No New Malahide Railway Bridge Till 2011

Alan Farrell

Wild Bill wrote: »

Sponge does have a point. At the start of this thread there was a bit of a flare-up about the planning issues and as the IT extract shows Sponge was largely correct.

ok, but the newspapers may or may not be correct.

I could fill up the Boards.ie servers with examples of when the papers get it wrong, up to an including the front page of the sindo yesterday.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am not mistaken

I'm done. Repeating yourself does not make your argument correct.

You are using quoted legislation and arguing the use of the english language while also taking my own quotes completely out of context in your argument. On top of all that, you are being deliberately insulting and not just to me.

You would be most welcome to email me, my details are on my website. Alternatively, write to the planning authority or minister and inform them of your opinions. You will then be assured of a definitive response.

lostexpectation

we're hearing very little about this, even the rail nerds are saying nothing, who was responsible for upkeep of the weir

Sponge Bob

Wild Bill wrote: »

We should probably de-classify this area completely, as we should have the Glen of the Downs; they are not suitable locations for indulging green fetishes. :cool:

That is the problem Bill, once these areas are classified they never get de classified ....even if the snails drown owing to over preservation as you kindly explained earlier in this thread. The shadow planning system constituting

Rather than indulging in supercilious handbaggery in an internet forum Councillor Farrell would be better off spending his time checking that the shadow planning system ( heritage officers and rangers and an taisce) has actually permitted through explicit consents the de minimis works currently under way.

Otherwise Fingal is strictly liable as the 'competent' planning authority in that area and potentially leaves itself open to serious fines for not enforcing properly .

I await his report

Hungerford

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Councillor Farrell would be better off spending his time checking that the shadow planning system ( heritage officers and rangers and an taisce) has actually permitted through explicit consents the de minimis works currently under way.

I think that he'll find that everything is in order and the work has been approved. The examples you quoted above Sponge Bob refer to new structures, not repairs of existing ones.

If work was halted now, as you seem to want, the ecosystem of the estuary would be affected forever. The weir forms a crucial part of the SAC and needs to be repaired as soon as possible.

murphaph

lostexpectation wrote: »

we're hearing very little about this, even the rail nerds are saying nothing, who was responsible for upkeep of the weir

The rail nerds on IRN? They won't say boo to IE for fear of being banned from taking pictures of 071s. Even if people had died that lot wouldn't condemn IE for it.

murphaph

Hungerford wrote: »

I think that he'll find that everything is in order and the work has been approved. The examples you quoted above Sponge Bob refer to new structures, not repairs of existing ones.

If work was halted now, as you seem to want, the ecosystem of the estuary would be affected forever. The weir forms a crucial part of the SAC and needs to be repaired as soon as possible.

I'd go even further and say the weir is the crucial part of the SAC. No weir, no SAC as I see it. IE are doing the flora and fauna a BIG favour by getting on with this. If SB had his way and 'Europe' intervened, the SAC would likely be lost forever. Ironic to say the least.

Hungerford

murphaph wrote: »

The rail nerds on IRN? They won't say boo to IE for fear of being banned from taking pictures of 071s. Even if people had died that lot wouldn't condemn IE for it.

I wouldn't pay much heed to IRN on this issue - although they have been posting some great pictures of the aftermath. Here's one IRN poster's take on events:

This unfortunate incident at Broadmeadows estuary could not have been predicted. It is an act of God, or nature. There is no legislating, no Health and Safety, nothing that could have prevented it. It is nature winning, no more and no less, and we should accept that. The structural foundations have lasted since 1866. That is a testament to the original engineers. Let us hope that a new replacement structure would last so long.

Sponge Bob

Hungerford wrote: »

I think that he'll find that everything is in order and the work has been approved. The examples you quoted above Sponge Bob refer to new structures, not repairs of existing ones..

Not strictly . It depends on the extent of the repair .

It certainly appears that they are repairing rather than replacing at present and that they should be OK to proceed.

