The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

Ok Loremolis, seeing as no one else will, I will bite- You say the ESB should have got a compulsory aquisition order. Are you now saying if they had done that then you would have no problem with the ESB on this issue ?

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0045.html

45.—(1) If and whenever the Board thinks proper to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily any easement or other right over land...

The acquisition of rights from a landowner by the ESB, be they forestry rights or building rights, must be acquired under a compulsory purchase order. Unless the landowner agrees to sell or otherwise give up the right then it must be CPO'd.

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0045.html

45.—(1) If and whenever the Board thinks proper to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily any easement or other right over land...

The acquisition of rights from a landowner by the ESB, be they forestry rights or building rights, must be acquired under a compulsory purchase order. Unless the landowner agrees to sell or otherwise give up the right then it must be CPO'd.

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

So if they had done so we would still have reached the same impasse, correct ? Furthermore is there any doubt that they would have been granted a cpo had they sought one ?

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

So if they had done so we would still have reached the same impasse, correct ?

Your first question is unanswerable.

If the ESB had sought an easement under Section 45 then the CER would have had the final say on the matter. As part of the process the CER would likely have held a public hearing where both parties would have had the opportunity to air their respective issues.

I can't say what Ms. Treacy would or wouldn't have done if the ESB had approached the matter in a proper fashion other than to say that an independent body would have assessed the matter in full before the ESB went onto her land.

You may recall that while Ms. Treacy was in prison it was reported (and possibly mentioned on the primetime program) that the ESB had reduced the width of the area through the trees which was required for the line.

If a narrower strip was possible, why did they look for the wider one in the first place?

If the CER were involved then issues like that would have been considered and aired fully before any trees were cut down.

Furthermore is there any doubt that they would have been granted a cpo had they sought one ?

Seeing how the ESB have rarely (and possibly never) sought the approval of the CER for the compulsory acquisition of an easement who can say?

The point is that there is a statutory process for the compulsory acquisition of an easement and the ESB chose to do it another way thereby denying Ms. Treacy of a statutory process.

The ESB's own policy on loss of tree planting rights, which I have posted earlier in this thread, says that they need an easement to prevent a landowner from planting trees under or within a specified distance of an electricity line.

For anyone interested in the differences between a wayleave and an easement:

http://www.rapleys.co.uk/Upload/News/2010%20-%2007%20-%20CPS%20-%20G.pdf

http://www.hamer-associates.co.uk/faqs/

http://www.experts123.com/q/what-is-the-difference-between-a-utility-easement-and-wayleave.html

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/LO/ElectricityAgreements/

http://www.utilityserve.co.uk/wayleaves_and_easement.php

From the last link:

Generally speaking, landowners and utility companies choose between either annual payments through a Wayleave or a one off payment through an Easement. (my emphasis)

This is the ESB's form for annual wayleave payments to landowners:

http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/domestic-customers/farming/mast_interference_payments.jsp

steve9859

Wow. I'll say again what I have said before: 'Mountains out of molehills'. A few trees that were going to be harvested anyway.

And a poor woman who has been wound up by anti establishment figures into fighting some land infringement, ending up with her in jail. When it is really about some nonsense and misunderstood eco-agenda

I have invented a new term: NIMBYism By Proxy. ie a protest made by people whose back yard is many miles away!

Capt'n Midnight

loremolis wrote: »

That is correct.

It may be only "paperwork" to some people but there is a specific and statutory procedure which the ESB can and must use if they want to compulsorily acquire land or rights over land.
...

By not compulsorily acquiring an easement from Ms. Treacy they have denied her the benefit of that statutory procedure and all that goes with it.

