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
-
So whats the problem?
If you own land and are happy to let the ESB put transmission lines across it in return for wads of compensation....there is no problem.
For electricity consumers who want reasonably priced electricity...problem.
When the lack of up to date legislation means that the ESB have to pay €200,000 instead of paying €10,000 to a landowner in order to secure their permission, thats a problem worthy of attention.
For example:
The Srananagh line in Sligo/Roscommon has been under construction for the best part of a Decade.
Wayleaves for the Srananagh line cost €12 million
Note: Not all of the landowners are paid yet.
The total length of the line is 68.84 kilometers.
Wayleaves cost per kilometer of line = €174,317 (12,000,000/68.84)
Say ESB requires width of 15 meters on each side of the line.
Area of land required per kilometer of line = 1000 m x 30 m = 30,000 sq m
30,000 sqm = 3 Hectares of land required per kilometer of line.
Therefore the wayleave payments to landowners for the line cost €58,105.75 per hectare (174,317/3)
That is a payment to landowners of €23,524 per acre (58,105.75/2.47) for a wayleave i.e the right to enter and place the line.
No land is purchased.
The value of agricultural land in the region in 2004 = €6,500 per acre
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublicatio.../landsales.pdf
It would be far cheaper to compulsorily acquire the land, build the line, register an easement and then give the land back to the original landowner.
Check my figures and let me know where I'm wrong.0 -
-
Begins with making up the figure all subsequent calculations are based on....:rolleyes:
Do you actually know anything about electricity lines?
Pick a figure and I'll redo the calculation.
I'll make it easy for you
(a) 5 metres
(b) 10 metres
(c) 15 metres
(d) 20 metres
(e) 25 metres
(f) 30 metres
It doesn't really matter which one you pick, the point of the calculation is to show that the cost of the wayleave payments far exceeds the value of the land.
When you have a chance perhaps you can clarify my queries in relation to the role of the CER in section 53 wayleaves.
Alternatively, you can admit you don't know what you're talking about, withdraw your comments and apologise.0 -
Outrageous.
Big bully capitalism at it's best. if we as a people are willing to stand by and let this happen, it really is criminal and we are all part of the problem.0 -
Micky Dolenz wrote: »Outrageous.
Big bully capitalism at it's best. if we as a people are willing to stand by and let this happen, it really is criminal and we are all part of the problem.
I agree, but....
The problem is that mostly everyone likes having electricity.
It's a fundamental part of our lives.
Because of that fact almost no one is willing to question the way the ESB operates for fear of being criticised as a hypocrite.0 -
Advertisement
-
No Freemanism please.
On the one hand you claim the constitution as a shield, but if you read the underlined piece below, you will realise that the shield isn't invincible.annanukian wrote: »sixth, where neither the companies, nor the judge has any claim of right to the land, and where no contract exists that can compel this woman to give up her external property (which is protected by the constitution), then both the judge and the companies in question have committed fraud and theft contrary to the constitution.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdfPrivate Property
Article 43
1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.
2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.
2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.
2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.0 -
I see that the ESB have been stopped even though the woman is in prison.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/esb-diggers-halted-on-jailed-womans-land-2889148.html
2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.
Victor,
What part of the Electricity Supply Acts delimit the womans rights over her land?
Just because Electricity lines may be erected over private property doesn't mean that the "common good" cards trumps all rights the woman has as an individual and as a landowner.
In the ESB V Gormley case the Supreme Court siad:
"...There does not appear to be any injustice in the imposition of the relqatively minor burden on land-owners of the cutting of trees, shrubs or hedges so as to make and keep safe the existence of a major electricity transmission line..."
That does not allow the removal of every tree, shrub and hedge in the Irish countryside in the interests of the erection of electricity lines.
It may cover the circumstances of the Gormley case but does it allow the removal of hundreds on mature trees from private property.
What if they were mature Oak trees?
What if a shed or even a house was in the way?
Where do you draw the line?
There is no compulsory acquisition by the ESB over the womans lands. It is a wayleave.0 -
That does not allow the removal of every tree, shrub and hedge in the Irish countryside in the interests of the erection of electricity lines.