So where did they ( particularly Fingal) publish their opinions and consents ???? Anybody ???

murphaph

Does the law actually place the onus on FCC to grant permission if IE haven;t asked for it?

I mean, if I build a house without planning permission the council can't be expected to find out about it unless someone actually makes a complaint to the planning dept.

I presume the law only requires FCC to do anything if they are made aware of it in an official manner. If FCC later decide that IE acted with the required PP then they could instruct IE to remove something but seeing as it's just a repair of what was there before, IE presumably don't need anyone's permission just to reinstate it??

Sponge Bob

murphaph wrote: »

Does the law actually place the onus on FCC to grant permission if IE haven;t asked for it?

I mean, if I build a house without planning permission the council can't be expected to find out about it unless someone actually makes a complaint to the planning dept.

Welcome to the Shadow Planning System Murphapp . These are the different rules and players if you live in or near a SAC / NHA / National Park / SPA etc.

In the example you gave I can complain about your house to the planners and an enforcement officer ( a planner) forms an opinion and issues an enforcement notice . Alternatively an enforcement officer ( a planner) forms an opinion and issues an enforcement notice themselves , they use aerial photography mapping a lot .

Either way you have the choice of complying or applying for retention . If the structure is there for 7 years enforcement is impossible but you may find yourself in a surreal limbo if they refuse retention thereafter because they still cannot enforce and you have been refused retention .

The Shadow Planning System is comprised of Heritage Officers at council level and they liase with EPA / An Taisce / NPWS etc .

The Fingal Heritage Officer forms 'an opinion' that the job is a repair not a replacement . They tell the NPWS / An Taisce who agree or not .

This mysterious system of 'opinions' and 'consents' is what I call the Shadow Planning System . Snails and Geese always have more of a priority than people do . Normal planners defer completely to the Shadow Planning System in designated areas . An Bord Pleanála generally does too, not always.

I presume the law only requires FCC to do anything if they are made aware of it in an official manner. If FCC later decide that IE acted with the required PP then they could instruct IE to remove something but seeing as it's just a repair of what was there before, IE presumably don't need anyone's permission just to reinstate it??

No, the law allows ( nay mandates) a 'competent authority' to form an opinion and to seek consent from the rest of that Shadow Planning System for that opinion . I should think Fingal started to form the opinion before IE ever asked them to . Because of the snails and geese IE could have approached an NPWS ranger first and they could have formed an opinion and asked Fingal if they agreed . But some 'competent authority' must form an initial opinion and seek 'consents' from the others ....backing it up .

Finally IE is eventually given these 'consents' which is akin to PP outside the Shadow Planning System . If the consents are not forthcoming an EIA / EIS will be required . Even if the consents are forthcoming some in house expertise (in this case hydraulics) may be required to get the consents .

This is how the Shadow Planning System works .

Victor

lostexpectation wrote: »

we're hearing very little about this, even the rail nerds are saying nothing, who was responsible for upkeep of the weir

It would be Irish Rail / CIÉ as they built it.

Typically when something like this is built, it is whoever builds it (as client, not contractor) is repsonsible for its maintenance. There are usually exceptions though where if you have, say, a road bridge over a railway, the council maintain the road surface and IÉ will maintain the bridge and parapets.

Wild Bill

murphaph wrote: »

the weir is the crucial part of the SAC. No weir, no SAC as I see it. IE are doing the flora and fauna a BIG favour by getting on with this. If SB had his way and 'Europe' intervened, the SAC would likely be lost forever.

So, it appears the precious SAC which must take precedence over 10,000 commuters is as artificial as a tropical fish tank! Irony indeed.

Kalashnikov_Kid

Is this thread some sort of elaborate joke? Some people here pining for the return of the Luftwaffe and CJH so they can bulldoze the planning system?!

Many people here seem to hate planning no matter what - they view planning as either getting involved in things too much or not enough. Well there has to be a happy medium if you like it or not I'm afraid.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Welcome to the Shadow Planning System Murphapp . These are the different rules and players if you live in or near a SAC / NHA / National Park / SPA etc.