This is the IFA deal
http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VBX0MgPWbDs%3D&tabid=1069

This Chapter has been agreed with the ESB and complies with the IFA/ESB agreement of 7th
September 1992. It gives guidelines on how to deal with ESB lines in forestry and allows for each
case to be examined on an individual basis. Landowners reserve the right to negotiate their own
deal with the ESB.
...
Corridor areas do not qualify for Forest Service grant
assistance but maybe used to satisfy the 15 % biodiversity requirement
...
Where grant-aided afforestation has to be
removed to allow for the installation of power lines grants and premiums already paid will be
recovered from the landowner by the Forest Service.
...
Where the landowner proposes to plant an area which has not been recently purchased a sum
equivalent to 75% of the value of the land shall be paid by the ESB. The value of the land is that
which would have prevailed had the land been recently purchased.

Capt'n Midnight

joela wrote: »

She gets paid compensation which factors in the loss of tree planting in a 20m (I think) corridor.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100498

Teresa Treacy stood to gain up to approximately 150,000 euro in 3 staged payments if she agreed to the project and on condition that no legal costs were incurred by the ESB if they had to go to court, in which case the last 2 payments would be 'forfeited'.

So she is now down at least €100,000. IF the legal costs and delay costs were less than this the the nett effect is that she has actually saved Eirgrid some money.

How much is that part of her land worth on the open market / for compulsory purchase ? Because I can't see it being worth anything close to that value.

Capt'n Midnight

steve9859 wrote: »

I have invented a new term: NIMBYism By Proxy. ie a protest made by people whose back yard is many miles away!

BANANA is an acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone)


Just a reminder , each year we are using up about 15,000 years accumulation of fossil fuel. Also to give an indication of the scale of the problem http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090113.html

more than half of all fossil fuels ever used by humans have been consumed in just the last 20 years.

In short we are going to need a lot more renewables, which means more interconnectors and more powerlines to places with wind and wave and hydro.

Unless we all start converting our houses to passive heating and drastically reduce electricity consumption.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I can't say what Ms. Treacy would or wouldn't have done if the ESB had approached the matter in a proper fashion other than to say that an independent body would have assessed the matter in full before the ESB went onto her land.

My two cents on this are:

(1) This is a Transmission Project so it is EirGrid rather than ESB who determine and acquire the necessary land consents, including wayleaves & easements. ESB are obliged to pay for whatever consents EirGrid seek, but cannot initiate any consents themselves. This rather bizarre arrangement arises because the 1999 act was drawn up to ensure that ESB did not use their position to block the development of the Transmission system (in order to limit competition against their own generation plant).

(2) Since Ms Treacy defied one law to refuse access to her land it is beyond any reasonable doubt that she would have equally defied a CPO, so we would be facing the same farce whichever way EirGrid approached this, assuming that a negotiated settlement could not have been reached.

This situation really is a mess now. While the media (and many of the protesters) may like to portray it as a David-vs-Goliath battle, such an analogy is quite inappropriate I think. David was the future king of Israel, a great leader in the making, and Goliath was the representation of the oppressor of the people. Ms Treacy is undeserving of the comparison to David; she has no interest here on behalf of her nation, nor even her community. Her interest is simply selfish, wishing to preserve her trees (which have no strategic importance whatsoever either to the natural environment nor to the community) for which (assuming Senator Whelan is correct) she has been paid a grant to grow as commercial forestry. The additional cost of her self-interest will be paid for doubly by the community, because ultimately we will bear the costs incurred by EirGrid in our electricity costs, having already paid for Ms Treacy's trees through our taxes.

I don't mean to be unsympathetic, nor do I believe Ms Treacy belongs in prison. It is a moral requirement of citizenship that we place the interest of the country ahead of our individual needs. The idea of absolute ownership of land being a legitimate entitlement can only lead to isolation, poverty and anarchy. The protesters who rallied to this cause would have just as quickly egged Ms Treacy's house if she had been a wealthy twenty-five-year-old industrial heir who sought to stop this electricity line. The issue of right-vs-wrong has been lost in the media circus popularity contest. No company (and certainly not a company like EirGrid) can win a popularity contest, but that does not mean they are wrong in their actions.

