Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Woman faces jail for preventing ESB access to her property
Options
Comments
-
From what I can see of that opinion Eirgrid does not have the pwoers that the ESB has but what is to stop the ESB using its own powers to authorise Eirgrid to install cable?
Yes Jo, the assumption is that they would have got some kind of authorization. But did they? And did they get the correct written/certified authority.
The ESB could have given them the authority to install cable, but the issue is the matter of trespass on to private property. The ESB would appear to have the authority (enforced by law) to enter private property but their sub-contractors would also need some authority to do so. If this is not legally done, would they not both become co-trespassers.0 -
In ireland and the UK, for some reason, protestors are nearly always seen as anti-establishment and therefore assumed to be in the wrong. There's a well publicised instance of gardai helping Shell to trespass on private land in mayo a couple of years ago; shell had to back off some days later when their lawyers realised that the land was privately owned and not a public thoroughfare. No amount of persuasion on the day could get the gardai to accept that shell was trespassing-- the assumption was that they couldn't possibly be wrong.Justice for the individual wrote: »From what I can see of that opinion Eirgrid does not have the pwoers that the ESB has but what is to stop the ESB using its own powers to authorise Eirgrid to install cable?
Yes Jo, the assumption is that they would have got some kind of authorization. But did they? And did they get the correct written/certified authority.
The ESB could have given them the authority to install cable, but the issue is the matter of trespass on to private property. The ESB would appear to have the authority (enforced by law) to enter private property but their sub-contractors would also need some authority to do so. If this is not legally done, would they not both become co-trespassers.
A less well publicised case last year involved the gardai in the naas/newbridge area getting involved in helping Eirgrid to trespass on a farm, something that was none of their business and that was essentially a civil matter. Again, the assumption was that Eirgrid couldn't possibly be wrong.0 -
The ESB has power to claim an easement over any property. it can claim an easement for an authorised undertaking. That would allow entry to private property under the easement.0
-
Ah yes the Daily Mail, such a reliable source of information http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/0
-
bath handle wrote: »The ESB has power to claim an easement over any property. it can claim an easement for an authorised undertaking. That would allow entry to private property under the easement.
Can you explain how that might work?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't really understand why you can be ordered to allow people to cross your land if you don't want them to.
Why is there no alternative to this route?
Do the ESB do underground cables and what is the criteria for doing so?0 -
Can you explain how that might work?
IREMOLIS.
You are very knowledgeable in this whole area, so what is your thinking on the following observations:
An Easement will give a Public Utility the permission to go ahead and perform the works necessary for upgrading or installation of public utilities, i.e. oil, gas, electricity, etc.
(a) A Formal Easement can be created by signing a document vesting legal rights in the Easement to any of their agents who may erect the pylons, pipes etc.
(b) The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) is an independent body set up to regulate the monopoly electricity transmissions and distribution systems (high & low voltage wires/pylons with the aim of delivering "value for money" for the end customer.
Questions:
(1) In the Treacy case, is the ESB Easement order temporary. If it is, has it got an expiry date? & is there a formal easement for Eirgrid and also for any subcontractors employed, (tree-cutters etc.) Are insurance & public liability protection in place to cover all participants.
(2) The CER is responsible for overseeing the liberalisation of Irelands energy section. It is very hard to see them as being completely independent when both their policy statements and function is on the side of the consumer. Does this not leave the property owner concerned in a no-win situation?
Is CER not the body who kept energy prices high for the consumer to encourage competition into the energy market?
Some of the top people in CER are the same people moving around different government departments.
Conclusion.
In view of all of the above, apart from finding a legal loophole, Ms. Treacy is in a hopeless situation, and is in fact, powerless against all of the powerful interests loaded against her.
However, it does not make it right the callous way she is being treated. The law in its strict form can be brutal, but people can use a bit of common sense (not allowable in court) to rectify this awkward situation.0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »IREMOLIS.
You are very knowledgeable in this whole area, so what is your thinking on the following observations:
An Easement will give a Public Utility the permission to go ahead and perform the works necessary for upgrading or installation of public utilities, i.e. oil, gas, electricity, etc.
(a) A Formal Easement can be created by signing a document vesting legal rights in the Easement to any of their agents who may erect the pylons, pipes etc.
(b) The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) is an independent body set up to regulate the monopoly electricity transmissions and distribution systems (high & low voltage wires/pylons with the aim of delivering "value for money" for the end customer.
Questions:
(1) In the Treacy case, is the ESB Easement order temporary. If it is, has it got an expiry date? & is there a formal easement for Eirgrid and also for any subcontractors employed, (tree-cutters etc.) Are insurance & public liability protection in place to cover all participants.
(2) The CER is responsible for overseeing the liberalisation of Irelands energy section. It is very hard to see them as being completely independent when both their policy statements and function is on the side of the consumer. Does this not leave the owner of the property owner concerned in a no-win situation?
Is CER not the body who kept energy prices high for the consumer to encourage competition into the energy market?
Some of the top people in CER are the same people moving around different government departments.
Conclusion.
In view of all of the above, apart from finding a legal loophole, Ms. Treacy is in a hopeless situation, and is in fact, powerless against all of the powerful interests loaded against her.
However, it does not make it right the callous way she is being treated. The law in its strict form can be brutal, but people can use a bit of common sense
(not allowable in court) to rectify awkward situations.
