Why I could learn to love the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill
national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
feature
Wednesday June 21, 2006 19:21
by anarchaeologist - GrassrootsDissent / IMC Editors
Analysis of Strategic Infrastructure Bill
SIB: bodes well for the fast-tracking of pollution projects
The
Strategic Infrastructure Bill (2006) is the
pinacle of two Ministers’ of Environment
contempt for ‘the law’ since this regime came to power in 1997. It was spotted as far back as
last September,
and again
in February of this year. It bodes well for the fast-tracking of pollution projects such as
roads and
incinerators, and for monuments to pesimism such as
prisons. From now on, nothing is sacred in this, once, sacred isle. The Bill is currently making its way through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Among other things, this Bill intends that: a local group must be active for more than 12 months and have a stated aim and objective of environmental protection, before they can even apply for a judicial review of a particular case impacting on them or thrie community.
From the News Wire: Planning law in this country is a joke. For years the odds have been stacked in favour of unsustainable development and now the FF/PD coalition is making it harder for communities to legally challenge those who are making fortunes out of wrecking the place, be they speculators, developers, multi-nationals, politicans, contractors, quarrymen or even archaeologists (but not this one)....Anarchaeologist continues on wire.
Language is used very effectively here to cloak this attack on a fundamental right to participate in the planning process (even if it costs you €20 to participate, which has in itself been judged illegal by the European Commission). Check out one persion's attempts to get to grips with it at the link below.
I don't claim to understand many of the points that Chris Murray has raised regarding the Bill, however Section 50 strikes me as being particularly significant, where a local group must be active for more than 12 months and have a stated aim and objective of environmental protection, before they can even apply for a judicial review of a particular case impacting on them or thrie community. Because most infrastructural planning cases are taken up by local groups as opposed to individuals.
I should encourage anyone involved in any sort of community organisation to immediately add something to this effect to their constitution, but I won't. The road to a judicial review is a long and expensive one. The only winners here are the legal profession and of course the developers who will invariably have more money, more influence within the judiciary (not to mention the local planning authorities) and at the end of the day more time than you have.
For time is really of the essence. They don't have kids to be looked after, dinners to be put on the table, bills to pay. They can fly from sites on the west coast to judicial hearings in Dublin in an hour. They don't have to spend hours on a bus or 100s of Euro on petrol to participate in the planning process.
Moreover, they can pay the best planing consultants in the country to defend their projects and argue their cases at oral hearings. They don't have to spend long hours into the night researching this shit and typing out a planning observation to the council which will be ignored, or a planning appeal to An Bord Pleanala which will, if you're smart enough, be at least considered.
But surely if your case is founded on points of law, on the EU Environmental Directive or on Local Agenda 21, you can't lose? The recent case taken by An Taisce to An Bord Pleanála in relation to the on-shore development of the Corrib gas field surely had to succeed because it was founded on sound points of law? Well now that law is being changed again.
So what do you do? In Erris the communities around Rossport discovered in the past that their own inspectors' reports don't mean shit with An Board Pleanála. Reports can and will be overruled. In any case, much of the proposed Corrib gas development has by-passed what's piously referred to as the planning process. Basically elements within the County Council have wanted this development to go ahead (for whatever reason...) and simply rubber-stamped it through. Hopefully, they'll all be fucked out of it in the next election, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Anyway, you can't get rid of senior county council officials that easily, unless your local friendly multi-national offers them a job.
What's significant about the Rossport business is that the people of Erris have undertaken a fundamental critique of how planning law interacts with what passes in these parts for local democracy. And they see it's shit. And they're doing something about it by ensuring that no construction work, or development to give it its legal and oddly unsatisfactory definition, takes place along the pipeline route or at the terminal site. They're not sitting on their arses writing letters to the papers and have long since given up on those they've elected to serve them (with the exception I suppose of Cowley).
If the SIB passes into the statute books (as it's surely going to), more communities on this island are going to realise that the law is shit and they're going to fight it. And fighting the law is a serious business, but in Erris it's being done on their terms, in their locality.