It may cover the circumstances of the Gormley case but does it allow the removal of hundreds on mature trees from private property.
What if they were mature Oak trees?
What if a shed or even a house was in the way?
Where do you draw the line?
There is no compulsory acquisition by the ESB over the womans lands. It is a wayleave.
That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife.
Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today.0 -
That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife.
Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today.
"to avoid any impact on Birds, bats, etc"!!!!!!!! What about the impact and disruption caused to the owner, a human being? This is unbelievable, cop on.
people can be so stupid and uncaring to their fellow human being.0 -
That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife.
Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today.
"to avoid any impact on bats, birds, etc." So bats and birds are more important than the owner, a real live human being!!!!!!! How stupid is that.
No empathy in thinking like that. That woman was actually giving a habitat for such wild birds. People are not even thinking rationally. Nobody is trying to undermine any establishment. They are well capable of doing that to themselves, as current actions testify. If this woman can be released back into her own habitat, would this not be humane also?0 -
Advertisement
-
That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife.
Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today.
What a load of absolute tripe and nonsense!
This has got to be the most idiotic comment ever posted on this forum. Either the poster works for the ESB and believes their own propoganda, or is simply completely gullible and naive. Either way, almost none of the above bears any relationship to the truth.
In the case of the line in Roscommon/Sligo, the Flagford-Shrannagh line, the planning application for the current route was made during the foot and mouth epidemic and the route was not surveyed. Never even walked. The line is routed through an important bronze age settlement that includes a major burial mound and some fortified dwelling mounds (I'm no archaeologist, but I believe the experts who describe this as being as important as Newgrange in archaeological terms). The line runs within a hundred meters of the main burial mound, with a pylon about 120 meters from it. This barbaric behaviour wouldn't be allowed in any country in europe, but in Ireland, we bulldoze our past for quick monetary gain and we have always done so. CAn you imagine bulding a pylon beside Stonehenge? In Ireland, it would be allowed, no problem.
This project was appealed to an Bord Pleanala, whose inspector ruled against it because of the lack of environmental impact assessment. However the board of an Bord Pleanala overruled its own inspector's report - shades of the "old boy network" in play -- and permission was granted.
The route was never walked by anyone until the contractors came on site. Not even an archaeological dig was done beforehand in the sensitive area, just send in the diggers! We are a nation of barbarians, with the ESB and Coillte leading the charge.
The people of the area are to be commended for their stance in defending this heritge site, and it is my understanding that they will continue to defend it to ensure that this line is never commissioned. The politics of bullying won't win this time, as it's not winning in Tipperary.0 -
eastwest you are talking tripe, I do not work for the ESB or am not in any way affiliated with them but believe me I KNOW what I am talking about.
I just read your post again, you sound like a completely ill-informed person who knows absolutely nothing about planning and natural heritage, you say the route you mention was never walked. Well how do you know that for a start? It is also 10 years since Foot and Mouth and the planning system has evolved in that time although it has obviously passed you by so it is indeed standard to carry out work as I described and I know because I carry out such work. This line went to ABP also and the Inspector ruled for it, the line was walked, there were some natural heritage studies carried out although not in the same manner as required today. There was also a route selection/constraints study carried out again not to the level they would today but Flora & Fauna and archaeology were part of the studies.
There are always bad studies done and bad consultants out there but you can't simply dismiss my post as untrue because of your biased opinion.0 -
Justice for the individual wrote: »"to avoid any impact on bats, birds, etc." So bats and birds are more important than the owner, a real live human being!!!!!!! How stupid is that.
No empathy in thinking like that. That woman was actually giving a habitat for such wild birds. People are not even thinking rationally. Nobody is trying to undermine any establishment. They are well capable of doing that to themselves, as current actions testify. If this woman can be released back into her own habitat, would this not be humane also?
I was responding to the comment about trees etc. the habitat is hardly being impacted in terms of wildlife, plantations don't support much in the way of wildlife generally.
You know something else, trees felling can be good for our wildlife as well e.g. Hen Harrier.