I believe it is not an easement but a way leave, the power is given to the ESB in section 53 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927. Section 53 was amended in 1985 after the case of Electricity Supply Board v Gormley which held the original 1927 Act breached the constitutional right to private property, and after 1985 compensation must be paid.0 -
ResearchWill wrote: »I believe it is not an easement but a way leave, the power is given to the ESB in section 53 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927. Section 53 was amended in 1985 after the case of Electricity Supply Board v Gormley which held the original 1927 Act breached the constitutional right to private property, and after 1985 compensation must be paid.
It appears that the utility company can decide which will suit them the best, be it by Easement or Way leave. In either case, a nominal sum is payable. equivalent to a few euro, which does not properly compensate the landowner.
They will say that consultation takes place with the landowners, but however, if things do not go their way, they will go ahead and do their own thing anyway. I have personal experience of a like situation. Ms. Treacy has not accepted compensation and has not agreed that they enter her land, so obviously she has not come to any agreement with them.
Utility companies should be forward-planning, possibly 50 years into the future and deciding on the most convenient and cost-effective routes (taking into cost the proper compensation to landowners) and allowing for disruption (physical and sentimental) to all concerned.
Also, when buying property, something will have to be built into the leases (like a time period) to protect the owners from a sudden disruption of this nature.
People will have to be protected from too much power being given to these public utility companies and the larger multinational energy developers at the expense of the individual, but unfortunately, it looks like this is the general trend until genuine independent monitoring is brought in by governments.0 -
Unless the landowner signs the easement, it has no legal standing no matter what force is used to build the line. Therefore eirgrid or the ESB cannot capitalise the asset or use it as collateral etc. Maybe not too important in the case of a semi state company, but vital in the event of any kind of privatisation.ResearchWill wrote: »Justice for the individual wrote: »IREMOLIS.
You are very knowledgeable in this whole area, so what is your thinking on the following observations:
An Easement will give a Public Utility the permission to go ahead and perform the works necessary for upgrading or installation of public utilities, i.e. oil, gas, electricity, etc.
(a) A Formal Easement can be created by signing a document vesting legal rights in the Easement to any of their agents who may erect the pylons, pipes etc.
(b) The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) is an independent body set up to regulate the monopoly electricity transmissions and distribution systems (high & low voltage wires/pylons with the aim of delivering "value for money" for the end customer.
Questions:
(1) In the Treacy case, is the ESB Easement order temporary. If it is, has it got an expiry date? & is there a formal easement for Eirgrid and also for any subcontractors employed, (tree-cutters etc.) Are insurance & public liability protection in place to cover all participants.
(2) The CER is responsible for overseeing the liberalisation of Irelands energy section. It is very hard to see them as being completely independent when both their policy statements and function is on the side of the consumer. Does this not leave the owner of the property owner concerned in a no-win situation?
Is CER not the body who kept energy prices high for the consumer to encourage competition into the energy market?
Some of the top people in CER are the same people moving around different government departments.
Conclusion.
In view of all of the above, apart from finding a legal loophole, Ms. Treacy is in a hopeless situation, and is in fact, powerless against all of the powerful interests loaded against her.
However, it does not make it right the callous way she is being treated. The law in its strict form can be brutal, but people can use a bit of common sense
(not allowable in court) to rectify awkward situations.
I believe it is not an easement but a way leave, the power is given to the ESB in section 53 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927. Section 53 was amended in 1985 after the case of Electricity Supply Board v Gormley which held the original 1927 Act breached the constitutional right to private property, and after 1985 compensation must be paid.
The ESB lacks expertise in building long underground lines, it only has a few short sections in urban areas and only has a tiny team of technicians trained in jointing etc. Their forte is overhead lines, and if some of the proposed links were to be undergrounded the entire projects including management would have to be subcontracted. That's the nub of the issue, and explains why they tout the cost of underground cables in city streets as a cost comparison when justifying their stance. They don't have any rural cables to use as comparators in any case.
This is all about careers at the end if the day. Nothing more. What they didn't count on in this instance was an old lady with balls!0 -
Advertisement
-
Unless the landowner signs the easement, it has no legal standing no matter what force is used to build the line. Therefore eirgrid or the ESB cannot capitalise the asset or use it as collateral etc. Maybe not too important in the case of a semi state company, but vital in the event of any kind of privatisation.
The ESB lacks expertise in building long underground lines, it only has a few short sections in urban areas and only has a tiny team of technicians trained in jointing etc. Their forte is overhead lines, and if some of the proposed links were to be undergrounded the entire projects including management would have to be subcontracted. That's the nub of the issue, and explains why they tout the cost of underground cables in city streets as a cost comparison when justifying their stance. They don't have any rural cables to use as comparators in any case.
This is all about careers at the end if the day. Nothing more. What they didn't count on in this instance was an old lady with balls!
So corporate culture has to be changed, and if their own necks are on the line as regards change management, resistance will emerge. Wages and pensions are far too high (at the consumers expense) and it not surprising that our energy costs are so high. These costs are consequently making business activity very expensive and will also reflect on foreign direct investment into this country. They should be concentrating their energies into reducing their prices with a long-term benefit for the consumer. To this aim deadwood should be got rid of.0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »It appears that the utility company can decide which will suit them the best, be it by Easement or Way leave. In either case, a nominal sum is payable. equivalent to a few euro, which does not properly compensate the landowner.
They will say that consultation takes place with the landowners, but however, if things do not go their way, they will go ahead and do their own thing anyway. I have personal experience of a like situation. Ms. Treacy has not accepted compensation and has not agreed that they enter her land, so obviously she has not come to any agreement with them.