In the example you gave I can complain about your house to the planners and an enforcement officer ( a planner) forms an opinion and issues an enforcement notice . Alternatively an enforcement officer ( a planner) forms an opinion and issues an enforcement notice themselves , they use aerial photography mapping a lot .

Either way you have the choice of complying or applying for retention . If the structure is there for 7 years enforcement is impossible but you may find yourself in a surreal limbo if they refuse retention thereafter because they still cannot enforce and you have been refused retention .

The Shadow Planning System is comprised of Heritage Officers at council level and they liase with EPA / An Taisce / NPWS etc .

The Fingal Heritage Officer forms 'an opinion' that the job is a repair not a replacement . They tell the NPWS / An Taisce who agree or not .

This mysterious system of 'opinions' and 'consents' is what I call the Shadow Planning System . Snails and Geese always have more of a priority than people do . Normal planners defer completely to the Shadow Planning System in designated areas . An Bord Pleanála generally does too, not always.



No, the law allows ( nay mandates) a 'competent authority' to form an opinion and to seek consent from the rest of that Shadow Planning System for that opinion . I should think Fingal started to form the opinion before IE ever asked them to . Because of the snails and geese IE could have approached an NPWS ranger first and they could have formed an opinion and asked Fingal if they agreed . But some 'competent authority' must form an initial opinion and seek 'consents' from the others ....backing it up .

Finally IE is eventually given these 'consents' which is akin to PP outside the Shadow Planning System . If the consents are not forthcoming an EIA / EIS will be required . Even if the consents are forthcoming some in house expertise (in this case hydraulics) may be required to get the consents .

This is how the Shadow Planning System works .

I could write a similar rant about the UK system (CABE, English Heritage, Environment Agency etc.). But I wouldn't get so worked up about it if I were you. If you like it or not, someone of authority has to look after the environmental well-being of our nation - even if it gets in the way of your personal well-informed opinions. We wouldn't want to have DeV turning in his green grave now would we?

So, what is your alternative to protect the environment? Or do you not care? Please be honest....

Who would you rather have in control of the say in environmental matters of our nation?

The developers?! - I'm sure they'd do a great job in speeding up things, by hiring private environmental and planning 'consultants' to tow the line of whatever they want bulldozed through. Then you'd see the benefits - our country turned in to 3 bed semi d's, car parks, creches, 24/7 petrol stations and retail parks.

Or the government (like them or not) who have a mandate to protect the best interests of its people. UK example - the London green belt. Waste of time wasn't it? Why couldn't we have just let the developers and the people have their way and continuously extend 1960s mediocrity so that Guildford, Woking, Reading and Luton (all several times larger than any Irish town) could have the privilege in being subsumed as just another frickin suburb of the big town.

So which one is it then? (And, you've guessed it, I'm a planner )

Sponge Bob

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

So which one is it then? (And, you've guessed it, I'm a planner )

Where did I say those people are 'real' planners. And where has that Alan Farrell gone ???

God knows 'real' planners are arrogant and unaccountable at the best of times in Ireland and also do a way worse job overall than in the UK where they have sucessfully preserved the countryside for 80 odd years in the green belts ??

triple-M

on rte.ie today
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0909/rail.html

Kalashnikov_Kid

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where did I say those people are 'real' planners. And where has that Alan Farrell gone ???

God knows 'real' planners are arrogant and unaccountable at the best of times in Ireland and also do a way worse job overall than in the UK where they have sucessfully preserved the countryside for 80 odd years in the green belts ??

I am mainly talking about the overall anti-planning tone of your rant (and this thread in general, IMO).

Not all us Irish planners are smug. Some (I mean most) of them happen to work very hard under extreme pressures and impending deadlines from all directions.