As for the human element, she can come home anytime she likes when she purges her contempt. You better get off the computer if you want to be taken seriously when protesting against electricity. Before you start citing undergrounding think again as I don't want to repeat what I am many other posters have already said about this.0 -
That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife..
I agree with eastwest, this is a load of nonsense.
If the ESB were so concerned about the environment then they would stop using timber poles saturated with creosote.
They put them into the ground beside watercourses, streams and rivers, slowly polluting the water table with toxic carcinogens over the years.
The "constraint studies" you refer to are an exercise in box ticking. They mean nothing.Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today
The native American Indians are human too.0 -
There is an enormous difference between the ESB spin and the reality on the ground.That is why they do constraints studies followed by route selection and eventually the preferred route for detailed design.
In terms of ecology the constraints study will identify all designated and know undesignated areas of high conservation value, this desk study will also take into account watercourses, protected species and any other biodiversity data available. Air photography will also be used to identify other sites of ecological interest and these will then be briefly visited on the ground to establish habitat etc. Based on these facts plus archaeology, engineering, socioeconomic, financial, soils etc. a number of routes will be selected. Consultation with statutory consultees will also be undertaken particularly in areas of high value for natural history.
Route selection involves a walkover of sites of potential ecological interest along each route, this will then be combined with existing information in terms of species and habitats. Further in-depth consultations will occur with NPWS (for ecology) and the results of the consultations also taken into account. At both constraints and route selection a report is produced by each specialist and combined into a full report by the client. Potential impacts will be identified at both stages allowing certain places to be excluded, normally the information is evaluated according to criteria similar to Ratcliffes 10 criteria and a matrix built to compare each route.
The preferred route is then chosen, the entire route is walked, the habitats identified and mapped, protected species recorded and any other other ecological information. This is then evaluated and presented in a report much like the flora and fauna chapter in an EIS, in fact depending on the scheme it may actually require an EIS. Anyway potential impacts identified and mitigation proposed, this is normally an iterative process and where possible the route design is tweaked to achieve least impact possible.
This is a lengthy process and in general mature trees will be avoided but if they require felling then this is mitigated for and the felling will require a very specific method statement to avoid any impact on bats, birds etc. Obviously feeling a mature tree is never something desirable there is sometimes simply no alternative by that point and it may be the compromise for protecting limestone pavement in its place or bog or avoid silting a stream. Therefore the impact of a single tree would not be considered significant and would be mitigated for, if 10% of a mature oak woodland with a species rich understorey and diverse ground flora were to be felled this would be considered significant possibly even to a national level and would be difficult to mitigate for. So everything needs to be weighed up in context, this lady has planted some trees which appear from photos to be a plantation comprising varying ages of trees (semi-mature-immature) of non-native species and some very immature broadleaf trees.
People don't want to hear this but that plantation is not species rich woodland, it isn't of high value in ecological terms because it is basically forestry plantations not woodland. This means the trees are planted in rows, they are planted in blocks of species in a uniform manner and because of this there is no understorey or ground flora normally associated with woodlands. That means in terms of development this is of low value ecologically because it is low impact, can be replaced relatively easily and the impact will be short term.
In human terms I understand she loves the natural environment but she has plantations not woodlands and she can have these trees replaced when the work is finished and will probably be able to choose a better species mix and perhaps shape it more like a woodland. Whilst the loss of a mature the ash tree is sad she could ask it is allowed to remain in-situ adjacent to where it stood and it will provide habitats for a whole different suite of species. Dead wood allowed to naturally decompose is very desirable within woodlands as it attracts a whole host of different invertebrates species in particular. So not only does it provide a new habitat new specimens must be planted as compensation so a copse could be designed around it, nearby or adjacent to existing trees. It could actually improve the diversity and attract a great range of wildlife..
I agree with eastwest, this is a load of nonsense.
If the ESB were so concerned about the environment then they would stop using timber poles saturated with creosote.
They put them into the ground beside watercourses, streams and rivers, slowly polluting the water table with toxic carcinogens over the years.
