nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Happyman42

Interested in views on this, has Enda set a massive precedent here?

I think it is a fairly sinister development.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

I agree . Emergency bills to give politicians more p power in planning matters. No thanks Fianna Fail.

Read the legislation. It merely introduces an appeals process - which can benefit the applicant and complainants alike. It is one of the few areas that has no appeals process whatsoever. Its more so about ensuring that we don't get into this ridiculous position again where there is a complete vacuum to bring about a compromise when you have both sides of the divide saying that they actually want to compromise.

Thoie

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Read the legislation. It merely introduces an appeals process - which can benefit the applicant and complainants alike. It is one of the few areas that has no appeals process whatsoever. Its more so about ensuring that we don't get into this ridiculous position again where there is a complete vacuum to bring about a compromise when you have both sides of the divide saying that they actually want to compromise.

But what good is an appeals process unless something fundamental has changed about the application? An appeal in this particular case is really just "Daddy said no, go ask Mammy".

If DCC has said the concerts can't go ahead because of reasons x,y,z, then appealing that is the equivalent of saying "OK, so we're not meeting the legal criteria, but sure go on and let us do what we want anyway".

The correct process, which is already in place, is altering your plans and resubmitting, which then allows time for people to review and raise objections. Anything else is doing away with people's rights to raise objections. This is the crucial point - people need to have the opportunity to object. Their objections may be invalid, and not impact the decision, but they have to have that chance.

If Aiken had submitted the original request in a timely manner, the first rejection could have happened in April, allowing time to draft and submit alternative plans. He was trying to pull a fast one, and it backfired, badly.

Happyman42

Thoie wrote: »

But what good is an appeals process unless something fundamental has changed about the application? An appeal in this particular case is really just "Daddy said no, go ask Mammy".

If DCC has said the concerts can't go ahead because of reasons x,y,z, then appealing that is the equivalent of saying "OK, so we're not meeting the legal criteria, but sure go on and let us do what we want anyway".

The correct process, which is already in place, is altering your plans and resubmitting, which then allows time for people to review and raise objections. Anything else is doing away with people's rights to raise objections. This is the crucial point - people need to have the opportunity to object. Their objections may be invalid, and not impact the decision, but they have to have that chance.

If Aiken had submitted the original request in a timely manner, the first rejection could have happened in April, allowing time draft and submit alternative plans. He was trying to pull a fast one, and it backfired, badly.

Excellent post.
The system, with it's built in consultative process, is designed to remove the necessity of an appeals process.
Somebody in this process, was either not saying the right things or not listening to the right things.
I have my suspicions that it was Aiken/Croke Park/ Brooks management who were 'not listening' and that is what will come out in the wash.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Read the legislation. It merely introduces an appeals process - which can benefit the applicant and complainants alike. It is one of the few areas that has no appeals process whatsoever. Its more so about ensuring that we don't get into this ridiculous position again where there is a complete vacuum to bring about a compromise when you have both sides of the divide saying that they actually want to compromise.

Are you seriously defending that bill that would allow for political interference in planning. Of course I have read the bill . It looks Timmy Dooley wrote it alright - it is complete rubbish that has all the hallmarks of being written in a excited frenzy by a starstruck and desperate Garth Brooks fan. Not a TD !!

Have you read it ? It looks like you have not......"the Minister may, if he deems it appropriate and believes the event is of national and cultural importance, review the decision of the Local Authority and may grant a licence or remove conditions imposed by the Local Authority"

Have you people in Fianna Fail learned nothing ? Seriously ?

Fianna Fail : Please stop trying to meddle in justice and planning matters.

Thoie

raymon wrote: »

Are you seriously defending that bill that would allow for political interference in planning. Of course I have read the bill . It looks Timmy Dooley wrote it alright - it is complete rubbish that has all the hallmarks of being written in a excited frenzy by a starstruck and desperate Garth Brooks fan. Not a TD !!

Have you read it ? It looks like you have not......"the Minister may, if he deems it appropriate and believes the event is of national and cultural importance, review the decision of the Local Authority and may grant a licence or remove conditions imposed by the Local Authority"

Have you people in Fianna Fail learned nothing ? Seriously ?