I have never read the technical case for EirGrid wishing to have this line built, but I believe that the company was probably acting in the "best interests of our infrastructure" in seeking to do so, and as such they were acting in the interest of the nation. My children and grandchildren might derive a benefit from the improved electricity transport afforded by this completed project, but nobody but Ms Treacy can benefit from the retention of her trees.


Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

My two cents on this are:

(1) This is a Transmission Project so it is EirGrid rather than ESB who determine and acquire the necessary land consents, including wayleaves & easements. ESB are obliged to pay for whatever consents EirGrid seek, but cannot initiate any consents themselves. This rather bizarre arrangement arises because the 1999 act was drawn up to ensure that ESB did not use their position to block the development of the Transmission system (in order to limit competition against their own generation plant).

I don't believe that is correct.

Eirgrid has no statutory power to acquire wayleaves.

If what you are suggesting is that Eirgrid negotiate wayleaves then that raises a whole load of other issues.

The statutory wayleave notices for transmission lines are served on the landowner by the ESB and any easements agreed with the landowner are drafted between the ESB and the landowner as the only parties.

Last 7 pages refer to Eirgrid's lack of wayleave powers.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdf

(2) Since Ms Treacy defied one law to refuse access to her land it is beyond any reasonable doubt that she would have equally defied a CPO, so we would be facing the same farce whichever way EirGrid approached this, assuming that a negotiated settlement could not have been reached.

You are probably correct in that Ms. Treacy may have refused all offers and may not have settled even if a CPO was used.

However, there is a statutory process involved in a CPO for an easement and she was denied that process.

IMO the lack of a CPO is where the ESB/Eirgrid have a problem if this ends up back in court and Ms. Treacy has legal representation.

This situation really is a mess now. While the media (and many of the protesters) may like to portray it as a David-vs-Goliath battle, such an analogy is quite inappropriate I think. David was the future king of Israel, a great leader in the making, and Goliath was the representation of the oppressor of the people. Ms Treacy is undeserving of the comparison to David; she has no interest here on behalf of her nation, nor even her community. Her interest is simply selfish, wishing to preserve her trees (which have no strategic importance whatsoever either to the natural environment nor to the community) for which (assuming Senator Whelan is correct) she has been paid a grant to grow as commercial forestry. The additional cost of her self-interest will be paid for doubly by the community, because ultimately we will bear the costs incurred by EirGrid in our electricity costs, having already paid for Ms Treacy's trees through our taxes.

I don't mean to be unsympathetic, nor do I believe Ms Treacy belongs in prison. It is a moral requirement of citizenship that we place the interest of the country ahead of our individual needs. The idea of absolute ownership of land being a legitimate entitlement can only lead to isolation, poverty and anarchy. The protesters who rallied to this cause would have just as quickly egged Ms Treacy's house if she had been a wealthy twenty-five-year-old industrial heir who sought to stop this electricity line. The issue of right-vs-wrong has been lost in the media circus popularity contest. No company (and certainly not a company like EirGrid) can win a popularity contest, but that does not mean they are wrong in their actions.

I have never read the technical case for EirGrid wishing to have this line built, but I believe that the company was probably acting in the "best interests of our infrastructure" in seeking to do so, and as such they were acting in the interest of the nation. My children and grandchildren might derive a benefit from the improved electricity transport afforded by this completed project, but nobody but Ms Treacy can benefit from the retention of her trees.
Z

Well put.

There is no doubt that the line has to be and eventually will be erected across her land.

Just because I believe that the ESB/Eirgrid have not acted correctly doesn't mean that the line is not necessary or that it shouldn't be completed.

While I say that they are her trees on her land, if there is a compulsorily acquisition of the trees/land then the trees must be and will be removed as per the order. Until a CPO is served they remain her trees on her land.

If Ms. Treacy wants to continue blocking the ESB she should do it through the courts with a legal team making her case. If she continues to block access without appealing the injunction then her position will be considerably weaker as time goes on and she will be seem as a crank who cannot be dealt with and who did not avail of the statutory appeal process.

Any idea how long she has to make a valid appeal to the Supreme Court?

