Illegal Bog-cutting, no enforcement.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ah HA! the Managment Plan eh!!!!

This is actually painful.
Clearly, you read the parts of the Regs that suit you. Try readinh 14(2)a and 14(1).

You omitted regulation 12. Where is THE LINK I ASKED FOR????

What link are you looking for? one for the Regs?

Yep I omitted Reg 12 and about 50 or more other parts of the Habitats Regulations? What's your point?
Reg 12 is irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make:

Regulation 12
12. (1) The Minister may enter into a management agreement in accordance with section 18 of the Principal Act with any owner, lessee or occupier of land forming part of a European site or land adjacent to such a site for the management, conservation, restoration or protection of the site or of any part of it.

(2) Any agreement previously entered into under section 18 of the Principal Act in relation to land which on or after the coming into force of these Regulations becomes part of a European site or is near such a site shall also have effect as if entered into under this Regulation.

I amn't you know. Don't you dare accuse me of doing something illegal again and provide links for your assertions as I did for mine. :cool:

:rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

Link it or please go away Uriel. You are making constant assertions based on copys and pastes that you refuse to link.

I still don't understand your Household Rubbish analogies but there is no legal requirement to have a contract in place for the collection of rubbish from your household like I said.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Link it or please go away Uriel. You are making constant assertions based on copys and pastes that you refuse to link.

I still don't understand your Household Rubbish analogies but there is no legal requirement to have a contract in place for the collection of rubbish from your household like I said.

And again, I ask you what you want a link to? A link to the Publicly available Habitats Regulations which you previously have read? Is that what you are looking for?

As I said, there is no need to have a legal agreement and/or management plan with the Government to prevent you from burning rubbish. Burning rubbish is against the law. Simples.

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

And again, I ask you what you want a link to? .

That which you liberally copied and pasted from and did not link, hint...it may have a section 13(1)

joela

SpongeBob you are going around in circles and really not making any sense at all. Section 13(1) relates to the three month period for objection when a site is first proposed so it does not relate to current illegal turf cutting on the bogs.

http://www.npws.ie/farmerslandowners/

Farmers are affected by designations too you know as are other landowners and we don't hear the same amount of squealing and carry on from them. You keep on going back to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive as if you know something that the rest of us can't see but don't you think the state solicitor or any other legal person casting their eye over the legal documents might have noticed such an apparently glaringly obvious mistake? I think you are clutching at straws and have no idea what the Habitats Directive actually means or why it is important to implement it. Furthermore there is no requirement within the Directive to compensate anyone but the IFA & Turfcutters put such pressure on the government for the derogation and compo that is why you are getting anything at all. So the reality is that you are a greedy bunch of mé féiners who don't give a monkeys about the rest of the country and the bit of natural heritage we have left.

Your comments about the ecology & the impact cutting has on it demonstrate your refusal to understand the damage being done and indeed your resistance to educating yourselves as to why such a fuss is being made by eNGOs and ordinary Irish people. Turf Cutters are not conserving the bogs, they are slowly killing them and the bogs are there in spite of the turf cutters not because of them. You can keep making your wild claims until you are blue in the face but the science is out there supporting the cessation of turf cutting and the aerial photos demonstrate the level of loss and damage caused by so called "domestic" turf cutting.

Furthermore your inane comments about NPWS and scientists are so backward it beggars belief. Scientists work in the field all the time and that is how the monitoring reports are produced, those rangers you speak so scathingly of get paid crap and often continue with the job because of their love of the environment. They feed their work back to the head office to further inform the research division so believe me there is plenty of information from people working on the bogs. This town versus country and them fellas up in Dublin crap just doesn't wash and it just highlights the refusal of turf cutters to respect the law for over 10years and their lack of respect for the general public.

Turf cutters will cost the country money in EU fines,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due waste of gardaí and NPWS time,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due to need to hire a plane because authorised personnel cannot access the bog to do their job,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due to pollution of our groundwater and surface waters from peat run off
Turf cutters will cost the country money when there are no bogs left and floods destroy the surrounding countryside and settlements downstream.
Turf cutters will cost the country money in water treatment due to peat pollution of drinking water.
Turf cutters will cost the country money in tourism because what tourist wants to come to a country where the landscape is totally destroyed, water polluted, greatest natural heritage lost and all for greed.