And the best place to fight of course, is on your own home ground.
Hopefully the lessons of Erris will be picked up on elsewhere. Fuck the law, it's not going to be a useful weapon in these sort of cases anymore, if it ever was in the first place. If the SIB finally convinces people that the planning system is stacked against them and encourages them to explore other avenues of struggle, then it mightn't be such a bad thing after all.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (6 of 6)
Jump To Comment: 6 5 4 3 2 1Cllrs Kelly, Arkins and Meaney are talking out of their arses. An Taisce is a statutory body under the planning acts. That means that local authorities are legally obliged to refer certain planning applications to them (as well as to other bodies such as The Heritage Council, the National Monuments Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the National Wildlife Service, the Aviation Authority and a few more).
Applications for developments in scenic areas, in or close to EU protected habitats, Special Areas of Conservation etc. should all be referred to Tailors' Hall by the various planning departments around the country. They should also get applications from along the coastline, which is nominally protected in coastal counties' Development Plans.
When An Taisce make an observation on a planning application (they're not called objections any more, but they invariably are), the observations are usually logged in the planning file at the public desk of the local authority planing office, which is available to the public to consult. They are generlly signed by Ian Lumley, the AT planning officer.
It seems that Clare County Council, for some reason known only to themselves, have been witholding observations made by the statutory bodies, although they are under no legal obligation to do so.
The good councillors of county Clatre should be asking their own planning department why they're not giving the public full access to planning files.
Idiots.
Kelly however is right in one aspect of his tirade and this is the possibility that certain members of the gardaí have taken an active interest in who's objecting to what. And especially in... you've guessed it, Donegal.
When you enter the county from Sligo, you pass through Bundoran. Even though this jewel on the Atlantic coast is about 4 miles from the Leitrim border, once you cross over into Donegal it's all built up with vast estates of 100s of holiday homes. Only really occupied for a few months of the year, there's obviously none of the usual infrastructure you'd expect in the developed world. Even the water supply and the sewerage are dodgey.
Who's building all this? Well step forward please a few public representatives, most notably the MacEniff's (FF of course). Very much from the same buffoonish mould as their Clare colleagues(see link below), this family has made an untold fortune 'developing' Bundoran. But behind them are more shadowy characters, with links to FF and to the local gardaí, who appear to be something of a local militia for these chaps.
Have a look at the Donegal County Council planning lists for the last 10 years, putting a certain Charles Fergus in the search engine. Apart from in Bundoran itself, you'll see applications for 100s of houses in the neighbouring coastal townlands in this guy's name. If you're feeling a bit lazy, check out the Bord Pleanála link to a site in Magheracar
http://www.pleanala.ie/REP/216/R216041.DOC
where the inspector refers to his various developments in the neighbourhood. Actually, google him and get how much he's donated to FF in recent years.
Fergus generally gets his way in Bundoran. If he doesn't, he sends his boys around. Search for him on the Donegal Democrat website and you'll get the picture. Fergus has frequently used the gardaí in Bundoran to harass and intimidate several people who've lodged objections to his schemes. On one occasion, they were aware of an individual being quite severly assualted by Fergus's cronies. They turned a blind eye and then prosecuted the individual for assualting Fergus's associates.
I know of similar incidents happening in Leitrim, Sligo and indeed Clare where people have been assualted and intimidated, with nothing being done by the local gardaí.
So, getting back to An Taisce, is it any wonder local people don't want to sign their names to AT observations? And is any wonder local councillors want to know who's making the observations on behalf of AT?
An Taisce has been described as Ireland only secret society that receives State recognition.
Making the claim yesterday at the adjourned June meeting of Clare County Council, councillor PJ Kelly (Fianna Fail) said: " An Taisce doesn't release the identity of its members and they could come from the ranks of al-Qaeda, MI5, the CIA or even our own Special Branch. We just don't know."