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I don't believe that is correct.

Eirgrid has no statutory power to acquire wayleaves.

If what you are suggesting is that Eirgrid negotiate wayleaves then that raises a whole load of other issues.

Yes, you are partly correct. I meant to edit my post to replace "acquire" with "negotiate" but I got distracted by another thread. EirGrid are not allowed to own any transmission asset, so only ESB can acquire the wayleave. However, they are not allowed negotiate terms. There is an agreement between ESB Networks and EirGrid called the Infrastructure Agreement which sets out how their responsibilities are shared / separated, but I don't think it has been published, although it has full legal status (because it is incorporated into the act establishing EirGrid).

I'm fairly sure EirGrid must have the power to acquire wayleaves & easements however, because they have done this for the East-West interconnector. That asset is not part of the Transmission System, and it is owned by EirGrid.


Z

Zen65

There is an agreement between ESB Networks and EirGrid called the Infrastructure Agreement which sets out how their responsibilities are shared / separated, but I don't think it has been published, although it has full legal status (because it is incorporated into the act establishing EirGrid).

Oops, I'm wrong. The Infrastructure Agreement was published here.

Funny how I couldn't find it last year when I needed it for something.

Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

Oops, I'm wrong. The Infrastructure Agreement was published here.

Funny how I couldn't find it last year when I needed it for something.

Z

Thanks Z,

I'll have a read of it during the week.

I'm fairly sure EirGrid must have the power to acquire wayleaves & easements however, because they have done this for the East-West interconnector. That asset is not part of the Transmission System, and it is owned by EirGrid.

Interconnectors appear to be the exceptions to the rule. For those they get the full wayleave powers from the CER.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

I'll have a read of it during the week.

I wish you luck, it seems like turgid stuff. However in relation to wayleaves and easements I scanned it and found this:

7.6 Public planning and right to land

7.6.1 All activities connected with seeking and obtaining Planning Permission (if needed) and any other consents required by the TSO to discharge its Transmission Obligations shall be the sole responsibility of the TSO. These include:

(a) the identification of alternative routes and substation sites and route and site selection;
(b) requiring the Board to issue Survey Notices and preparation of designs and surveys;
(c) landowner relationships, with regard to planning permission, acquisition, wayleaves and easements including the matters referred to in clause 7.6.2 below;
(d) handling of publicity associated with TSO’s functions under this clause subject to the terms of clause 13;
(e) preparation of any Environmental Impact Statement that may be required;
(f) preparation and submission of applications for Planning Permission (if needed);
(g) discussions with local authority officials including planning officials; and
(h) managing, attending and arranging representation at oral hearings, planning appeals and other legal processes.

7.6.2 The Board, irrevocably for as long as this Agreement exists, hereby appoints the TSO as its agent to:-
(a) exercise all the powers vested in the Board for the compulsory acquisition of any land;
(b) make and process all applications for the acquisition of wayleaves and rights of entry on behalf of the Board; and
(c) exercise all rights of entry on land vested in the Board pursuant to Regulation 29 of Statutory Instrument or any other relevant statutory provision insofar as these rights may be required for the development of the Transmission System.

In this document "TSO" is EirGrid, and the "Board" is ESB. The document states that EirGrid have sole responsibility to act as the agent for ESB for the acquisition of wayleaves and easements for Transmission assets.


Z

loremolis

Zen65 wrote: »

I wish you luck, it seems like turgid stuff. However in relation to wayleaves and easements I scanned it and found this:

In this document "TSO" is EirGrid, and the "Board" is ESB. The document states that EirGrid have sole responsibility to act as the agent for ESB for the acquisition of wayleaves and easements for Transmission assets.
Z

Thanks.

It appears that pages 15 to 19 of the document at the end of this link say that the power to acquire wayleaves cannot and has not been transferred to Eirgrid by the 1999 Regulations (or by the Infrastructure agreement).