Rant over, I await the usual rubbish arguments but sure BnM do X & Coillte do Y and the government this and ancient tradition (with a hopper?) etc.
As I say to my children, if Mary does it does that make it right that you do it too? I want a healthy country in the future with fully functioning wetlands so I support all protection necessary as it is obvious some people just have to be forced to think of the common good of the country!

Sponge Bob

That was very ranty. You will forgive me for ignoring most of it I trust.

I am not in a raised bog area. No planes are flying around overhead and no sausage machines or hoppers are ever used on the family bog.

What I want to find out is the same thing I asked for directly and in an FoI many years ago. How was the area where my family bog is seemingly added to a nearby SAC with no notification or consultation period warning ever issuing to any of the landowners in that area.

I never, that I know of, dealt with an NPWS scientist as such, only with managers and rangers. I have seen them wandering around once or twice I think and I simply left them to it.

"the bit of natural heritage we have left."

There is more than a BIT of Blanket Bog left.

Farmer Pudsey

joela wrote: »

Turf cutters will cost the country money in EU fines,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due waste of gardaí and NPWS time,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due to need to hire a plane because authorised personnel cannot access the bog to do their job,
Turf cutters will cost the country money due to pollution of our groundwater and surface waters from peat run off
Turf cutters will cost the country money when there are no bogs left and floods destroy the surrounding countryside and settlements downstream.
Turf cutters will cost the country money in water treatment due to peat pollution of drinking water.
Turf cutters will cost the country money in tourism because what tourist wants to come to a country where the landscape is totally destroyed, water polluted, greatest natural heritage lost and all for greed.

We should no longer worry about EU fines as we cannot afford to pay them we should act like a lot of people who go to court give tje finger to the EU.
If we do not enforce it it cost the Gardai, NPWS nothing and no need to hire planes.
As far as I know peat only discolours water I never got sick after drinking bog water that was flowing.
We do not have a tourism industry it has been destroyed by a strong euro and high social welfare rates.
If the Poles or Germans were told that they could not mine coal they would tell the EU to go jump.

On a different note an earlier poster compared the value of a bog to agriculture land value it is like comparing an acre of mature Forrest to agriculture land the values are totally different

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That which you liberally copied and pasted from and did not link, hint...it may have a section 13(1)

I know you have this already, but if it helps with the burden of that very large chip on your shoulder....
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0094.html

Again 13(1) has no relevance to the argument you are trying to put forward.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That was very ranty. You will forgive me for ignoring most of it I trust.

I am not in a raised bog area. No planes are flying around overhead and no sausage machines or hoppers are ever used on the family bog.

What I want to find out is the same thing I asked for directly and in an FoI many years ago. How was the area where my family bog is seemingly added to a nearby SAC with no notification or consultation period warning ever issuing to any of the landowners in that area.

I never, that I know of, dealt with an NPWS scientist as such, only with managers and rangers. I have seen them wandering around once or twice I think and I simply left them to it.



There is more than a BIT of Blanket Bog left.

You seem to have a specific issue with NPWS that relates to a personal matter. No one here can resolve that for you.

You do know that, despite the general nature of the thread title, the thread was originally started in respect of the 53 Raised Bog SACs?

I don't know what area (SAC) you are in, but presumably, NPWS carried out what was required of them in Regulation 4 in respect of notifications to landowners etc... in relation to your own matter.

Uriel.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We should no longer worry about EU fines as we cannot afford to pay them we should act like a lot of people who go to court give tje finger to the EU.
If we do not enforce it it cost the Gardai, NPWS nothing and no need to hire planes.
As far as I know peat only discolours water I never got sick after drinking bog water that was flowing.
We do not have a tourism industry it has been destroyed by a strong euro and high social welfare rates.
If the Poles or Germans were told that they could not mine coal they would tell the EU to go jump.