Arising from Government legislation, An Taisce can lodge objections against one-off homes and other developments and the contents of the objection remain confidential until planning authorities have made decisions in the cases.
Mr Kelly said the current system "goes against any principle of natural justice as applicants can't respond to any of the points raised in the objections".
Tabling a motion that objections received from An Taisce be made available to the public, Mr Kelly said: " An Taisce is anti-rural and anti anything outside of the Pale." I have no problems with objections. If an ordinary person lodges an objection, the applicant can see the objection on file.
"However, An Taisce has special status and applicants cannot see [its] objections against developments. There is no provision in statute to ensure that they remain confidential, the regulations only state that an An Taisce submission can be regarded as a report.
"Unless the council receives legal advice stating that it cannot release An Taisce objections prior to planning decisions being made, I am calling on the council to make public An Taisce objections.
Mr Kelly's call received support from his colleagues.
Councillor Joe Arkins (Fine Gael) said: "It is only reasonable that An Taisce objections be made available in the interest of transparency and fair play."
Green Party councillor Brian Meaney also supported Mr Kelly's motion: "It would be far more preferable if the reports by An Taisce were made known to applicants and the general public."
Councillor Martin Lafferty asked county manager Alec Fleming how many planning applications had been refused as a result of An Taisce objections.
A spokeswoman for the Clare Association of An Taisce said last night that she was surprised by Mr Kelly's remarks. She confirmed that An Taisce in Clare made 852 submissions last year on planning matters - in 2005, the council received 2,491 planning applications.
"While we made 852 submissions, we would object to very few applications each year. We are not an objecting machine. For example, I am in the process of making 30 submissions and only two are objections.
"We have no power, but we are a necessary watchdog for the public."
The spokeswoman said that she would object to the contents of An Taisce submissions being made public. "This would result in our private lives being imposed upon by people lobbying in relation to the submissions."
She added that the identity of An Taisce members had legal protection and that they should not be released.
Fianna Fail attack "An Taisce"
The 'strategic infrastructure bill" is a new weapon to disenfranchise all communities throughout the land. .It will particularly affect those communities where Fianna Fail feel they have minimum vote loss exposure :i.e. where the voting population is insufficient to impinge upon their 'strategic perspective".(vote catchment)
In short it is a weapon to emasculate the minority communities who heretofore had a democratic voice of protest .It is the death knell to the rights and freedoms which we have heretofore taken for granted. Charlie Haughey would have been proud of his cunning apprentice.
He's just like all the rest
It's blockade or bust lads and lassies, conform your minds to it, its as simple as that.
"have long since given up on those they've elected to serve them (with the exception I suppose of Cowley)"
Perhaps one or two of them might vote for Gerry Murray?
July 2, 2005
Sinn Féin Members Stage Petrol Station Protest
02/07/2005 - 17:19:38
Two Sinn Féin members have occupied a petrol station in Dublin in
protest at the jailing of five gas pipeline protesters.
Brian Keane and another member of Ogra Sinn Fiin locked themselves
into the Statoil station on the Northumberland Road in Ballsbridge.
"We are here for a peaceful protest. We're entering peacefully and
we'll be leaving peacefully," he said.
He added that the protest was in solidarity with Micheal O Seighin,
Vincent McGrath, his brother Philip, Willie Corduff and Brendan
Philbin, who are being held in Cloverhill prison for refusing to obey
a High Court injunction taken out by Shell E&P Ireland.
The five men have called on the public to boycott petrol stations
owned by Shell and Statoil, the main shareholders in Shell E&P
Ireland.
"We echo the call for the men to be freed immediately and support them
in their fight to defend their community and the health, safety and
well being of their families, said Mr Keane.
Both he and his fellow protester locked the doors of the Statoil
station to deny access to two gardaí, who had requested them to leave.
"The guards have asked us to open the door but we're going to stay
here for an hour," said Mr Keane.
Yesterday, he and other members of Ogra Sinn Féin occupied the Statoil
station on the south quays in Dublin city centre for an hour.
*