidelines for wind energy will be out soon......
    Whetever the regulation, they will have to be the same for every county,


  • #269
    Marooned75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Marooned75


    In today's journal John Bryan asking for people to rally against eirgrid to put pylons underground,due to health and envoirnmental issues,yet the silence is deafening about turbines.


  • #270
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    Marooned75 wrote: »
    In today's journal John Bryan asking for people to rally against eirgrid to put pylons underground,due to health and envoirnmental issues,yet the silence is deafening about turbines.

    All options have to be considered......


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Marooned75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Marooned75


    So you said the IFA is the only group lobbying for new wind energy guidelines,did they not help the horse bolt bit late closing the stable door now?


Advertisement