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdf

I don't doubt that Eirgrid undertake the preparation and submission of planning applications, the preparation of an EIS where necessary and all of the other functions you listed from the Infrastructure agreement but they have no statutory power to place electricity transmission lines over private property under a wayleave.

I would think that is a bit of a problem for them when they claim to be the body responsible for such matters.

This leaves Eirgrid having to negotiate wayleaves which makes it far more expensive than if a wayleave is acquired under statute.

That point is made in an earlier post where the figure of €150,000 compensation for Ms. Treacy is quoted. That figure is way bigger than the value of her land let alone the trees thereon.

joela

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

marienbad

joela wrote: »

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

Time to pack up and fcuf off when unmediated rubbish is now what passes for commentary. No wonder the country is banjaxed .

joela

Unreal, just unreal.........

loremolis

joela wrote: »

http://tv3.ie/3player/show/155/41180/1/The-Morning-Show

About 6 minutes in, what the hell is this?

You mean you didn't know that they had television in Mountjoy women's prison?:)

I thought it was quite entertaining for the mid-monday morning prime time slot on TV3.

At least I figured out what Ms. Treacy and the protestors have in common apart from a love of apple tart and a dislike for the ESB.

DRUGS!!!!

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

You mean you didn't know that they had television in Mountjoy women's prison?:)

I thought it was quite entertaining for the mid-monday morning prime time slot on TV3.

At least I figured out what Ms. Treacy and the protestors have in common apart from a love of apple tart and a dislike for the ESB.

DRUGS!!!!

Sure it was entertaining, but it is not that hard to be both accurate and entertaining .

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

Sure it was entertaining, but it is not that hard to be both accurate and entertaining .

It is when you're drugged till you can't talk properly.:D

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

It is when you're drugged till you can't talk properly.:D

True loremolis , and it is not as if I lose any sleep over it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Just been an item on Overhead power lines on the BBC and they said the cost of undergrounding is at least 10 times more, and greater depending on the topography, soil, water table etc.

loremolis

It has been 3 months and despite the fact that the ESB still haven't built the power line over her land, the lights have stayed on (even in Tullamore) and civilisation hasn't descended into anarchy because of it.

I'm looking forward to the day that the ESB have to conduct their business within a clear and open framework.

I can see round 2 happening in the new year.
http://www.teresatreacy.com/

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

I'm looking forward to the day that the ESB have to conduct their business within a clear and open framework.

You'd like to see a root and branch change at the ESB is it?

token56

loremolis wrote: »

It has been 3 months and despite the fact that the ESB still haven't built the power line over her land, the lights have stayed on (even in Tullamore) and civilisation hasn't descended into anarchy because of it.

You do yourself no favours resorting to such rubbish and sensationalism. As I'm sure you're well aware such work is about upgrading the national grid infrastructure to meet future demand, not current. It's an important part of what needs to be done especially if we want to to be able to harness things like the full potential of Ireland's renewable energy resources and to ensure we can meet increasing demand.

Dudess

Loremolis, how excited were you when you misread EBS as ESB in the latest reports? :pac:

loremolis

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You'd like to see a root and branch change at the ESB is it?

If by root and branch you mean the people who work within the ESB then no, not at all. Most of the people who work for the ESB do a good job. While they may be overpaid, they are not what I was referring to.

If you read my post properly, I referred to the framework i.e. the swystem and legislation within which the ESB operate. The operation of that system was the reason that this thread was started.

If Teresa Treacy sticks to her guns then round 2 may end up back in court and that will undoubtedly bring some clarity to the matter.

loremolis

token56 wrote: »

You do yourself no favours resorting to such rubbish and sensationalism. As I'm sure you're well aware such work is about upgrading the national grid infrastructure to meet future demand, not current. It's an important part of what needs to be done especially if we want to to be able to harness things like the full potential of Ireland's renewable energy resources and to ensure we can meet increasing demand.

If you've read any of this thread you would see that the rubbish and sensationalism you refer to was started by the judge who jailed the woman for blocking the ESB and continued by many others within this thread.