The "constraint studies" you refer to are an exercise in box ticking. They mean nothing.Finally after my long spiel I honestly can say I have serious issue with the way certain elements of society have jumped on the bandwagon to use this situation as a vehicle to undermine the establishment. If I see anymore supposed "native American Indian" quotes I'll scream, the native americans were just as bad for the environment as we humans are today
The native American Indians are human too.
Take the consultation process for a start. This consists of the ESB deciding on a route and then telling people where it is going to be. No inputs are allowed for, except from politicians. In the case of Flagford - shrannagh, only one change was made, to take the line away from a county councillor's house. The two maps, the second one showing the change, are a matter of public record. Anyone else who wanted changes made was given what seems to be a standard speech - "we'll take you to the high court and clean you out." Consultation, my arse.
In the case of the same line, the planning application refers to a desktop EIS because if the F&M epidemic. Yes, it was ten years ago and no, the line is nowhere near built yet. The ESB are slow learners.
The bord pleanala inspector expressed serious concerns about a number of issues but these were ignored. Again, a matter of record, just look at the file.
Nobody, not even a blind consultant with a drink problem could have surveyed this line and missed the presence of this enormous burial mound, not to mention the other structures. To run the line right beside it, and to site a pylon just over 100 meters from it, is the act of a barbarian. It is unbelievable that this kind of vandalism could be carried out by a state-owned company.0 -
I agree with eastwest, this is a load of nonsense.
If the ESB were so concerned about the environment then they would stop using timber poles saturated with creosote.
They put them into the ground beside watercourses, streams and rivers, slowly polluting the water table with toxic carcinogens over the years.
The "constraint studies" you refer to are an exercise in box ticking. They mean nothing.
The native American Indians are human too.- I never said the ESB gave a crap about the environment but I am saying that there are procedures in place and I have actually worked in these situations which you clearly haven't.
- The timber poles are the least of our worries in relation to watercourses, streams and rivers are watercourses. Septic tanks, slurry, silt discharging, sewage, litter are far bigger challenges to our water quality and wildlife.
- The constraint studies are not box ticking exercises I can assure you as it is in their best interests to find out about potential obstacles to line routing as early as possibly. Didn't you say on the other thread that the ESB avoid forestry at all costs? Sheesh I guess they must carry out some sort of desktop exercise to work out where those are. Yeah that is right they identify constraints:rolleyes:
- Indeed the native Americans are human but I think you will find I was referring to native Americans past tense and that I said humans today i.e not limited to native Americans who are unlikely to be practising slash and burn today.
0 -
There is an enormous difference between the ESB spin and the reality on the ground.
Take the consultation process for a start. This consists of the ESB deciding on a route and then telling people where it is going to be. No inputs are allowed for, except from politicians. In the case of Flagford - shrannagh, only one change was made, to take the line away from a county councillor's house. The two maps, the second one showing the change, are a matter of public record. Anyone else who wanted changes made was given what seems to be a standard speech - "we'll take you to the high court and clean you out." Consultation, my arse.
In the case of the same line, the planning application refers to a desktop EIS because if the F&M epidemic. Yes, it was ten years ago and no, the line is nowhere near built yet. The ESB are slow learners.
The bord pleanala inspector expressed serious concerns about a number of issues but these were ignored. Again, a matter of record, just look at the file.
Nobody, not even a blind consultant with a drink problem could have surveyed this line and missed the presence of this enormous burial mound, not to mention the other structures. To run the line right beside it, and to site a pylon just over 100 meters from it, is the act of a barbarian. It is unbelievable that this kind of vandalism could be carried out by a state-owned company.
I have not had direct experience of their public consultation methods or lack there of but I do know that it has improved hugely over the years but obviously not enough. In fact the ABP decision for the 110kV Tullamore line under discussion did criticize the level of consultation and also the poor availability of information in terms of reports. However the inspector did note that overall the information was well presented as was the case for the line. that is a poor summary of it but it was along those lines.