Utility companies should be forward-planning, possibly 50 years into the future and deciding on the most convenient and cost-effective routes (taking into cost the proper compensation to landowners) and allowing for disruption (physical and sentimental) to all concerned.
Also, when buying property, something will have to be built into the leases (like a time period) to protect the owners from a sudden disruption of this nature.
People will have to be protected from too much power being given to these public utility companies and the larger multinational energy developers at the expense of the individual, but unfortunately, it looks like this is the general trend until genuine independent monitoring is brought in by governments.
If you look at the Gormley decision and subsequent legislation, the ESB has full rights to the wayleave, but an independant body decides on compensation, from what I have heard that compensation is not minor. In fact many persons who had wayleaves on their land pre 1985 where able to apply for compensation.
While I agree in principle that a company should not be allowed to at will go onto a persons land, in this case where the common good is to have electricity delievered to all the population, the right of one as they say is outweighed by the rights of the many.
We have to remember the history behind the 1927 Act, the war of independence and civil war, were just over, the country had to modernise. You can imagine certain land owneres knowing that their land was the last in the chain to bring electricity to his neighbour who happened to fight for the other side in the civil war, could you imagine what he would say to the ESB. So by making it impossible to say no the problem was solved.0 -
There is an essential difference in this case, as indeed in the case of the ESB driving a line through an important archaeological site in Roscommon. In both instances, the landowners have agreed to wayleave the line, as long as it is buried.ResearchWill wrote: »Justice for the individual wrote: »It appears that the utility company can decide which will suit them the best, be it by Easement or Way leave. In either case, a nominal sum is payable. equivalent to a few euro, which does not properly compensate the landowner.
They will say that consultation takes place with the landowners, but however, if things do not go their way, they will go ahead and do their own thing anyway. I have personal experience of a like situation. Ms. Treacy has not accepted compensation and has not agreed that they enter her land, so obviously she has not come to any agreement with them.
Utility companies should be forward-planning, possibly 50 years into the future and deciding on the most convenient and cost-effective routes (taking into cost the proper compensation to landowners) and allowing for disruption (physical and sentimental) to all concerned.
Also, when buying property, something will have to be built into the leases (like a time period) to protect the owners from a sudden disruption of this nature.
People will have to be protected from too much power being given to these public utility companies and the larger multinational energy developers at the expense of the individual, but unfortunately, it looks like this is the general trend until genuine independent monitoring is brought in by governments.
If you look at the Gormley decision and subsequent legislation, the ESB has full rights to the wayleave, but an independant body decides on compensation, from what I have heard that compensation is not minor. In fact many persons who had wayleaves on their land pre 1985 where able to apply for compensation.
While I agree in principle that a company should not be allowed to at will go onto a persons land, in this case where the common good is to have electricity delievered to all the population, the right of one as they say is outweighed by the rights of the many.
We have to remember the history behind the 1927 Act, the war of independence and civil war, were just over, the country had to modernise. You can imagine certain land owneres knowing that their land was the last in the chain to bring electricity to his neighbour who happened to fight for the other side in the civil war, could you imagine what he would say to the ESB. So by making it impossible to say no the problem was solved.
As for consultation whic is a requirement, this rakes the form of an ESB team meeting local people and telling them where they ate putting the line. There is no question of landowners having an input into route planning. If rural dwellers don't like what is proposed, the standard response from ESB negotiators is to threaten to "take you to the high court and clean you out".
It's no wonder that the ESB us the most hated of the semi states in rural areas, with Coillte coming a close second.0 -
ResearchWill wrote: »If you look at the Gormley decision and subsequent legislation, the ESB has full rights to the wayleave, but an independant body decides on compensation, from what I have heard that compensation is not minor. In fact many persons who had wayleaves on their land pre 1985 where able to apply for compensation.
While I agree in principle that a company should not be allowed to at will go onto a persons land, in this case where the common good is to have electricity delievered to all the population, the right of one as they say is outweighed by the rights of the many.
We have to remember the history behind the 1927 Act, the war of independence and civil war, were just over, the country had to modernise. You can imagine certain land owneres knowing that their land was the last in the chain to bring electricity to his neighbour who happened to fight for the other side in the civil war, could you imagine what he would say to the ESB. So by making it impossible to say no the problem was solved.
ResearchWill,
We cannot bring in the civil war analogy here. The Civil War is well over, and by the way, that war was part of the strategy to gain ownership and control of our land and destiny. The new enemy is uncensored corporate power, which is backed up by government and the legal system. Examples are Shell in Mayo, The Tara Bypass, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clonmel, etc, etc. An effort should be made to make laws fair and just for all.
I would think that the dirty work is done first and then a limited amount of compensation is offered. Have you any case history of how much is paid, and is it adequate.
Who is the independent body that arbitrates on the compensation and who appoints them?
Maybe you can come up with some research on these concerns as the human element appears to be ignored in this disgraceful case.0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »ResearchWill wrote: »If you look at the Gormley decision and subsequent legislation, the ESB has full rights to the wayleave, but an independant body decides on compensation, from what I have heard that compensation is not minor. In fact many persons who had wayleaves on their land pre 1985 where able to apply for compensation.
While I agree in principle that a company should not be allowed to at will go onto a persons land, in this case where the common good is to have electricity delievered to all the population, the right of one as they say is outweighed by the rights of the many.