I wouldn't hold up the UK planning system of today as a shining example (maybe I was guilty of this - I shouldn't have then). The Kate Barker report (3 million homes in UK by 2020) and the recent LDF adoption fiasco is literally leading to local plans being chucked out the window by developers, planning inspectors and the Secretary for State alike as we speak. I am finishing a dissertation on this, so I should know!

Unfortunately, sometimes there is only so much you can do when you are under fire, so to speak, from a government diktat shot down on your desk from above.

Wild Bill

Planning in Ireland is largely a cod. It is the main cause of the brown envelope culture; re-zoning wouldn't be so valuable if there wasn't any zoning in the first place. The problem with planning in Ireland is wonderfully exemplified by your reference to London.

Our planning fans have imported South of England (one of the most crowded places on Earth) prejudices and fetishes and transposed them onto a virtually empty Ireland.

Thus we get gibberish about "Dublin tipping the country into the Irish Sea" through "massive over-development" etc; when a similar sized area on the west coast of Britain contains more people than this whole island.

Broad brush planning to protect the mountains and rural coastline and scenic areas are fine; trying to treat every brackish creation of the developers who built the railways as "sacred" is pure cultist clap-trap. :mad:

Carawaystick

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I am mainly talking about the overall anti-planning tone of your rant (and this thread in general, IMO).

Not all us Irish planners are smug. Some (I mean most) of them happen to work very hard under extreme pressures and impending deadlines from all directions.

In February 2008, Fingal Co.co. had a public consultation regarding a Lusk Action Plan.
The county council had out of date maps and completely out of date arial photographs displayed for the public consultation. The Arial photography from Google maps would have been more up to date. The photo they used was taken before the 10th of Sept 2005

The planners also said they had no part in the location of the ring road around Lusk - like it just happened without any planner input

Also the proposed location for a school in one housing estate was changed after the fact to build houses, and more land was to be rezoned to build a school - maybe - unless houses would be more profitable for the builder.

That was just one fifteen minute conversation with what seemed to be incompetent planners in North Dublin. At least they weren't corrupt like back in Raphael Burke's day.

Sponge Bob

But everybody sort of misses the point here.

Planners have no powers in a SAC , the shadow planners do. Any key decisions made in a SAC are not made by Local Authority planners but by a mysterious cabaal of Heritage Officers and NPWS Scientists and Rangers , the EPA of course and bloody An Taisce who write all the PUBLIC letters ...usually for someone else

These shadow planners have amazing communication techniques ...certainly not involving files and paperwork on a planning file available for public inspection as one would expect .

They communicate somehow to the Local Authority planners who often end up taking the rap for it in a SAC , especially if the planners are junior and assume the shadow planners actually operate in an altruistic manner .

I live in a SAC and it is ****ing surreal what these people come up with sometimes , it really really is Sometimes I get on OK with my planner, sometimes it is the ranger , sometimes it is the NPWS scientists not the ranger and sometimes it is the EPA.

It feels like whack a ****ing government mole all the time.

The environment is long forgotten , too much hassle . If I found a rare snail near my house tomorrow I would probably **** myself

Kalashnikov_Kid

Carawaystick wrote: »

In February 2008, Fingal Co.co. had a public consultation regarding a Lusk Action Plan.
The county council had out of date maps and completely out of date arial photographs displayed for the public consultation. The Arial photography from Google maps would have been more up to date. The photo they used was taken before the 10th of Sept 2005

The planners also said they had no part in the location of the ring road around Lusk - like it just happened without any planner input

Also the proposed location for a school in one housing estate was changed after the fact to build houses, and more land was to be rezoned to build a school - maybe - unless houses would be more profitable for the builder.

That was just one fifteen minute conversation with what seemed to be incompetent planners in North Dublin. At least they weren't corrupt like back in Raphael Burke's day.

That's pretty much inexcusable. And quite shocking too. I notice that you are more choice with your words than some other posters here. Incompetent, in this case yes for sure. But I thought we were all beyond the brown envelope days. I find it pretty insulting tbh that my chosen profession is openly tarred with this brush in this day and age. While people might say they are not implying that backhanders still exist, they are definately implying that all planners are somehow dishonest by nature.