I was referring to those sensationalist posts by sarcastically pointing out that the lights are still on despite the ESB being unable to complete the line in question. Again, have a look at previous posts in this regard.

I am well aware that there is a need for electricity infrastructure, my point is simply that people who own land have rights and the ESB do not respect those rights.

loremolis

Dudess wrote: »

Loremolis, how excited were you when you misread EBS as ESB in the latest reports? :pac:

What are you on about?

Also, what does :pac: actually mean?

token56

loremolis wrote: »

If you've read any of this thread you would see that the rubbish and sensationalism you refer to was started by the judge who jailed the woman for blocking the ESB and continued by many others within this thread.

I've read the majority of this thread and can't see any sensationalism by the judge being mentioned but maybe I missed. The judge acted within the law by jailing the woman, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but its not sensationalism. Some of the posts on both sides have been sensationalist.

I was referring to those sensationalist posts by sarcastically pointing out that the lights are still on despite the ESB being unable to complete the line in question. Again, have a look at previous posts in this regard.

And it does your argument no favours. Treating sensationalism with sensationalism is not really the best tactic if you want to be taken serious imo.

I am well aware that there is a need for electricity infrastructure, my point is simply that people who own land have rights and the ESB do not respect those rights.

Under the current law you do have rights but they are super-seeded by the government when a compulsory purchase order is granted. So under the letter of the law the ESB did what they were allowed its not a matter of respecting rights. The major problem here seems to be the ability of bodies like the ESB to make compulsory purchase orders. So I'd recommend those that disagree with it to lobby their local politicians to get it changed.

Seachmall

loremolis wrote: »

Also, what does :pac: actually mean?

"Hurr durr"












:pac:

Fear Uladh

Bloody banks!!!!!!111

:pac:

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

What are you on about?

Also, what does :pac: actually mean?

+ = :pac:

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

If by root and branch you mean.....

Root and Branch...

... trees....

....the ESB....

.... Mrs Treacy's farm...


... :pac:

loremolis

token56 wrote: »

I've read the majority of this thread and can't see any sensationalism by the judge being mentioned but maybe I missed. The judge acted within the law by jailing the woman, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but its not sensationalism. Some of the posts on both sides have been sensationalist.

I was referring to the "we may as well sink into anarchy" comment made by the judge and included in the first post in this thread.

Given what has happened in this case, that was a bit over the top IMO.

This country (and indeed the whole world) may slip into anarchy, but it won't happen because Ms. Treacy didn't let the ESB onto her land.

And it does your argument no favours. Treating sensationalism with sensationalism is not really the best tactic if you want to be taken serious imo.

I wasn't. As I said, I was being sarcastic.

Under the current law you do have rights but they are super-seeded by the government when a compulsory purchase order is granted. So under the letter of the law the ESB did what they were allowed its not a matter of respecting rights. The major problem here seems to be the ability of bodies like the ESB to make compulsory purchase orders. So I'd recommend those that disagree with it to lobby their local politicians to get it changed.

As I have said in previous posts, there was no compulsory purchase order in this case, nor indeed is a compulsory purchase order ever used by the ESB when they want to build electricity lines on private property.

They use a section 53 wayleave notice when they want to build electricity lines.

loremolis

Chuck Stone wrote: »

+ = :pac:

I've never been that happy.

joela

How the hell did this thread reappear again when absolutely nothing new has happened? Even the crusty protestors have been quiet with no apparent action on any of their social media or website...........so loremolis do you have any new information?

loremolis

joela wrote: »

How the hell did this thread reappear again when absolutely nothing new has happened? Even the crusty protestors have been quiet with no apparent action on any of their social media or website...........so loremolis do you have any new information?

Nothing other than what I see on the Teresa Treacy website.

The "protestors" have gone home for Christmas because it's fu*king freezing in the middle of the woods and all they have had to eat for weeks is apple tart.