We have to remember the history behind the 1927 Act, the war of independence and civil war, were just over, the country had to modernise. You can imagine certain land owneres knowing that their land was the last in the chain to bring electricity to his neighbour who happened to fight for the other side in the civil war, could you imagine what he would say to the ESB. So by making it impossible to say no the problem was solved.
ResearchWill,
We cannot bring in the civil war analogy here. The Civil War is well over, and by the way, that war was part of the strategy to gain ownership and control of our land and destiny. The new enemy is uncensored corporate power, which is backed up by government and the legal system. Examples are Shell in Mayo, The Tara Bypass, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clonmel, etc, etc. An effort should be made to make laws fair and just for all.
I would think that the dirty work is done first and then a limited amount of compensation is offered. Have you any case history of how much is paid, and is it adequate.
Who is the independent body that arbitrates on the compensation and who appoints them?
Maybe you can come up with some research on these concerns as the human element appears to be ignored in this disgraceful case.
I really don't like when people misquote, I was only giving the historical context of the legislatoion, it is impossible to look at any legislation with out looking at why it was created.
Is it still required? That is a different question. Many of the historical reasons no longer exist. The total electrification of the state has happened, it had to be done as cheaply as possible, we hope it was.
Now looking forward is it necessary to keep the system? In my opinion it is as while the ESB may in some cases be at fault, knowing some of the people in this country who would stop any development just because they can, it is vital in the delivery of a first class energy distribution system, that is cheap to install and maintain it must be available to the ESB to be able to decide on the best method to achieve that.
In my opinion the biggest issue facing this country is the me first attitude. So what that it doubles the cost to put it underground the ESB can pay, well no we all pay.
According to the 1985 act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1985/en/act/pub/0006/sec0001.html#sec1 this act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1919/57/pdfs/ukpga_19190057_en.pdf deals with the payment of compensation. I do not know of the value of the awards.0 -
ResearchWill wrote: »I really don't like when people misquote, I was only giving the historical context of the legislatoion, it is impossible to look at any legislation with out looking at why it was created.
Is it still required? That is a different question. Many of the historical reasons no longer exist. The total electrification of the state has happened, it had to be done as cheaply as possible, we hope it was.
Now looking forward is it necessary to keep the system? In my opinion it is as while the ESB may in some cases be at fault, knowing some of the people in this country who would stop any development just because they can, it is vital in the delivery of a first class energy distribution system, that is cheap to install and maintain it must be available to the ESB to be able to decide on the best method to achieve that.
In my opinion the biggest issue facing this country is the me first attitude. So what that it doubles the cost to put it underground the ESB can pay, well no we all pay.
According to the 1985 act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1985/en/act/pub/0006/sec0001.html#sec1 this act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1919/57/pdfs/ukpga_19190057_en.pdf deals with the payment of compensation. I do not know of the value of the awards.
RESEARCHWILL.
I respect your viewpoints and opinions and I do not want you to treat my comments as an attack on you personally. Your information is excellent and especially from a "the picture as it is" perspective. However, where exactly did I misquote you?. I was just giving you my opinion on the information you supplied.
I agree with you that a NIMBY attitude can be prevalent in some situations. That is o.k. until the problem lands on your own doorstep. We can all be NIMBY's in certain situations. Would we like a methadone/needle exchange facility right beside us? A rubbish dump? Of course we would not.
We have no evidence that the underground route has been independently costed. Accepting the ESB's word as gospel would be a bit naive of us.
Because of the serious financial situation we are now in due to non-questioning of, and unaccountability of our so-called masters and regulators it is imperative that we all keep on our toes and ensure that such a scenario does not happen again.
The ESB is able to produce massive profit figures despite paying unusually lucrative wages to its staff and especially senior management. Energy prices were kept high by the energy regulator to the consumer to entice other competitors into the market. This strategy has not worked. Electricity prices have in fact increased and we are now landed with an extra item to cover energy conservation research. Could this charge not be taken from the excess profits being made.
If and when the ESB goes private it is more than likely that the senior management will be paid off with huge bonuses and the new owners will get rid of a lot of the senior managers and additional dead wood to increase their own profit margins for their new shareholders. Will this be to our advantage? Of course not.
ACCOUNTABILITY is the main issue in all of these considerations.
Going back to the original issue, my main aim is to highlight the heavy-handed treatment of Ms. Treacy and to make the powers-that-be aware of the pure bloody-mindedness involved here in bullying the woman into submission.
I have been a witness in a case where my neighbor was burgled by a drug addict and sentimental jewellery items stolen. To make a long story short, the guy got a suspended sentence of 18 months. The moral of the story is: if you are a criminal you get every assistance, but if you are decent and respectable you have no chance.Think of the situations in Moyross and Dunsink. What is being done there, despite serious lawlessness. Think of a law-abiding decent woman on her own land subjected to bullying by overwhelming forces. Now you get the picture?
Now, let's go back to quoting the regulations and the law, and see how sterile this exercise is!0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »ResearchWill wrote: »I really don't like when people misquote, I was only giving the historical context of the legislatoion, it is impossible to look at any legislation with out looking at why it was created.
Is it still required? That is a different question. Many of the historical reasons no longer exist. The total electrification of the state has happened, it had to be done as cheaply as possible, we hope it was.
Now looking forward is it necessary to keep the system? In my opinion it is as while the ESB may in some cases be at fault, knowing some of the people in this country who would stop any development just because they can, it is vital in the delivery of a first class energy distribution system, that is cheap to install and maintain it must be available to the ESB to be able to decide on the best method to achieve that.
