Galway City Council 3rd Best Planners In Country

Mr_A

According to An Taisce anyway.

One of only 4 councils to get a C grade- none got A or B.

8 factors were used in the rankings:

1. Overzoning: Amount of Zoned Land as a Percentage of Population in 2011
2. Decisions Reversed by An Bord Pleanála 2005 – 2010
3. Decisions Confirmed by An Bord Pleanála 2005 – 2010.
4. Percentage of Vacant Housing Stock in 2011
5. Change in Vacant Housing Stock 2006 – 2011
6. Water quality: Urban Areas with Secondary Treatment failing to meet EPA Standards 2011.
7. Percentage of One-Off Houses Permitted as a Percentage of all Residential Planning Permissions 2001 – 2011.
8. Legal Proceedings Commenced Following Non-Compliance with Enforcement Notice 2005 – 2010.

Skimmed the main report and found it interesting that Galway City's unused housing stock actually decreased from 2006-2011. In general the city council seems to have performed relatively well, although obviously it could do significantly better.

antoobrien

Mr_A wrote: »

According to An Taisce anyway.

No need to read any further then, especially since Galway city council doesn't know where it's services are so they can tell contractors about it.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

No need to read any further then, especially since Galway city council doesn't know where it's services are so they can tell contractors about it.

Actually there is one page that everyone should read very carefully and check the figures, Appendix 2 (page 43) which gives out the scores.

An Tasice appear to have miscalculated their own scores, leaving out the rankings for overzonging - creating artificially low scores.

Sponge Bob

Quick, get Hambleton to condemn the innumerate who calculated the scores.

inisboffin

Wait, did anyone else not hear on the Radio yesterday - was at a friend's, think it was GBFM that Galway was one of the *worst* in the country, with an F rating ?

Sponge Bob

County came low down. City seemingly did better.

Unrealistic

inisboffin wrote: »

Wait, did anyone else not hear on the Radio yesterday - was at a friend's, think it was GBFM that Galway was one of the *worst* in the country, with an F rating ?

I think Galway County Council was one of the worst performers. Maybe that was what you heard?

galwayrush

An Taisce ratings.... :rolleyes:

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

No need to read any further then, especially since Galway city council doesn't know where it's services are so they can tell contractors about it.

Looks like you ignored your own advice.

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually there is one page that everyone should read very carefully and check the figures, Appendix 2 (page 43) which gives out the scores.

An Tasice appear to have miscalculated their own scores, leaving out the rankings for overzonging - creating artificially low scores.

So it was worth reading after all?

Sponge Bob

God no. Mind you Hambleton has been thankfully quiet for some time. An Taisce should be like the National Tust in the UK but are a loony green entryist cult inside what was once a respectable built heritage body instead.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Looks like you ignored your own advice.



So it was worth reading after all?

Haven't read it fully yet, I took a look at the figures to try and get a feeling for where their bias is (surprise surprise it ignores the fact that we are not actually a european country but still applies norms that are higher than best practices here).

Most of what I've skimmed regarding galway anybody that has read the tribune for the past few years already knows about. At the national level, if you haven't been reading the tabloid comic books it'll be nothing you haven't already seen.

Their scoring system is a but of a fudge imo, they've ranked the 34 LAs on a points system of 1-34 (1 the worst to 34 the best) so there's a large potential for observation skew in the results to make places seem worse than they are. E.g. Galway county is largely rural and has 60% one off housing, but it ignores the sheer size of the county (8% of the land in the nation) and the historically rural nature of the area (the current urban population of the county is at a historically high level) - so the fact that it comes ranked 2nd worst here affecting its overall result.

My initial thoughts are that report is nothing but a post mahon publicity stunt, that will probably backfire because the 4 councils implicated in Mahon actually come out as looking rather good at planning in ATs world. :eek: Oops.

FlashD

I think the important part is that none got A or B.

Disgraceful really but i'm not surprised.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

Haven't read it fully yet, I took a look at the figures to try and get a feeling for where their bias is (surprise surprise it ignores the fact that we are not actually a european country but still applies norms that are higher than best practices here).

Most of what I've skimmed regarding galway anybody that has read the tribune for the past few years already knows about. At the national level, if you haven't been reading the tabloid comic books it'll be nothing you haven't already seen.

Their scoring system is a but of a fudge imo, they've ranked the 34 LAs on a points system of 1-34 (1 the worst to 34 the best) so there's a large potential for observation skew in the results to make places seem worse than they are. E.g. Galway county is largely rural and has 60% one off housing, but it ignores the sheer size of the county (8% of the land in the nation) and the historically rural nature of the area (the current urban population of the county is at a historically high level) - so the fact that it comes ranked 2nd worst here affecting its overall result.