Fianna Fail : Please stop trying to meddle in justice and planning matters.

Precisely. What if an application was rejected on the grounds of crowd management? The decision maker, using her experience, and consulting with experts, says "We can't fit 100,000 people on O'Connell Bridge at the same time. The maximum it can hold is 5,000 people, so I'm rejecting this application." Some minister comes along and says "Ah but lads, think of the money those 100,000 people will spend" and lets it go ahead. Rocks fall, everyone dies. Do you really trust a politician to decide what's appropriate? In the past our politicians thought backhanders, brown envelopes, jobs for the boys and using the government jet for non-ministerial duties were appropriate.

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Are you seriously defending that bill that would allow for political interference in planning. Of course I have read the bill . It looks Timmy Dooley wrote it alright - it is complete rubbish that has all the hallmarks of being written in a excited frenzy by a starstruck and desperate Garth Brooks fan. Not a TD !!

Have you read it ? It looks like you have not......"the Minister may, if he deems it appropriate and believes the event is of national and cultural importance, review the decision of the Local Authority and may grant a licence or remove conditions imposed by the Local Authority"

Have you people in Fianna Fail learned nothing ? Seriously ?

Fianna Fail : Please stop trying to meddle in justice and planning matters.

It's just an attempt by Martin to appear popular. FF were not too keen on democracy in the recent past. Decisions made in the dead of the night etc, IMF , etc. Martin just makes a fool of himself each time he opens his mouth.

raymon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It's just an attempt by Martin to appear popular. FF were not too keen on democracy in the recent past. Decisions made in the dead of the night etc, IMF , etc. Martin just makes a fool of himself each time he opens his mouth.

I doubt if this "emergency political interference bill" was even read by Martin before he promoted it. Seems like it was written by a twelve year old.

syklops

raymon wrote: »

I dont believe he did anything of the sort .... did he?

What did he do?

What exactly did he do? All I heard was a soundbite.

Enda Kenny makes a comment on the Garth Brooks shenanigans seems a more appropriate thread title.

BeerSteakBirds

considering the toleration of this nonsense its no wonder you have retarded TDs and counsellors trying to interfere with the deliverance of justice by judges in serious court cases

raymon

BeerSteakBirds wrote: »

considering the toleration of this nonsense its no wonder you have retarded TDs and counsellors trying to interfere with the deliverance of justice by judges in serious court cases

I dont think using the word retarded in relation to Fianna Fail helps the debate.

There are thousands of other words you could jave chosen.

Little CuChulainn

Thoie wrote: »

If DCC has said the concerts can't go ahead because of reasons x,y,z, then appealing that is the equivalent of saying "OK, so we're not meeting the legal criteria, but sure go on and let us do what we want anyway".

The problem being that their reasons were effectively made bull**** when thy offered the five gigs in three days, a situation which would have been worse all things considered.

Happyman42

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The problem being that their reasons were effectively made bull**** when thy offered the five gigs in three days, a situation which would have been worse all things considered.

They didn't offer anything...Aiken offered it and it will only be approved on receipt of a satisfactory updated Event Management Plan.

hatrickpatrick

Thoie wrote: »

If DCC has said the concerts can't go ahead because of reasons x,y,z, then appealing that is the equivalent of saying "OK, so we're not meeting the legal criteria, but sure go on and let us do what we want anyway".

Actually it's not, it would be "we think the council are wrong and we want a second opinion". The same appeals process could also be used in the opposite direction, btw. I'd imagine such a process could have massively benefitted Dun Laoghaire when Keegan was manager here - a look at the new library illustrates that perfectly. County managers have far, far too much power.

No Pants

As long as we don't end up with a tribunal over this in five years time.

Happyman42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it's not, it would be "we think the council are wrong and we want a second opinion". The same appeals process could also be used in the opposite direction, btw. I'd imagine such a process could have massively benefitted Dun Laoghaire when Keegan was manager here - a look at the new library illustrates that perfectly. County managers have far, far too much power.