I find the use of the words 'prejudices and fetishes' (from a person who makes up a laughable UK population comparison) pretty insulting too. I can't imagine these types of sweeping generalisations going down as well with other professions. Lazy teachers - 3 months holidays a year - cant get sacked from their jobs - I've always had my suspicions with those male primary teachers. Sure so many priests are paedophiles....(you get me?)

I know Irish senior planners who have to take the greatest amount of unreasonable sh1t imaginable from all sorts of interesting people. Who have to deal with more objections than applications on an annual basis. Mostly fcuking loft conversions and the like too. Maybe if people weren't so much concerned with how much their 'investment' brought to them by the Grace of God was worth, we would all live in a better place. We get actually achieve stuff rather than get bogged down in the same petty parochial sh1te that clogs up the planning system and takes the limelight off the bigger picture.

Or maybe I'm being realistic. I don't care. Criticise planning all you like. But as long as I see slurs and unfair generalisations here I'm willing to balance things up a bit.

Wild Bill

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I find the use of the words 'prejudices and fetishes' (from a person who makes up a laughable UK population comparison) pretty insulting too. I can't imagine these types of sweeping generalisations going down as well with other professions. Lazy teachers - 3 months holidays a year - cant get sacked from their jobs - I've always had my suspicions with those male primary teachers. Sure so many priests are paedophiles....(you get me?)

No I don't. actually. What have teachers, priests etc got to do with this? And what is "laughable" with the UK population comparison? If you have a rational defence please state it clearly - it's not very coherent in the "nudge wink" style of delivery. :cool:

And I certainly do suggest that the brown envelope culture exists! Human nature thingy. I never suggested the planners were involved (though I certainly wouldn't exclude the possibility). What I said was land zoning facilitated the culture. Which is manifest.

trellheim

Anyone any updates on the bridge repairs rather than the perceived poor state of the planning system ?

Hungerford

trellheim wrote: »

Anyone any updates on the bridge repairs rather than the perceived poor state of the planning system ?

Apart from the fact that it's due to be ready for traffic by late November, nothing much.

That said, Irish Railway News is running a very good updates thread:
http://irnirishrailwaynews.yuku.com/topic/1573/t/Northern-Rail-Line-collapse-near-Malahide.html?page=7

Lots of nice photos and some relatively informed commentary. IRN does have its uses, occasionally.

TheScribbler

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Jebus :eek: The poor little divil.

But were someone to shoot all the gooses this winter ( a few 1000 of them may I add) one would still have to do a full EIS to PROVE they are no longer actually there and that EIS could not start till september 2010 ....could it ??

This will test the resolve of any commuter who prefers to leave a car at home. I commute weekly between Belfast and Dublin and switching between buses and trains is no way to travel, belive me. Besides it is essential for the economy to have the only rail link between NI & RoI up and running as swiftly as possible

TheScribbler

Sorry wrong quote applied should have been about the bridge

Kalashnikov_Kid

Wild Bill wrote: »

No I don't. actually. What have teachers, priests etc got to do with this?

I put it out there as an analogy of how certain people can tar large groups of people with the same brush.

And what is "laughable" with the UK population comparison? If you have a rational defence please state it clearly - it's not very coherent in the "nudge wink" style of delivery.

Because you compared Dublin in national planning terms with

"a similar sized area on the west coast of Britain [that] contains more people than this whole island."

About 25% of the population of Ireland lives in Dublin, so its overdevelopment is a clear and very real planning and macroeconomic issue of national importance. Therefore, the same cannot be said for a similar areas in the UK that you allude to, as the population of mainland UK is pushing 60 million. And its capital city is about 8 times the size of Dublin. Is that clear enough?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

But everybody sort of misses the point here.

