Woman faces jail for preventing ESB access to her property

the_syco

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/woman-faces-jail-for-preventing-esb-access-to-her-property-519739.html

Long version:

An Offaly woman could be jailed over her continued refusal to comply with High Court orders allowing the ESB and Eirgrid access to her land to complete the construction of a power line.

Today at the High Court the ESB and Eirgrid lodged contempt proceedings against Ms Teresa Treacy of Woodfield House, Clonmore, Tullamore.

They claim that earlier this week Ms Treacy, in breach of a number of previous court orders, prevented them from gaining access to her land by locking gates to her property and by standing in front of the lock when ESB workers tried to cut it.

Mr Justice Kevin Feeney, who granted the ESB/Eirgrid permission to bring the contempt proceedings, made the matter returnable before the court next Monday.

The application was made on an ex-parte (one side only) basis.

The High Court heard that Ms Treacy, who was not present in court today, has denied the ESB/Eirgrid access because of fears she has that trees on her property will be damaged.

Michael Conlon BL for ESB/Eirgrid said Teresa Treacy was "emotionally attached to her forestry".

Counsel said in July Ms Justice Mary Laffoy granted ESB/Eirgrid orders against Teresa and her sister Mary allowing them to carry out works on the Treacys' land.

The defendants were further ordered to unlock gates and remove any barriers blocking the ESB/Eirgrid from accessing the elderly sister's property.

While his client's were initially allowed onto the land, gates on the property were subsequently locked preventing any work from being carried out.

Counsel said his clients, who do not want to see anyone jailed, returned to the High Court in August and secured an order allowing it to open the locks on the gates and enter the lands.

Earlier this week when workers tried to cut open the locks Teresa Treacy stood in front of the locks and refused to let the workers onto the lands.

Counsel said that Teresa Treacy has also informed local gardaí she is prepared to go to jail rather than allow the ESB and Eirgrid access top her lands.

When the matter was before the court in August Ms Treacy was warned by Ms Justice Laffoy of the serious consequences she faced if she continued to act in breach of the orders. The Judge expressed her hope that "common sense would prevail" and the ESB would be allowed on the land.

On that occasion Ms Treacy said she has “no intention” of granting the ESB/Eirgrid access because of the effects its work is having on what she said is a place of natural beauty. She also told the court that would “gladly go to jail,” and that she did not want compensation from the ESB.

She has previously claimed before the court that the 100-acre property where she and her sister Mary reside is a place of natural beauty and wants the power line to be put underground. The ESB said it was unable to do that.

She said the land contains oak, ash, sycamore, birch and pines trees and is mainly surrounded by hedgegrows. She said the ESB/Eirgrids’s actions are “wrong,” and they should “stop what they are doing.”

The ESB says it must place five wooden structures and one steel mast on their land, which involves tree cutting, excavations and installation works over a 30-day period.

Out of 84 landowners on the route only the defendants failed to grant access to their properties. Permission to enter onto land on the route to facilitate the construction of the line was obtained in 2008.

Short version: woman doesn't want her trees dug up so ESB can put up some poles.

Posting it here, as I've seen a few threads here regarding ESB poles on peoples land, and found it rather bizarre that you can be forced to have electricity poles erected on your land if you don't want them there...

paul71

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/woman-faces-jail-for-preventing-esb-access-to-her-property-519739.html

Long version:


Short version: woman doesn't want her trees dug up so ESB can put up some poles.

Posting it here, as I've seen a few threads here regarding ESB poles on peoples land, and found it rather bizarre that you can be forced to have electricity poles erected on your land if you don't want them there...

It would nice to think you could facilitate everyone who had an objection to ESB pylons, but assuming you pay for electricity then you must be prepared to pay extra for the luxury of supporting the views of someone like this lady.

Victor

the_syco wrote: »

Posting it here, as I've seen a few threads here regarding ESB poles on peoples land, and found it rather bizarre that you can be forced to have electricity poles erected on your land if you don't want them there...

You are paid compensation if your land is used, including extra if it interferes with trees.

xper

the_syco wrote: »

Posting it here, as I've seen a few threads here regarding ESB poles on peoples land, and found it rather bizarre that you can be forced to have electricity poles erected on your land if you don't want them there...

Well you can have a road slapped across your property too once it goes through the relevant procedures so an electrcity transmission line is essetially the same thing. Its a piece of infranstructure that is part of a national network. The greater good and all that.