My initial thoughts are that report is nothing but a post mahon publicity stunt, that will probably backfire because the 4 councils implicated in Mahon actually come out as looking rather good at planning in ATs world. :eek: Oops.

Eh - the Planning Tribunal started fifteen years ago - this report covers 2005- 2010

We are a European country.

antoobrien

FlashD wrote: »

I think the important part is that none got A or B.

Disgraceful really but i'm not surprised.

That's probably because the grading report is faulty. Interestingly An Taisce have changed the version of the report on their website to exclude the pages with the grades and the individual councils scores. So in the interests of transparency I've attached the one I downloaded when the report was first published.

Anyhow they failed to account for one of their criteria in their grading - depressing all the grades. There should be 3 B's



So here's some findings I'd like An Tasice to explain how good planning practices were applied when:

1. SDCC, DLR, & Fingal are all heavily implicated in Mahon, yet are ranked officially 1, 2 & 4
2. DCC (9) & Fingal developments are riddled with Saftey (there are several more Priory Hall scenarios waiting to happen) & Pyrite problems
3. Dublin Docklands think they can grant planning permission to overrule DCC (ABP said otherwise)
4. Fingal (4) has the highest number of ghost estates in the country
5. A single burst pipe in Galway City (ranked 3) knocks out water for approximately 1/4 of the population

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh - the Planning Tribunal started fifteen years ago - this report covers 2005- 2010

We are a European country.

Actually it covers 2000-2011 and if you think that the irregularities that lead to Mahon are gone in those areas grow up - a lot of the places that were built due to the cases studied in Mahon now have/are one or more of the following problems: ghost estates, have pyrite problems, sewage problems, transport problems - the list goes on.

And this from a self professed planning watchdog.

Sponge Bob

Yes but the home may be a fire hazard...raddled with pyrite and falling down.

BUT it is built in the right place and for that alone An Taisce score the tat very highly. Inhabitability is not a part of sustainability in their myopic world view.

Building your self, showing self sufficiency and ensuring build quality and worksmanship scores lowly.

By the way Galway County was upgraded to an E there Anto. Will An Taisce ever apologise for the misleading data that you caught them out on????

Will they f*c* as the Tribunal was told.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

By the way Galway County was upgraded to an E there Anto. Will An Taisce ever apologise for the misleading data that you caught them out on????

Seeeing as they seem to want to hide the fact that they have misleading data in their report, I seriously doubt it.

ladhrann

Sponge Bob wrote: »

BUT it is built in the right place and for that alone An Taisce score the tat very highly. Inhabitability is not a part of sustainability in their myopic world view.

Perhaps you mistake the purpose of the agency, or of conservationism in general. How could a voluntary organisation like An Taisce conduct a review of each area's output of housing stock? Like any survey it uses crude data to provide an approximate ranking.

A conservationist or anyone else who makes a submission in relation to building has very little influence over the design and sustainability of the building.

There are certain minimum national build standards, which in terms of insulation, living space, and ventilation are greatly inferior; when that is they were adhered to.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Building your self, showing self sufficiency and ensuring build quality and worksmanship scores lowly.

I fail to see your position here. As I'm sure you're aware the greater part of one-off homes built in the past 30-40 years are of a greatly inferior quality. Those of you familiar with the rural bungalows of 'Bungalow Bliss' will know that there is no cavity wall insulation, inferior aluminium framed glazing, no attic insulation. This is marked in various reports on the rural housing stock and fuel poverty for example.

And this is in cases where one-off housing in inappropriate areas and poorly maintained septic tanks do not poison our water.

Nor does it even begin to cover aesthetically illiterate suburban-style housing in rural areas of both city and county.

I don't understand why the very few individuals who search out and apply a superior and more efficient build and design standard for themselves should be given an extra weighting in a survey. Surely that is what anyone undertaking such a project should be doing anyway?

antoobrien

ladhrann wrote: »

Perhaps you mistake the purpose of the agency, or of conservationism in general. How could a voluntary organisation like An Taisce conduct a review of each area's output of housing stock? Like any survey it uses crude data to provide an approximate ranking.

A conservationist or anyone else who makes a submission in relation to building has very little influence over the design and sustainability of the building.

There are certain minimum national build standards, which in terms of insulation, living space, and ventilation are greatly inferior; when that is they were adhered to.



I fail to see your position here. As I'm sure you're aware the greater part of one-off homes built in the past 30-40 years are of a greatly inferior quality. Those of you familiar with the rural bungalows of 'Bungalow Bliss' will know that there is no cavity wall insulation, inferior aluminium framed glazing, no attic insulation. This is marked in various reports on the rural housing stock and fuel poverty for example.

And this is in cases where one-off housing in inappropriate areas and poorly maintained septic tanks do not poison our water.

Nor does it even begin to cover aesthetically illiterate suburban-style housing in rural areas of both city and county.