In my opinion the biggest issue facing this country is the me first attitude. So what that it doubles the cost to put it underground the ESB can pay, well no we all pay.
According to the 1985 act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1985/en/act/pub/0006/sec0001.html#sec1 this act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1919/57/pdfs/ukpga_19190057_en.pdf deals with the payment of compensation. I do not know of the value of the awards.
RESEARCHWILL.
I respect your viewpoints and opinions and I do not want you to treat my comments as an attack on you personally. Your information is excellent and especially from a "the picture as it is" perspective. However, where exactly did I misquote you?. I was just giving you my opinion on the information you supplied.
I agree with you that a NIMBY attitude can be prevalent in some situations. That is o.k. until the problem lands on your own doorstep. We can all be NIMBY's in certain situations. Would we like a methadone/needle exchange facility right beside us? A rubbish dump? Of course we would not.
We have no evidence that the underground route has been independently costed. Accepting the ESB's word as gospel would be a bit naive of us.
Because of the serious financial situation we are now in due to non-questioning of, and unaccountability of our so-called masters and regulators it is imperative that we all keep on our toes and ensure that such a scenario does not happen again.
The ESB is able to produce massive profit figures despite paying unusually lucrative wages to its staff and especially senior management. Energy prices were kept high by the energy regulator to the consumer to entice other competitors into the market. This strategy has not worked. Electricity prices have in fact increased and we are now landed with an extra item to cover energy conservation research. Could this charge not be taken from the excess profits being made.
If and when the ESB goes private it is more than likely that the senior management will be paid off with huge bonuses and the new owners will get rid of a lot of the senior managers and additional dead wood to increase their own profit margins for their new shareholders. Will this be to our advantage? Of course not.
ACCOUNTABILITY is the main issue in all of these considerations.
Going back to the original issue, my main aim is to highlight the heavy-handed treatment of Ms. Treacy and to make the powers-that-be aware of the pure bloody-mindedness involved here in bullying the woman into submission.
I have been a witness in a case where my neighbor was burgled by a drug addict and sentimental jewellery items stolen. To make a long story short, the guy got a suspended sentence of 18 months. The moral of the story is: if you are a criminal you get every assistance, but if you are decent and respectable you have no chance.Think of the situations in Moyross and Dunsink. What is being done there, despite serious lawlessness. Think of a law-abiding decent woman on her own land subjected to bullying by overwhelming forces. Now you get the picture?
Now, let's go back to quoting the regulations and the law, and see how sterile this exercise is!
My issue was with the following "We cannot bring in the civil war analogy here. The Civil War is well over," my original statement was to give the matter flesh so to speak, so we can understand why the ESB has such serious power.
In relation to the issue, Ms. Treacy was not jailed by the ESB. She was jailed by order of a High Court Judge. The court I would believe gave her every opportunity to put her reasons forward, I assume if she had evidence that her solution was more advantageous she could and would have presented it. If the ESB was acting in a way that was incorrect, it may be open to Judicial Review of that decision.
While I understand that people feel this is unfair, and a robber can get off Scott free. In my opinion the upholding of an order of Court is of vital importance to society.
I do not know if Ms Treacy has a lawyer, but I can assure you if she has all legal remedies have been or should have been exhausted.
In relation to needle exchanges and dumps, I live in the city centre and fully accept that homeless hostels and drug treatment centres may have to be built near me, in fact I am looking out my window at a St Vincents Homeless Hostel at this moment, if they wished to add a needle exchange I for one would support that.
Now so I am clear, big business often make the wrong decision as do government, that is why we as a citizen can and do challenge them in the courts, with the help of lawyers and experts. The ESB has lost cases the Gormley decision case in point. I can assure you if anyone can provide expert evidence that there was another way for the ESB to lay the lines, that is long term feasible and as cheap or near enough to make no difference, the HC would have listened to that.0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »IREMOLIS.
You are very knowledgeable in this whole area, so what is your thinking on the following observations:
An Easement will give a Public Utility the permission to go ahead and perform the works necessary for upgrading or installation of public utilities, i.e. oil, gas, electricity, etc.
(a) A Formal Easement can be created by signing a document vesting legal rights in the Easement to any of their agents who may erect the pylons, pipes etc.
(b) The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) is an independent body set up to regulate the monopoly electricity transmissions and distribution systems (high & low voltage wires/pylons with the aim of delivering "value for money" for the end customer.
Questions:
(1) In the Treacy case, is the ESB Easement order temporary. If it is, has it got an expiry date? & is there a formal easement for Eirgrid and also for any subcontractors employed, (tree-cutters etc.) Are insurance & public liability protection in place to cover all participants.
(2) The CER is responsible for overseeing the liberalisation of Irelands energy section. It is very hard to see them as being completely independent when both their policy statements and function is on the side of the consumer. Does this not leave the property owner concerned in a no-win situation?
Is CER not the body who kept energy prices high for the consumer to encourage competition into the energy market?
Some of the top people in CER are the same people moving around different government departments.
Conclusion.
In view of all of the above, apart from finding a legal loophole, Ms. Treacy is in a hopeless situation, and is in fact, powerless against all of the powerful interests loaded against her.
However, it does not make it right the callous way she is being treated. The law in its strict form can be brutal, but people can use a bit of common sense (not allowable in court) to rectify this awkward situation.
(a) It appears that you are confusing wayleaves and easements. I can't understand the statement.