I agree there are lots of rubbish assessments done particularly in the past and in the F&M case you mention it is isn't the ESB at fault there because the planning system left substandard information suffice. After a certain period of time all developers should be forced to redo their environmental assessments to come in line with best practice. The NI system allows this I think but not 100% sure. Apologies but I can't comment on the archaeological find as it is not my area but it is frustrating if you feel that other alternatives etc were not looked at. However some times modern human life requires heavy losses in terms of our history and it is difficult to reconcile but unfortunately these things come with a price.0 -
Not only does the esb not avoid forestry but they tend to route their lines through Coillte woods. Two reasons for this, firstly Coillte, being another semi state outfit, automatically gives the ESB sites for pylons. Secondly Coillte is in the windfarm business and welcomes high voltage connections for same.There is an enormous difference between the ESB spin and the reality on the ground.
Take the consultation process for a start. This consists of the ESB deciding on a route and then telling people where it is going to be. No inputs are allowed for, except from politicians. In the case of Flagford - shrannagh, only one change was made, to take the line away from a county councillor's house. The two maps, the second one showing the change, are a matter of public record. Anyone else who wanted changes made was given what seems to be a standard speech - "we'll take you to the high court and clean you out." Consultation, my arse.
In the case of the same line, the planning application refers to a desktop EIS because if the F&M epidemic. Yes, it was ten years ago and no, the line is nowhere near built yet. The ESB are slow learners.
The bord pleanala inspector expressed serious concerns about a number of issues but these were ignored. Again, a matter of record, just look at the file.
Nobody, not even a blind consultant with a drink problem could have surveyed this line and missed the presence of this enormous burial mound, not to mention the other structures. To run the line right beside it, and to site a pylon just over 100 meters from it, is the act of a barbarian. It is unbelievable that this kind of vandalism could be carried out by a state-owned company.
I have not had direct experience of their public consultation methods or lack there of but I do know that it has improved hugely over the years but obviously not enough. In fact the ABP decision for the 110kV Tullamore line under discussion did criticize the level of consultation and also the poor availability of information in terms of reports. However the inspector did note that overall the information was well presented as was the case for the line. that is a poor summary of it but it was along those lines.
I agree there are lots of rubbish assessments done particularly in the past and in the F&M case you mention it is isn't the ESB at fault there because the planning system left substandard information suffice. After a certain period of time all developers should be forced to redo their environmental assessments to come in line with best practice. The NI system allows this I think but not 100% sure. Apologies but I can't comment on the archaeological find as it is not my area but it is frustrating if you feel that other alternatives etc were not looked at. However some times modern human life requires heavy losses in terms of our history and it is difficult to reconcile but unfortunately these things come with a price.
Regarding modern human life requiring losses of historic structures, how can that be? There is no reason to go through a historic site when you can just as easily go around it. Or just put the line underground where an important site can be damaged visually by such intrusive structures.0 -
Not only does the esb not avoid forestry but they tend to route their lines through Coillte woods. Two reasons for this, firstly Coillte, being another semi state outfit, automatically gives the ESB sites for pylons. Secondly Coillte is in the windfarm business and welcomes high voltage connections for same.
Regarding modern human life requiring losses of historic structures, how can that be? There is no reason to go through a historic site when you can just as easily go around it. Or just put the line underground where an important site can be damaged visually by such intrusive structures.
Well in this case it isn't a Coillte woodland and again I have worked on projects where Coillte will charge full whack for land being bought by another semi-state.
I suppose regarding historic structures or any loss of features we value what I meant was sometimes there is not another way, sometimes that is true. In the case you refer to I don't know if they looked at alternatives, it seems not in the case as you describe it. I really don't know how you can do anything about that line,have you engaged with the ESB and offered them sensible alternatives? I am sure there is a good electrical engineer out there who would help with locating alternatives that are workable in terms of the currents etc. Maybe you have already looked at that? What about Natura 2000 sites or NHAs, any along the route?
Undergrounding is a nice idea but really it just isn't that simple on a number of fronts as has already been discussed within the thread.
It is difficult to judge without facts, I might go off and have a review of it tomorrow although I guess you have already had lots of specialists helping?0
Advertisement