That said, I am not overly familiar with how exactly electricity grid routes are decided upon, by whom and whether enviromental impact has a sufficently high consideration. Looking at some of the lines marching across the lands, you do wonder. I don't know the exact size and quality of the woodland in this case and what impact the proposed line will have on it but, considering the pathetically small percentage of Irish land under forestry (and most of that non-native cash crops), you'd think that it would be worth enforcing a policy of going around woods rather than through them unless absolutely unavoidable.

Victor

Electricty lines can be aligned along or used to create firebreaks on woodland.

washman3

In theory, nobody in Ireland actually own their land,they just have rights.
The State owns the land, hence if the land is needed for roadway,motorway,powerlines etc the state can put a CPO on it.
Compulsory Purchase Order is just a fancy name for compensation.
This woman can protest all she likes but unless she can win on a safety issue she is wasting her time.
The ESB cannot simply put cables underground for 1 person and not for the rest.
Have we any idea what distance is involved here?

tasha200

I think the days of forceably extracting property/rights on land.. are well and truly over....
She is objecting because she knows the damage 30 days of excavation and building of pylons is going to do to her area, everyone there has esb, there is no one who is not on the grid... esb should pucker up and feck right off or go underground... I hope she stands her gorund and gains great support to do so..x

shannon_tek

Why cant they just run it along the main road like ever normal dick tom and harry. Jesus esb make life so complicated. money or not its the missus land and she doesnt want a pole in her garden. I know i wouldnt be happy.

Victor

shannon_tek wrote: »

Why cant they just run it along the main road like ever normal dick tom and harry.

Maybe the road is substantially longer? Therefore more expensive and less efficient, costing everyone more for their electricity?

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

Electricty lines can be aligned along or used to create firebreaks on woodland.

I'm thinking it's the firebreak that she doesn't want. I suppose if you buy land for trees, you don't want someone coming along to chop some of them down.

The fun bit is, ESB can do this as they're semi-state. If the government were to sell off the ESB to a private investor, I wouldn't see them having as much "shove" in the future?

catch me if you can

I have oak trees that are hundreds of years old on my land. i would cry if they were felled. Im a soppy girl i know. But they are alive in the sense of whatever kind of life a tree has. If anyone gets my meaning! why should they be allowed fell trees, its wrong. they destroy the tree annd wildlife . i would not mind them putting up the posts once they didnt touch the trees. i sound like such a hippy.
i remember years ago the ESB turned up at a neighbours garden and proceeded to chop down a huge oak. my elderly neighbour was out and arrived home just as work was beginning. The ESB had not even notified him! apparently if no one is in they can conduct work for safety reasons. Anyway he jumped out of his car and defended the tree. All arguing to and fro. My neighbour said something that really stuck with me, He said , That tree has been there since I was a lad I climbed it and played it in. It was so sad. The ESB won in the end.

markpb

the_syco wrote: »

The fun bit is, ESB can do this as they're semi-state. If the government were to sell off the ESB to a private investor, I wouldn't see them having as much "shove" in the future?

ESB is now made up of two companies, ESB Networks and ESB Customer Supply. It's the first that builds the network and erects pylons and the second that could/will be privatised so there'll be no problem.

wild_cat

Right...


First things first.. Especially dealing with trees and the ESB...



Sometimes they will cut down more than they said they would/won't tidy up or they will trim trees in an incorrect manner.

Get them to write out exactly what they plan to do... Word for word every step. Get them to sign it and then sign it yourself.
You then have recourse with the ESB if you end up having to fell a vast amount of trees that have been incorrectly trimmed or topped to the point that the trees basically won't survive.

Also if you have pylons on your land it will have been previously set out where you can sew trees and what trees have to come down. Once this has been agreed on as far as I know they can't back track.

Its best for everyone just to deal with them, if you don't take the piss they won't take the piss. You also have to get a special permit to take down large native species of trees so it's not being done lightly if it has to be done.


I hate pylons by the way. I grew up with them buzzing away as soon as a bit of moisture hit them. So objecting to a few poles doesn't mean much to me when it comes to eye sores.

antoinolachtnai

You don't strictly need to be a semi-state to have the right to compulsorily acquire and enter land. If you are erecting strategic infrastructure, you can get permission to enter property. Lots of countries have utilities that are not state-owned.

loremolis

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You don't strictly need to be a semi-state to have the right to compulsorily acquire and enter land. If you are erecting strategic infrastructure, you can get permission to enter property. Lots of countries have utilities that are not state-owned.

The electricity companies in the UK do things differently then the ESB.

If an electricity company wishes to erect an electricity line then their first step is to seek to negotiate a wayleave agreement (or an easement if required) with the landowners.