(b) The CER has no role in the wayleave process or the process of erecting an electricity transmission or distribution line.
They are the body responsible for approving the compulsory acquisition of easements for the ESB and Eirgrid.
They have no role in assessing the cost of erecting electricity transmission lines.
The ESB are unregulated in this area. The annual spend on electricity transmission lines by the ESB/Eirgrid runs into tens of millions of euro, all unregulated.
I cant answer (1) other than to say that it appears you are confusing a wayleave and an easement.
I think I've answered (2) above.
I think that this document may be of some interest ot you:
http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8r4-ZhcrG7s%3D&tabid=654&mid=2535
The difficulty with the "policy" is that is contains errors which turn it strongly in favour of the ESB's position.
Although that is to be exected when they wrote it.0 -
Thanks. I understand the meaning of the terms now. I am no expert in the field of regulations but I am prepared to learn as I go and also to take other peoples viewpoints on board. Thanks, again, I appreciate the information.0
-
Protest meeting planned for outside Mountjoy women's prison tomorrow evening (Friday) from 6 to 8 pm in support of the woman from Offaly, just got a text to that effect. Not sure who's organising it.Justice for the individual wrote: »ResearchWill wrote: »If you look at the Gormley decision and subsequent legislation, the ESB has full rights to the wayleave, but an independant body decides on compensation, from what I have heard that compensation is not minor. In fact many persons who had wayleaves on their land pre 1985 where able to apply for compensation.
While I agree in principle that a company should not be allowed to at will go onto a persons land, in this case where the common good is to have electricity delievered to all the population, the right of one as they say is outweighed by the rights of the many.
We have to remember the history behind the 1927 Act, the war of independence and civil war, were just over, the country had to modernise. You can imagine certain land owneres knowing that their land was the last in the chain to bring electricity to his neighbour who happened to fight for the other side in the civil war, could you imagine what he would say to the ESB. So by making it impossible to say no the problem was solved.
ResearchWill,
We cannot bring in the civil war analogy here. The Civil War is well over, and by the way, that war was part of the strategy to gain ownership and control of our land and destiny. The new enemy is uncensored corporate power, which is backed up by government and the legal system. Examples are Shell in Mayo, The Tara Bypass, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clonmel, etc, etc. An effort should be made to make laws fair and just for all.
I would think that the dirty work is done first and then a limited amount of compensation is offered. Have you any case history of how much is paid, and is it adequate.
Who is the independent body that arbitrates on the compensation and who appoints them?
Maybe you can come up with some research on these concerns as the human element appears to be ignored in this disgraceful case.0 -
Advertisement
-
Protest meeting planned for outside Mountjoy women's prison tomorrow evening (Friday) from 6 to 8 pm in support of the woman from Offaly, just got a text to that effect. Not sure who's organising it.
I would have thought a protest outside the ESB offices would have been a better location.0 -
I agree. Still, that's where they are having it.Protest meeting planned for outside Mountjoy women's prison tomorrow evening (Friday) from 6 to 8 pm in support of the woman from Offaly, just got a text to that effect. Not sure who's organising it.
I would have thought a protest outside the ESB offices would have been a better location.0 -
Justice for the individual, can I ask you to lay off the bland assertions and leading / rhetorical questions and add to the conversation and not just engage in a bashing exercise.Justice for the individual wrote: »So corporate culture has to be changed, and if their own necks are on the line as regards change management, resistance will emerge. Wages and pensions are far too high (at the consumers expense) and it not surprising that our energy costs are so high. These costs are consequently making business activity very expensive and will also reflect on foreign direct investment into this country. They should be concentrating their energies into reducing their prices with a long-term benefit for the consumer. To this aim deadwood should be got rid of.
This is the Accommodation & Property, the above quote doesn't belong here.
"Mr. Subcontractor. install the foundations there" is all the authority they need. They are an agent of the ESB.Justice for the individual wrote: »The ESB would appear to have the authority (enforced by law) to enter private property but their sub-contractors would also need some authority to do so.
Not everything has to be regulated in the narrow sense of having a permanent single administrator.(b) The CER has no role in the wayleave process or the process of erecting an electricity transmission or distribution line.
They are the body responsible for approving the compulsory acquisition of easements for the ESB and Eirgrid.
They have no role in assessing the cost of erecting electricity transmission lines.
The ESB are unregulated in this area. The annual spend on electricity transmission lines by the ESB/Eirgrid runs into tens of millions of euro, all unregulated.
I iamgine if there is a dispute over compensation, that it goes to an agreed arbitrator or one appointed under the Arbitration Acts. the arbitrator is independent and has to follow the law, including fair procedure. Failure to do so can resulting an a court appeal.
Can you point to some of these errors. I suspect what you will find is that it is very deliberate.I think that this document may be of some interest ot you:
http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8r4-ZhcrG7s%3D&tabid=654&mid=2535
The difficulty with the "policy" is that is contains errors which turn it strongly in favour of the ESB's position.
Although that is to be exected when they wrote it.0 -
A lot of talk about "Going underground" from people here as a solution who really don't know what it entails or imagine some ESB guy digs a small hole in the ground then burrows along like in the great escape.
Undergrounding involves cut and cover - i.e. mechanical digger digs a large trench for the power line. This will necessitate the trees being cut down.