The sensible thing to do is analyse what happened here from a legislation point of view. What went wrong (if anything) and why.
If it turn out that Aiken was trying to pressure the system, why change something that ha worked well for everybody up to now.
Kneejerk legislation is just plain crazy.

Thoie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it's not, it would be "we think the council are wrong and we want a second opinion". The same appeals process could also be used in the opposite direction, btw. I'd imagine such a process could have massively benefitted Dun Laoghaire when Keegan was manager here - a look at the new library illustrates that perfectly. County managers have far, far too much power.

I can't see that the council were wrong in this instance.

Their job was to determine whether health and safety aspects were addressed, what the impact on the surrounding area was, and how the plans fitted in with other things in the area. They did their job, and determined that 5 days in a row was too great an impact. They took into account the "3 events per year", and tried to compromise by allowing the weekend concerts to go ahead, and disallowing the weekday concerts, which would impact people/businesses a lot more.

On what grounds would have an appeal requesting the extra two days have been submitted (if that was possible) other than "a bunch of people are sad" or "there's more money to be made"? Unless they were going to soundproof the sports stadium and teleport concert-goers in and out, all the elements that were initially rejected were still there.

The only real grounds for appeal would be if the council had ignored something that was in the initial submission. For example, if the council rejected something based on the fact that they thought there were no first aiders planned, but it turns out they'd missed a page in the submission that outlined how many first aiders would be there. That would be a reasonable appeal. "We really really really really don't want to have to refund 160,000 people" is not a good reason for appeal.

Sierra Oscar

Irish Examiner reporting that Minister Kelly is trying to negotiate a satisfactory outcome to allow the concerts to take place. Would be great if he is successful.

New Minister Alan Kelly negotiating Brooks concerts

Cerco

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Irish Examiner reporting that Minister Kelly is trying to negotiate a satisfactory outcome to allow the concerts to take place. Would be great if he is successful.

New Minister Alan Kelly negotiating Brooks concerts

I suppose Labour will have to show some gain out of the reshuffle even if it is only the saving of a concert schedule. Pathetic, to see our politicians involving themselves in a pantomime.

Calina

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Irish Examiner reporting that Minister Kelly is trying to negotiate a satisfactory outcome to allow the concerts to take place. Would be great if he is successful.

New Minister Alan Kelly negotiating Brooks concerts

I'm really not sure I see it as "great if he is successful". I see it as "proof we've learned nothing".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, giving politicians the power to interfere with planning decisions is the problem. The concerts are just the excuse being used to pass legislation to allow that.

SpaceTime

If the politicians come up with something like an alternative venue for the extra gigs, fair enough. That's just using your head.

Changing the law to suit a concert would be an awful precedent.

That's the kind of thing China does! Annoying village in way of shopping centre... Abolish village.

You can see where this goes - everything is a special case to someone.

Housing estate built on flood plane ... Etc etc etc

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apart from the fact that it would completely undermine what seems to have been a competent and through process and the planning officials involved in it.
But sure rock on Tommy.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Fianna Fail bill is very sinister and serious indeed.

In my view their meddling in justice and now planning is a huge cause for concern.

BeerSteakBirds

raymon wrote: »

I dont think using the word retarded in relation to Fianna Fail helps the debate.

There are thousands of other words you could jave chosen.

I don't think engaging in book burning, and off topic witch hunts of word censorship helps any debate anywhere. There are thousands of other replies you could have given. 'Retarded' is a very useful word, a very legitimate word and a very useful and irreplaceable concept. In fact it is a rather mild description of those people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Garth Brooks concerts today some other commercial argument another day. IMHO this is definitely bringing us back to the bad old days of the 1980's with politicians trying to influence planning decisions. The fact that they and a lot of others don't see this as a bad thing is very worrying indeed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You cannot undermine a decision taken after due care and diligence. Thi government at least has the sense to see that.

kippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The shortcomings in the licensing process is blatantly obvious and has been for years.
The shortcoming being the fact that tickets should not be sold for events that are yet to get a license.
That is all that needs to be changed with the licensing laws as far as I can see.