On the bright side, my computer and heating and internet and lights etc. are all still working.

loremolis

joela wrote: »

How the hell did this thread reappear again when absolutely nothing new has happened? Even the crusty protestors have been quiet with no apparent action on any of their social media or website...........so loremolis do you have any new information?

Hard to believe its been 4 years.

The planning permission for the line running through Teresa Treacy's land expired earlier this year. The line still isn't built and the world hasn't ended.

The ESB and Eirgrid can do what the title to this thread said they should.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzz

justchecked

just want to add eircom...or 'eir' ... to that list.
keep having to get up and reset the modem cause of their poor service.

they never make a mistake sending my bill funnily enough, 100% accuracy there.

loremolis

Alexa Billions Pension wrote: »

ZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzz

lol

loremolis

Seems like someone in ESB has been asleep at the wheel for the past few years; all of their wayleave notices have been unlawfully served.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0711/801755-esb-wayleave-court/

As I've said before, overpaid monkeys.

loremolis

I see from the Courts.ie website that ESB and Eirgrid have recently discontinued their High Court case against Teresa Treacy.

Gobsh1tes of the higest order wasting electricity consumers money by the millions.

Widdershins

Considering Ireland has barely any deciduous forestry and Coilte forestry is barren evergreen trees, ''it's only trees' is an understatement in my view. Trees are actually kinda vital. I appreciate that we need electricity infrastructure too but don't underestimate the trees..

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

loremolis wrote: »

I see from the Courts.ie website that ESB and Eirgrid have recently discontinued their High Court case against Teresa Treacy.

Gobsh1tes of the higest order wasting electricity consumers money by the millions.

The project she held up was going through my fathers land too. They went ahead with the work on his land, but they couldn't pay the money owed until the project was completed. She held this up for years. The ESB were very good to the land owners, they caused as little disruption as they could, and there was no drama. She sent corrospondance to all the other landowners involved trying to get them to refuse the ESB access to their lands too, in the very very very early stages of the plans. Out of all the land owners, she was the only one to make life difficult for them. To be honest, I had no sympathy at all for her.

old boy

firstly she refused the esbs dosh, could she have done with it i dont know,
secondlythe little guy stood up to the man and won, not often this happens

loremolis

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The project she held up was going through my fathers land too. They went ahead with the work on his land, but they couldn't pay the money owed until the project was completed. She held this up for years. The ESB were very good to the land owners, they caused as little disruption as they could, and there was no drama. She sent corrospondance to all the other landowners involved trying to get them to refuse the ESB access to their lands too, in the very very very early stages of the plans. Out of all the land owners, she was the only one to make life difficult for them. To be honest, I had no sympathy at all for her.

Seriously? They couldn't pay the money until the project was completed???
Why not?, each landowners arrangement with ESB cannot be contingent on the position of another landowner, that's nuts.
Every landowner who has an electricity line placed on their land has the statutory right to compensation and there is nothing that the ESB can do to deny that claim being made and paid.
If your father blames Teresa Treacy for not getting paid then I have no sympathy for him because he didn't know his rights.

jack presley

loremolis wrote: »

Seriously? They couldn't pay the money until the project was completed???
Why not?, each landowners arrangement with ESB cannot be contingent on the position of another landowner, that's nuts.
Every landowner who has an electricity line placed on their land has the statutory right to compensation and there is nothing that the ESB can do to deny that claim being made and paid.
If your father blames Teresa Treacy for not getting paid then I have no sympathy for him because he didn't know his rights.

I love the way you act like you know it all on these matters ("father not knowing his rights") but is you who doesn't know what he's talking about in this case.

Read up about compensation for transmission lines and the payment process and educate yourself and then come back to us.

loremolis

jack presley wrote: »

I love the way you act like you know it all on these matters ("father not knowing his rights") but is you who doesn't know what he's talking about in this case.

Read up about compensation for transmission lines and the payment process and educate yourself and then come back to us.

That's funny because I'm sure that I know about these matters.
What do you know about compensation for transmission lines and what about compensation for transmission lines would you like me to clarify for you?