Thats not the end of it though - when the line is buried the land it is under must be sterilized and nothing can grow on it. This strip of land must also be left accessible to heavy machinery for maintenance and repair. In effect, when you underground a cable you build a road on top. One that can take heavy diggers. So the idea that under-grounding has less visual or environmental impact then overhead is laughable!
Also mentioned is running power lines along the side of the road. This would involve removing the ditch - you can't put power lines over ditches for obvious reasons. It's less ecologically and visually friendly to dig out and remove ditches (farmers get grants to maintain ditches from the EU) Ye are probably thinking about telephone lines along ditches which are fine. Most power lines go over empty land because it's the safest and most cost effective way of doing it.
Finally, a lot of talk about this individuals rights, but none whatsoever about the right of the person being connected to have power. Which is more important? The right to retain some trees or the right to have electricity? Rights have to be balanced, and in this case the right for somebody to have electricity easily outweighs someones right to prevent lines being run over their land
Personally? Instead of putting her in jail (for contempt of court) I'd think cutting her power would be suitable punishment. Of course she'd probably make her feel righteous and she'll live "off grid" for the sheer hell of it. But it would be interesting to make Nimby's face up to the consequences of their actions. I grew up with the 220kv line to Arklow outside my bedroom Window so am fully aware of what big power lines are like up close and personal.0 -
eastwest, justice for the individual, loremolis. You all seem to have the odd notion that you have somehow spotted a loophole on the legislation governing putting power lines across land.....
Rather then a tit-for-tat of widely diverging opinions let's put some figures around it to get a bit of perspective here....
This legal process has been going on for 84 years! (actually, before - to 1924 to transfer UK legislation into Irish statute book). And the legislation didn't stop in 1927 which some people seem to maintain. There are 160 acts with the word electricity in them! The 1999 legislation covers the changeover to the CER and Eirgrid.
The ESB, Eirgrid, CER and Dept. of Energy etc have roughly 250 people working in the specific areas of grid development. All highly qualified (and paid!). There are large legal dept's in each one of those entities (roughly 20 in the ESB legal alone!).
Roughly 25,000 one off houses per annum during boom. That means the ESB had to connect 25,000 houses every year using that exact legislation in this exact same scenario.
Grid25 - an investment of €4,000,000,000 from 2008 to 2025 by Eirgrid in the national grid. That investment based on flakey legislation?
So after all of the above, do you guys really think you've discovered some glaringly obvious mistake in what these guys are doing???? Really?
Or is this some gigantic freeman conspiracy?
Even so, if for some extraordinary reason, after all of the above, such a basic mistake was made in the laws governing the creation and delivery of our national grid, the very next day the Minister for Energy etc would bring forward emergency legislation to close it.
Face it guys, there is no legal argument here unless you want to file this under conspiracy theories. Thousands of lines are put down every year with no fuss, argument, protests etc.0 -
(b) The CER has no role in the wayleave process or the process of erecting an electricity transmission or distribution line.
They are the body responsible for approving the compulsory acquisition of easements for the ESB and Eirgrid.
They have no role in assessing the cost of erecting electricity transmission lines.
The ESB are unregulated in this area. The annual spend on electricity transmission lines by the ESB/Eirgrid runs into tens of millions of euro, all unregulated.
.
You mention the Commission for Energy Regulation in the first sentence and then state that the ESB are unregulated in this area. What exactly do you think the CER do? They absolutely dictate the investment made in the national grid and enforce the legislation which clearly sets out how Eirgrid make decisions on grid investment and what they can charge generators and supply companies for utilising the grid. The clue is in the title and if you contradict yourself within a paragraph you really display a weak weak argument. This entire statement is entirely false, easily verified (see below) and you should withdraw it.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0023/sec0048.html#sec48
http://www.cer.ie/en/electricity-transmission-network-complaints-and-disputes.aspx0 -
You mention the Commission for Energy Regulation in the first sentence and then state that the ESB are unregulated in this area. What exactly do you think the CER do?
What I've said is 100% correct.
The webpage you've linked to refers to the charges which the ESB & Eirgrid can charge the users of the Transmission and Distribution systems i.e Private generators like Airtricity, Bord Gais etc.
That area is regulated by the CER to prevent the ESB and Eirgrid from setting their own charges for the use of the network.They absolutely dictate the investment made in the national grid and enforce the legislation which clearly sets out how Eirgrid make decisions on grid investment and what they can charge generators and supply companies for utilising the grid.
Again, you are still referring to Regulated Revenue.
My post was:
(b) The CER has no role in the wayleave process or the process of erecting an electricity transmission or distribution line.
The unregulated aspects are "the wayleave process", "the process of erecting an electricity transmission line" which, just to be clear, includes the money spent on any particular line, including the cost of the wayleaves.The clue is in the title and if you contradict yourself within a paragraph you really display a weak weak argument. This entire statement is entirely false, easily verified (see below) and you should withdraw it.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0023/sec0048.html#sec48
http://www.cer.ie/en/electricity-transmission-network-complaints-and-disputes.aspx
Wow, you're miles away from the issues with these links.
The first link refers to the CER approving the wayleave powers of Sections 51 & 52 to an authorised undertaker.
Firstly, the CER's role is to approve the holder of a direct line permission with the powers of sections 51 & 52 of the 1927 Act.
N.B. Section 53 is not mentioned.
In other words, a private windfarm operator, with the approval of the CER can be given the right to lay the lines serving that windfarm on the public road using the powers of Sections 51 & 52.
That role has NOTHING to do with ESB Section 53 wayleaves over privately owned land or the process of erecting those lines.