Planners have no powers in a SAC , the shadow planners do. Any key decisions made in a SAC are not made by Local Authority planners but by a mysterious cabaal of Heritage Officers and NPWS Scientists and Rangers , the EPA of course and bloody An Taisce who write all the PUBLIC letters ...usually for someone else

These shadow planners have amazing communication techniques ...certainly not involving files and paperwork on a planning file available for public inspection as one would expect .

They communicate somehow to the Local Authority planners who often end up taking the rap for it in a SAC , especially if the planners are junior and assume the shadow planners actually operate in an altruistic manner .

I live in a SAC and it is ****ing surreal what these people come up with sometimes , it really really is Sometimes I get on OK with my planner, sometimes it is the ranger , sometimes it is the NPWS scientists not the ranger and sometimes it is the EPA.

It feels like whack a ****ing government mole all the time.

The environment is long forgotten , too much hassle . If I found a rare snail near my house tomorrow I would probably **** myself

I missed this post last time around and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments re "shadow" plannning.

These "government advisory" quangos have contributed most to the demise of planning in recent years, both in Ireland and the UK. Mainly because, as you imply yourself, they are not held accountable to the "decisions" they make and there is no transparancy offered to the public in the way the processes they used in forming their opinion. Thus, these groups are the most protected species of them all! They can tow the line of whatever the big political agenda of the day is with an authoritative voice and "professional" opinion, without ever having to account for how they made these decisions!

So IMO I believe that planning in itself is not the big issue here. It is the borderline corrupt manner in which our nation is governed by these protected elitist fcukwits that is blowing our local plans and national planning policies into smithereens.

Oh and An Taisce too. If I was Taoiseach tomorrow they would be top on my hitlist.

Wild Bill

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I
About 25% of the population of Ireland lives in Dublin, so its overdevelopment is a clear and very real planning and macroeconomic issue of national importance. Therefore, the same cannot be said for a similar areas in the UK that you allude to, as the population of mainland UK is pushing 60 million. And its capital city is about 8 times the size of Dublin. Is that clear enough?

Not clear. I was making a comparison of land area either side of a small sea; not comparing Dublin with the empty hinterland. My very point was that the "Dublin is sinking into the sea through over-development" notion is gibberish. Gibberish typical of the small parochial Ireland that producers the leaders and systems you seem to despise.

:cool:

BrianD

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I put it out there as an analogy of how certain people can tar large groups of people with the same brush.



Because you compared Dublin in national planning terms with

About 25% of the population of Ireland lives in Dublin, so its overdevelopment is a clear and very real planning and macroeconomic issue of national importance. Therefore, the same cannot be said for a similar areas in the UK that you allude to, as the population of mainland UK is pushing 60 million. And its capital city is about 8 times the size of Dublin. Is that clear enough?



I missed this post last time around and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments re "shadow" plannning.

These "government advisory" quangos have contributed most to the demise of planning in recent years, both in Ireland and the UK. Mainly because, as you imply yourself, they are not held accountable to the "decisions" they make and there is no transparancy offered to the public in the way the processes they used in forming their opinion. Thus, these groups are the most protected species of them all! They can tow the line of whatever the big political agenda of the day is with an authoritative voice and "professional" opinion, without ever having to account for how they made these decisions!

So IMO I believe that planning in itself is not the big issue here. It is the borderline corrupt manner in which our nation is governed by these protected elitist fcukwits that is blowing our local plans and national planning policies into smithereens.

Oh and An Taisce too. If I was Taoiseach tomorrow they would be top on my hitlist.

Utter bunkum. The likes of An Taisce are to be lauded for their work and even handedness of challenging both large and small developments for the good of all of us.

It is corrupt influence of developers over councillors and other politicans "in the name of progress" that has led to huge urban sprawl and creation of housing areas (I wouldn't even call them communities) that can never be served in a meanningful way by publin transportation or other utilities. Many professional planners working in county councils cannot discharge their duties in a professonal manner due to interference by elected officials.