I don't understand why the very few individuals who search out and apply a superior and more efficient build and design standard for themselves should be given an extra weighting in a survey. Surely that is what anyone undertaking such a project should be doing anyway?

Another AT brainwash case i'm afraid.

Insufficient insulation - have you actually seen a house being built in the past 30 years?

I've seen several one offs as well as been on site in estates and apartment blocks. I can tell you right now which ones have the lower quality insulation - in every case the Apartment & estate houses have had lower quality and quantity exterior wall insulation (meaning more heat escapes).

I lived in an apartment for a while in Dublin - one of the ones that would be covered by this report. It was the coldest placed I'd lived since we moved out of the galway city council built house I grew up in. The house I'm currently sharing in isn't much better off than that apartment and it was built within the last 30 years.

As for the septic tanks, don't make me laugh - if you want to wonder what might be poisoning the water in galway head out to ballindooley cross and take a whiff of the pong coming of the city dump. Watercourses run through this that feed into the lake, about 1 mile upstream from where they take in water to the waterworks in terryland.

ladhrann wrote: »

Perhaps you mistake the purpose of the agency, or of conservationism in general. How could a voluntary organisation like An Taisce conduct a review of each area's output of housing stock? Like any survey it uses crude data to provide an approximate ranking.

An Tasice have set themselves up as a planning watchdog in recent years - if they want to be taken seriously the have to do all you have just suggested and use more accurate data

Mrs OBumble

antoobrien wrote: »

it ignores the fact that we are not actually a european country but still applies norms that are higher than best practices here).

I don't know enough about practises here to comment on the rest of this thread (but am reading with interest!).

However I would like to know what you mean by this bit?

How can Ireland not be a European country???

antoobrien

JustMary wrote: »

How can Ireland not be a European country???

It's a bit like saying we're not British or Canadians aren't American really. The european guff is a badge of convenience that would be dropped as quickly if it lost its advantages to us. If you don't believe that I suggest you take a look at the Irish Economy forum to see how often threads crop up to discuss the possibility of dropping the Euro because they no longer see it as being an advantage.

Just because we're on the same continental shelf does not make us think the way they do. Large urban centers is a very recent development in Ireland, even now up to half of our population does not live in an urban center (by the loosest definition of urban possible) and that % is going down as the countryside depopulates.

ladhrann

antoobrien wrote: »

Another AT brainwash case i'm afraid.

Insufficient insulation - have you actually seen a house being built in the past 30 years?

Many.

antoobrien wrote: »

I've seen several one offs as well as been on site in estates and apartment blocks. I can tell you right now which ones have the lower quality insulation - in every case the Apartment & estate houses have had lower quality and quantity exterior wall insulation (meaning more heat escapes).

I lived in an apartment for a while in Dublin - one of the ones that would be covered by this report. It was the coldest placed I'd lived since we moved out of the galway city council built house I grew up in. The house I'm currently sharing in isn't much better off than that apartment and it was built within the last 30 years.

The point I am making is a comparative one between an area with a relatively higher number of one-off dwelling houses and the area with fewer.

I most heartily agree with you that houses in housing estates and apartment complexes in Galway City and elsewhere in the country are of a shockingly low standard. The houses built in Highfield Park 30 years and Deoch Uisce today being great examples of how not to build houses.

antoobrien wrote: »

As for the septic tanks, don't make me laugh - if you want to wonder what might be poisoning the water in galway head out to ballindooley cross and take a whiff of the pong coming of the city dump. Watercourses run through this that feed into the lake, about 1 mile upstream from where they take in water to the waterworks in terryland.

According to the report by Ryan Hanley Engineers on the recent outbreak of Crytosporidium the majority of samples and all the hospital cases of the parasite were from the human variant of it. In other words the outbreak was directly related to human fecal matter in the water supply and mainly due to the proliferation of one-off houses around the shores of Lough Corrib and the poorly maintained septic tanks that this entails.

antoobrien wrote: »

An Tasice have set themselves up as a planning watchdog in recent years - if they want to be taken seriously the have to do all you have just suggested and use more accurate data

A function of An Taisce is to protect the environment and built heritage of the nation. As a result of this it will routinely make submissions on developments occurring in areas of exceptional natural beauty or that occur with listed structures. It does not have the position or resources of a planning authority.

The problems you refer to i.e. the siting of the city dump and water intake for the city supply, inferior building regulations etc. are the result of individuals not engaging with the political process or planning process to the detriment of themselves and the community as a whole. Indirectly they are due to a culture of aspiring to a minimum instead of the maximum quality of design and construction. They are most definitely not due to a sub-standard comparative study done by a voluntary conservation body.

antoobrien

ladhrann wrote: »

According to the report by Ryan Hanley Engineers on the recent outbreak of Crytosporidium the majority of samples and all the hospital cases of the parasite were from the human variant of it. In other words the outbreak was directly related to human fecal matter in the water supply and mainly due to the proliferation of one-off houses around the shores of Lough Corrib and the poorly maintained septic tanks that this entails.