If you still think I'm wrong, (which I'm not), show me in the legislation where the CER regulates Section 53 and the placement of transmission lines, including the money spent on those lines (including wayleaves).
The Second link you included is a complaints procedure for:
(a) The end customer who has a problem getting a connection to the distribution system.
(b) Private suppliers of electricity to the grid.
There is no facility for a complaint about the process of wayleaves or any other aspect of the placement of electricity lines.
The whole process surrounding the wayleave, the construction and cost of electricity transmission lines is unregulated.
While the "wayleave" compensation paid to landowners is subject to Arbitration, it rarely goes that far because the ESB throw huge amounts of money at landowners to buy their way onto the land.
The "compensation" that the landowner receives from the ESB in return for permission to erect the line far exceeds what they would get at Arbitration.
My post is not "entirely false" as you suggest and I won't be withdrawing any of it.0 -
What I've said is 100% correct.
The webpage you've linked to refers to the charges which the ESB & Eirgrid can charge the users of the Transmission and Distribution systems i.e Private generators like Airtricity, Bord Gais etc.
That area is regulated by the CER to prevent the ESB and Eirgrid from setting their own charges for the use of the network.
Again, you are still referring to Regulated Revenue.
My post was:
(b) The CER has no role in the wayleave process or the process of erecting an electricity transmission or distribution line.
The unregulated aspects are "the wayleave process", "the process of erecting an electricity transmission line" which, just to be clear, includes the money spent on any particular line, including the cost of the wayleaves.
Wow, you're miles away from the issues with these links.
The first link refers to the CER approving the wayleave powers of Sections 51 & 52 to an authorised undertaker.
Firstly, the CER's role is to approve the holder of a direct line permission with the powers of sections 51 & 52 of the 1927 Act.
N.B. Section 53 is not mentioned.
In other words, a private windfarm operator, with the approval of the CER can be given the right to lay the lines serving that windfarm on the public road using the powers of Sections 51 & 52.
That role has NOTHING to do with ESB Section 53 wayleaves over privately owned land or the process of erecting those lines.
If you still think I'm wrong, (which I'm not), show me in the legislation where the CER regulates Section 53 and the placement of transmission lines, including the money spent on those lines (including wayleaves).
The Second link you included is a complaints procedure for:
(a) The end customer who has a problem getting a connection to the distribution system.
(b) Private suppliers of electricity to the grid.
There is no facility for a complaint about the process of wayleaves or any other aspect of the placement of electricity lines.
The whole process surrounding the wayleave, the construction and cost of electricity transmission lines is unregulated.
While the "wayleave" compensation paid to landowners is subject to Arbitration, it rarely goes that far because the ESB throw huge amounts of money at landowners to buy their way onto the land.
The "compensation" that the landowner receives from the ESB in return for permission to erect the line far exceeds what they would get at Arbitration.
I think the above excellent piece explains clearly the unregulated aspects of the wayleave process. This leaves the landowner in a limbo situation.0 -
ESB GIVES APOLOGY FOR TRESPASS
The above refers to an article in The Sunday Business Post, Sep. 25, 2011.
The full article:
ESB GIVEN ACCESS TO GALWAY FARM DESPITE NOTICE ERROR.
The ESB and Eirgrid have been granted a High Court injunction to access the lands of a Galway farmer to build a high-voltage power line, despite mistakenly serving the access notice on a neighbour.
In 2006, An Bord Plenala granted planning permission for the construction of the 110kV Dalton-Galway loop line, which would pass over the lands of farmer John Commins.
But due to "human error", the lands were mapped as belonging to a neighbour, which meant that a wayleave notice was incorrectly served on the neighbour in 2009. As a result, the ESB entered Commins' lands in March 2010, without having first served notice on him.
The ESB has since APOLOGISED FOR THE TRESPASS AND FOR KNOCKING DOWN a BOUNDARY WALL.
It said any damage caused had been repaired but it accepted that Commins was also entitled to take civil proceedings against the ESB for trespass.
In May 2010, wayleave notices were served on Commins' father, Patrick, who was then the registered owner of the lands, and later on John Commins, who became owner of the lands last November.
Commins claims that, because of the ESB's failure to involve his father in the planning process, he had no opportunity to negotiate about the position of the poles or to object to the planning application.
As a result,he said, the planning permission was invalid and the planning authority should have been told about that.
Deborah Meghan, manager of transmissions projects for EirGrid, said the company needed access to the lands to inspect the proposed construction works, monitor their progress and approve the completed project.
Commins' said that did not entitle EirGrid to enter Commins' land, which would be an interference with his constitutional property rights.
But Miss Justice Mary Laffoy, in her judgement, said the "minor burden which such entitlement would impose" could not be regarded as an infringement of Commins' constitutional rights.
She said damages would not be an adequate remedy for the ESB if an injunction were refused, and the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction.
She ordered Commins to unlock all gates and remove all barriers and obstacles blocking the ESB access. Wood, K, Media & Marketing, Business of Law, Pg.n26, The SUNDAY BUSINESS POST, September 25, 2011.
- enough said, do I need to say any more!0 -
Advertisement
-
So whats the problem?While the "wayleave" compensation paid to landowners is subject to Arbitration, it rarely goes that far because the ESB throw huge amounts of money at landowners to buy their way onto the land.
The "compensation" that the landowner receives from the ESB in return for permission to erect the line far exceeds what they would get at Arbitration.0
Advertisement