There is nothing secretive about a SAC and those charged with protecting them and the public have every right to voice their concerns. If a new bridge has to go through a prolonged EIS then so be it. This is what would happen in most countries in the world. In fact the environmental onus on projects in other european counties for ordinary projects in non-SAC areas is often greater than here.

There is no requirement to build a new bridge and the priority is to repair the existing one and there is no issues in getting this done and it would seem without delay. If a new bridge is required in the longterm then let the planning and EIS start now.

Let's stop he bunkum about shadow planners. Somebody has to keep the short term objectives and vested interests of councillors/TDs at bay. For most elected representatives, long term planning is now more than 5 years or the next election.

Wild Bill

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with Kalashnikov regarding the abolition of An Taisce. This is a democracy and rule by quasi-mystical elitists should play no part in our Governance. :cool:

Kalashnikov_Kid

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with Kalashnikov regarding the abolition of An Taisce. This is a democracy and rule by quasi-mystical elitists should play no part in our Governance. :cool:

That's Irish democracy for you. If you want to build something positive in the countryside, like a golf course that creates jobs and economic activity, or God forbid, a house for your family in the rural community you grew up in, better consult the Pembroke Road Token Green Society first - if you dont want the application dragged by its nails to An Bord Pleanala.

Hear hear to An Taisce, the greatest bunch of hypocritical elitist Nimbyites I've ever seen - and I live in Surrey so that's saying something!!

Wild Bill

I am curious; what is the Surrey/E coli link??

Judgement Day

Wild Bill - you can agree with Kalashnikov Kid all you like, but An Taisce is a private body not a state one so how do you go about abolishing it? In any event to label An Taisce as some sort of Dublin .4. elite smacks of FF Gombeenism at its worst - I take you're both card carrying members? Why don't you go the full hog and do a Bertie and suggest that they go away and commit suicide because they dare raise their heads above the parapet? If only more people had been prepared to speak out in the past the country wouldn't be in its present state. Littered with one-off houses, polluted waterways and undrinkable water in many areas, dual carriageways to every parish pump, unwanted housing estates dumped all over the country and the heritage/tourism potential of the country seriously degraded. I haven't been a member of An Taisce since the mid-1970s, am not a member of the Green party, do not live in Dublin.4. but do believe that we need an environmental watchdog like An Taisce not a joke like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Dept.of the Environment. :mad:

Rosser

The counter An Taisce line is about as credible as the title of the thread, just more hysterical nonsense. 2011? The only 11 is November of 2009.

Thank God for An Taisce, I'd never have a problem with a limited number of rural 'one offs' if they ever took the setting and sustainability into account in their design. 99% are designed without an Architect on the back of a bloody fag packet.

Kalashnikov_Kid

Show me some evidence of An Taisce commenting positively about a housing development, or producing a proactive policy like design guides for rural housing or the like, like what similar organisations in the UK do. All I could find on their website were boasts about how much they're interfering with the planning system on a professional systematic basis, and of course self-righteous waffle like below:

Much of this work is hard and unfashionable. In most cases, history has vindicated us. Because we have no vested interest and because we take the long-term stance, we are confident that history will continue to justify our position. We take the public interest standpoint in planning matters with a heritage, environment, community and quality of life bias

And people call planners arrogant. No vested interest my bollix. They take the long-term stance of anti-development guised as some sort of superior historical national interest - what to keep us living in the 1930s? Our country would get nowhere with that kind of attitude.

Their website seems to be a guide on how to object to the planning system and little else. I am of the view that An Taisce are anti-development before anything else, and as such they will always annoy people who-have pro-active views (note - NOT pro-developer) towards housing. But if thats what people here want, fair play to you, but no need to be so pompous about it. We all need to live somewhere you know.