If they reach agreement with the landowners then the line is erected on the basis of a negotiated wayleave agreement which ensures the payment of compensation on an annual basis for the duration of the wayleave agreement which may be for a specified period of time e.g. 5/10/15/20 years.

When the wayleave agreement expires, the amount of the wayleave payment is reviewed having regard to the value and/or use of the land.

If the electricity provider cannot reach agreement with the landowner then they have recourse to statute which allows them to seek a "necessary wayleave" from the Secretary of State. Part of the "necessary wayleave" process allows the landowner the right of a hearing to put their side of the case forward.

Under our system, the first step for the ESB is to serve a statutory wayleave notice on the landowner. All of the subsequent "negotiations" are carried out in the shadow of the statutory wayleave notice.

There is no wayleave agreement. The ESB can erect the line without having to agree anything with the landowner.

There is no hearing or right of appeal. The entire process relating to the erection of electricity lines is unregulated. The ESB are judge and jury for the entire process.

In the case of the woman threatened with jail. Unfortunately the ESB will follow through and have her jailed if she does not allow them access.

Her trees will be cut down, the line will be erected and no independent third party will have assessed the matter.

jimmycrackcorm

The UK system just sounds bureaucratic. I listened to the women on the news complaining about her trees and she just comes across as a cranky old biddy.

The ESB said they would plant new trees. I thought that's fair enough. I also thought it strange that she wanted to have he cables put underground. Surely that would damage tree roots?

loremolis

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The UK system just sounds bureaucratic. I listened to the women on the news complaining about her trees and she just comes across as a cranky old biddy.

The ESB said they would plant new trees. I thought that's fair enough. I also thought it strange that she wanted to have he cables put underground. Surely that would damage tree roots?

The UK electricity laws were revised in 1989 to take account of the privatisation of the electricity system.

IMO the UK system is not bureaucratic because the electricity companies have adopted a fair approach to dealing with landowners which ensures the payment of fair compensation. The laws also provide for an independent assessment of the wayleave sought by the electricity company if the negotiated agreement cannot be reached.

Whatever you may think about the "cranky old biddy" it is a shameful abuse of power by the ESB and the Courts that a 65 year old woman is jailed for defending her property rights.

The process of erecting electricity lines by the ESB remains unregulated . They still operate a monopoly in this area and as the legislation has not been brought up to date they do not answer to anyone for their bullying of old women and landowners generally.

bucketybuck

shannon_tek wrote: »

Why cant they just run it along the main road like ever normal dick tom and harry. Jesus esb make life so complicated. money or not its the missus land and she doesnt want a pole in her garden. I know i wouldnt be happy.

Its not in her garden, it seems from pictures to be on her land far from any dwelling.

catch me if you can wrote: »

I have oak trees that are hundreds of years old on my land. i would cry if they were felled. Im a soppy girl i know. But they are alive in the sense of whatever kind of life a tree has. If anyone gets my meaning! why should they be allowed fell trees

If you want a reliable supply of electricity then you have to cut down some trees. Easy to whine about it in your warm house on your fancy computer, but until you cut yourself off from the grid you really have no right to criticise.

loremolis wrote: »

Whatever you may think about the "cranky old biddy" it is a shameful abuse of power by the ESB and the Courts that a 65 year old woman is jailed for defending her property rights.

She will be jailed for disobeying a court order, not for defending property. Damn right too, as a society we should not be able to pick and choose what court orders we want to follow.

jdooley28

I hope they cut off her ESB if she ever gets out of prison, people love to complain about anthing

Graces7

I would not want ESB men on my property for 30 days.

cyrusdvirus

I'm in 2 minds about this.

I doubt that the ESB are putting these pylons and wires there for shits and giggles, so this woman is inconveniencing other people, and i don't know how many, with her stance. If these cables are lets just say to go to a hospital, or a school, would peoples opinion change?

In one way I do admire this womans stance on the issue, but as buckety buck said, you can't pick and choose what laws to obey and which ones don't suit you.

This has gone through all the legal channels and this woman hasn't had legal representation. To me that smacks of stupidity/stubbornness. If I go to the High Court, I'm going to make sure i'm not standing alone in front of a judge.

loremolis

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its not in her garden, it seems from pictures to be on her land far from any dwelling.

Would you accept a High Voltage electricity line in your back garden?

If you want a reliable supply of electricity then you have to cut down some trees. Easy to whine about it in your warm house on your fancy computer, but until you cut yourself off from the grid you really have no right to criticise.

This has nothing to do with a "warm house" or "fancy computer". You disagree with her stance on this because the cost of your electricity might go up.