How do you know it wasn't from, oh say one of the many poorly maintained small urban sewerage treatment plants that empty directly into the corrib?

Tell me, how come with the flooding in 2006 (there were some pretty bad conditions in May and September) there wasn't a major outbreak in 2006?

Or do you expect us to believe that the bacteria in question can survive unmolested through winter in the open before more rain manages to wash it into the water basin?

How come there weren't spikes in 2009/2010 with the once in 300 year event that occurred - that should have overhwelmed small tratment plants not connected to Terryland but it didn't.

No sewerage tanks are being scapegoated there.

A function of An Taisce is to protect the environment and built heritage of the nation. As a result of this it will routinely make submissions on developments occurring in areas of exceptional natural beauty or that occur with listed structures. It does not have the position or resources of a planning authority.

ladhrann wrote: »

The problems you refer to i.e. the siting of the city dump and water intake for the city supply, inferior building regulations etc. are the result of individuals not engaging with the political process or planning process to the detriment of themselves and the community as a whole. Indirectly they are due to a culture of aspiring to a minimum instead of the maximum quality of design and construction. They are most definitely not due to a sub-standard comparative study done by a voluntary conservation body.

An Taisce has used its unique role as a prescribed body to act as a national independent watchdog for the Irish planning system and to champion proper planning

They've set themselves up as a planning watchdog and they're attacking anything they don't like. What they aren't doing is attacking things that are actually bad.

They attack one off housing, but the criteria they've used is seriously flawed ibecause it doesn't take into account demolitions and reconstructions (which don't actually increase the housing stock), just the number of planning permissions granted.

On the topic of one offs, I wonder if we should bring up the fact that the 4 Dublin Councils (who ranked #1, #2, #7 & #14 for the criteria) - built about half the total of one off houses that county Galway did - in an area 7 times smaller, but somehow Galway county council comes off second worst. Proportionally if they were allowed to do that in Co Galway, the national stock of one off houses would go up by over 50% (edit: I was only looking at the figures for DCC, if we look at the other 3 councils in Dublin and apply these figures proportionally to Galway the number of planning permissions in the period for one offs would be 268,547. The national one off stock as of the 2011 census was about 450,000).

Lets not forget that Dublin is on a knife edge for water production, waste water & waste treatment - areas that AT should be seriously looking at within their environmental and planning remits. But DCC, DLR, Fingal & SDCC still come out favorably from this report.

This report and the body behind it are seriously flawed. If they really want to be an environmental and planning watchdog they'll attack any developments in Dublin as being totally unsustainable until the water, waste and transport issues are dealt with (which will take years).

But that's not going to happen because they like large urban areas. No they'd much rather attack someone building a house with its own well because it's easier to attack someone perceived to be rich than it is to take on the real issues that are affecting the environment in this country - the unsustainable nature of our large towns & cities.

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't from, oh say one of the many poorly maintained small urban sewerage treatment plants that empty directly into the corrib?

Substandard urban sewage schemes dumping into the Corrib include Oughterard, Milltown, Claregalway, Galway City itself....and they only stopped Dominic Street/Nuns Island area direct discharges last year which is what all the digging was about.

antoobrien

Too late, you been caught with your pants down.

As I suspected earlier in the week, they used the wrong figures. Now they're backpedaling as fast as a politician and sounding just as sincere.

We know you favour the city councils, stop trying to pretend this report isn't anything but an attack on rural Ireland.

Edit - if it was that unbalanced towards city councils it should never have been included in the original criteria.

We will republish the report today (Friday).

It has come to our attention that there is an error in the matrix used to calculate the score and ranking for individual councils. We apologise for this.

This results in a move of between one and three places generally in the ranking for individual councils, with the exception of County Mayo, which improves by several places.

In our original calculations, we felt that Indicator 1 (Overzoning) gave unfair advantage to City Councils, because as cities are mostly zoned, it is significantly more difficult to overzone a city. So we only counted the other 7 indicators. Unfortunately in finalising the report we omitted to explain this.

We are working right now on a new Appendix and revising the report accordingly, which will show the original scores, counting indicators 2 to 8 and the revised scores counting all 8. We will also regrade the authorities accordingly.

Whereas individual authorities may improve in their grading, it does not effect the overall messages of the report that there is a strong correlation between councils that have scored poorly and a range of negative socio-economic and environmental outcomes. The system still needs radical overhaul and the provision of an Independent Planning Regulator.

Sponge Bob

Bet that ideologues like Frank whatshisface in the Times will give the revised report no space at all.