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

FF Gombeenism at its worst - I take you're both card carrying members? Why don't you go the full hog and do a Bertie and suggest that they go away and commit suicide because they dare raise their heads above the parapet? If only more people had been prepared to speak out in the past the country wouldn't be in its present state. [] I haven't been a member of An Taisce since the mid-1970s, am not a member of the Green party, do not live in Dublin.4. but do believe that we need an environmental watchdog like An Taisce not a joke like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Dept.of the Environment. :mad:

Well, that's a load load of.... presumption! I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of Fianna Fail (or any political party). However this.....

the country wouldn't be in its present state. Littered with one-off houses, polluted waterways and undrinkable water in many areas, dual carriageways to every parish pump, unwanted housing estates dumped all over the country and the heritage/tourism potential of the country seriously degraded.

...is a diatribe of hysterical (in both senses of the word) proportions and describes a country I simply don't recognise. I find your "dual carriageways to every parish pump" especially risible when compared to most of Europe our roads are still rather poor.

I can only assume you are one of those folks longing for an idyllic past that has never existed. Garden of Eden thingy. Back to the pony and trap so the natives won't spoil the view for the German tourists.

An Taisce are a bunch of cranks, elitists, myopic greens and calculating Nimbies. IMHO.

(I agree about the one-off houses in scenic areas; the rest is cobblers).

Judgement Day

Wild Bill perhaps you should get out of Sandyford a bit more. And sorry it's not my fault that you come across as a Fianna Fail mucksavage!

Spongebob any chance that you could reveal your agenda? I asked this before as you seemed to be stirring up environmental concerns with the EU about replacing the viaduct where none exists and yet you clearly despise environmentalists.

Kalasnikov Kid you're more likely to pick up ecoli from the Irish water supply than that in Surrey - try living in Galway!

Wild Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

try living Galway!

No thanks! Why leave paradise?

Kalashnikov_Kid

Judgement Day wrote: »

Kalasnikov Kid you're more likely to pick up ecoli from the Irish water supply than that in Surrey - try living in Galway!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8252500.stm

Judgement Day

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8252500.stm

KK we really need a new thread for all this bilge as it has little to do with the Malahide viaduct and will pee off those with an interest in the viaduct rather than environmental problems. Anyway until YOU start a new thread here are two tasty Galway water links:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0321/water.html and a year later

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0924/water.html

BrianD

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with Kalashnikov regarding the abolition of An Taisce. This is a democracy and rule by quasi-mystical elitists should play no part in our Governance. :cool:

Please do tell me why An Taisce as a public organisation in undemocratic???

An Taisce do fantastic work. It's only a pity that they aren't a stronger organisation otherwise we wouldn't have the countryside littered with unsustainable housing (that I subsidise through higher costs for telecoms, power and just about everything else).

They are far from anti-development. They are for sustainable development. Unfortunately, this is lost on most people who have bought land at agricultural prices, get their friends to rezone it and then build some of the worst built houses in the western world on it. Or perhaps one of those cheap and nasty retail parks that will put businesses in existing communities out of business. Funny that everybody is An Taisces friend when NIMBY projects are being built.

Getting back on topic, there should be no short cuts through the planning process to get the viaduct rebuilt and there's no need to. A new viaduct - if needed - can be built in an environmentally sustainable manner (and probably "greener" than the existing viaduct). The priority is to get the existing one repaired and nobody is objecting to this. However, they should be if damaging shortcuts are taken during construction.

Kalashnikov_Kid

BrianD wrote: »

They are far from anti-development. They are for sustainable development. Unfortunately, this is lost on most people who have bought land at agricultural prices, get their friends to rezone it and then build some of the worst built houses in the western world on it. Or perhaps one of those cheap and nasty retail parks that will put businesses in existing communities out of business. Funny that everybody is An Taisces friend when NIMBY projects are being built.

Could you please show me some examples of any pro-sustainable development policy that an Taisce have written?

If you can't, I'm afraid that I am still of the opinion that An Taisce are little more than a national anti-anything residents' association full of professional planning objectors - that have somehow wangled themselves in as an official Government advisor (only in Ireland eh...).

Victor

I think this thread has drifted too far, so I am going to close it.

If someone gets a response from the powers that be regarding the lagality or otherwise of the work, then start a new thread.