We all use electricity. That doesn't mean that we accept everything the ESB do as being correct. What if your mother was going to jail for standing up for what she believed in?

She will be jailed for disobeying a court order, not for defending property. Damn right too, as a society we should not be able to pick and choose what court orders we want to follow.

Guess what, we can pick and choose what court orders we want to follow.

If it wasn't for people like her who stood up for their rights there would be a Union Jack flying over the GPO now.

cyrusdvirus

loremolis wrote: »

Guess what, we can pick and choose what court orders we want to follow.

If it wasn't for people like her who stood up for their rights there would be a Union Jack flying over the GPO now.

Mightn't be a bad thing. I mean they have a fairer way of deciding these types of issues/// :pac::P:eek:

ravendude

loremolis wrote: »

Would you accept a High Voltage electricity line in your back garden?

It's not in her back garden

loremolis wrote: »

If it wasn't for people like her who stood up for their rights there would be a Union Jack flying over the GPO now.

Don't be silly, that can be used to justify any criminal behaviour. The court has adjuducated on her rights.

markpb

loremolis wrote: »

If it wasn't for people like her who stood up for their rights there would be a Union Jack flying over the GPO now.

There's no point having an Irish flag flying over the GPO if people don't recognise the authority of the state and it's courts. It's a state not anarchy that people fought for. Go wave your misplaced patriotism somewhere else.

ravendude

As another poster indicated above, - she struck me a as a stubborn crank also.

The TV report suggested it was well away from her house or any other houses. It looked like it was a copse of trees involved, not a great heritage oak forest or anything.

goat2

if i were her, i would let them go ahead, the shots i would call are.
cut up the threes that they fell, and put them in a stack near house, set new trees, and generally clear up, then next winter she would have free fuel from her wood, and could sell the surplus to make a few bucks for herself, it would be a win win situation, after all the line they are putting in is going to benefit the community around her, she loses nothing. she actually gains,

professore

If everyone was allowed to decide, practically no one would have ESB pylons, roads or other essential infrastructure on their land.

I have got pylons running behind my house that I rather were not there, but am not prepared to go to jail to have them moved.

It's very shortsighted to support this woman. Basically the argument is the rights of one person lucky enough to inherit a large piece of land are more important than the rights of tens of thousands.

In my opinion I think our system is better than the UK. If you're really determined, then you can take them to court, and probably lose.

Meanwhile the rest of us get power to our homes and businesses in the winter.

loremolis

ravendude wrote: »

It's not in her back garden.

How close to her house is it then?

Don't be silly, that can be used to justify any criminal behaviour. The court has adjuducated on her rights.

It's amazing that you would call what she is doing criminal.

In 1985, the ESB was granted a similar injunction against another "cranky old biddy".

In that case she had a few quid and she hired a legal team to challenge their right to place an electricity line across her land.

She won the case in the Supreme Court on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the legislation that the ESB were using and also on the basis that the Planning Permission for the line was invalid.

Following that decision, every landowner whose land was crossed by electricity lines became statutorily entitled to compensation.

That decision undoubtedly increased the cost of electricity in the following years, but until Mrs. Gormley stood her ground the ESB didn't have to pay compensation to anyone for the process of erecting electricity lines on private lands. A process which I remind you remains unregulated.

Despite that decision, the wayleave compensation payable for existing lines remains outside of statue. The ESB pay whatever they like and you can't do anything about it.

Many comments here are based on the perception that this woman looks like a "stubborn crank", and sounds like a "cranky old biddy".

Why not look at the situation and not the person involved.

loremolis

professore wrote: »

If everyone was allowed to decide, practically no one would have ESB pylons, roads or other essential infrastructure on their land.

I have got pylons running behind my house that I rather were not there, but am not prepared to go to jail to have them moved.

It's very shortsighted to support this woman. Basically the argument is the rights of one person lucky enough to inherit a large piece of land are more important than the rights of tens of thousands.

In my opinion I think our system is better than the UK. If you're really determined, then you can take them to court, and probably lose.

Meanwhile the rest of us get power to our homes and businesses in the winter.

In what way is our system better than the UK?

Victor

Folks, perhaps ye might lay off the cranky old biddy comments.

---

goat2 wrote: »

if i were her, i would let them go ahead, the shots i would call are.
cut up the threes that they fell, and put them in a stack near house, set new trees, and generally clear up, then next winter she would have free fuel from her wood, and could sell the surplus to make a few bucks for herself, it would be a win win situation, after all the line they are putting in is going to benefit the community around her, she loses nothing. she actually gains,

As I understand it, the land owner is entitled to retain ownership of the timber.