On a different note an earlier poster compared the value of a bog to agriculture land value it is like comparing an acre of mature Forrest to agriculture land the values are totally different

Putting aside the public good and the ideals behind the preservation of an endangered habitat for a moment:

The EU will continually fine us until the matter is resolved. That's a lot of money. You can put your fingers up to a court all you want. The EU also appear to have the power to injunct Ireland on this issue:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0411/1224314607275.html

I am sure if it came down to it, apart from fines, they could probably withhold some of the funds pumped into the State annually. I am sure that would go down well with everyone, farmers in particular.

Whether you like it or not, Ireland signed up to the Habitats Directive, and you don't go around giving fingers to the likes of the European Court of Justice.

I'd like to see your valuation on bog by the way.

Sponge Bob

How hard was that Uriel.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0094.html#zzsi94y1997a13

The 1997 regulations, sure I know them well.

You should ALWAYS read sections 12 13 and 14 TOGETHER.

You referred me to ( IIRC) 12 and 14 in a post where you gently avoided all mention of Section 13 but section 13 never went away you know.

Management Agreements, Management Plans and Breaches arising post agreement of Plans and Agreements are inextricably interlinked in those three sections where it is evident that a Management Agreement is a down cascading granularisation to the individual landowner of the overall Management Plans insofar as it applies to them.

The normal 'management agreement' mechanism is REPs and REPs is being abolished. This was replaced by the Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) .

I was never in REPs/AEOS and that contractual enforcement vector could never have been applied to me.

Management agreements


12. (1) The Minister may enter into a management agreement in accordance with section 18 of the Principal Act with any owner, lessee or occupier of land forming part of a European site or land adjacent to such a site for the management, conservation, restoration or protection of the site or of any part of it.


(2) Any agreement previously entered into under section 18 of the Principal Act in relation to land which on or after the coming into force of these Regulations becomes part of a European site or is near such a site shall also have effect as if entered into under this Regulation.


CHAPTER III Operations or activities in European sites



Conservation measures to be undertaken by the Minister in order to protect special areas of conservation


13. (1) The Minister shall establish the conservation measures which the Minister considers appropriate, in respect of special areas of conservation designated under Regulation 9 including, if necessary, management plans order either specifically designated for the sites or integrated into appropriate plans.


(2) The Minister shall establish the administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I to the Habitats Directive and the species in Annex II to that Directive present on the sites.


(3) The Minister shall take the appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation designated under Regulation 9, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated insofar as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Habitats Directive.
Restrictions on carrying out operations or activities


14. (1) A person shall not carry out, cause to be carried out or continue to carry out, on any land included in a special area of conservation or a site placed on a list in accordance with Chapter I of this Part an operation or activity mentioned in a notice issued under Regulation 4 (2) unless the operation or activity is carried out, or caused or permitted to be carried out or continued to be carried out, by the owner, occupier or user of the land and—


( a ) one of them has given the Minister written notice of a proposal to carry out the operation, or activity, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out, and


( b ) one of the conditions specified in paragraph (2) is fulfilled.


(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows—


( a ) that the operation or activity is carried out with the written consent of the Minister, or


( b ) that the operation or activity is carried out in accordance with the terms of a management agreement provided for under Regulation 12.


(3) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence.


(4) The provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to an operation or activity to which Regulation 15 (2) relates.

Oh and 15(2) Don't read that if you have a headache. It is pretty much irrelevant anyway mainly applying to licenced extraction not customary extraction.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

How hard was that Uriel.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0094.html#zzsi94y1997a13

The 1997 regulations, sure I know them well.

You should ALWAYS read sections 12 13 and 14 TOGETHER.

You referred me to ( IIRC) 12 and 14 in a post where you gently avoided all mention of Section 13 but section 13 never went away you know.

Management Agreements, Management Plans and Breaches arising post agreement of Plans and Agreements are inextricably interlinked in those three sections where it is evident that a Management Agreement is a down cascading granularisation to the individual landowner of the overall Management Plans insofar as it applies to them.

The normal 'management agreement' mechanism is REPs and REPs is being abolished. This was replaced by the Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) .

I was never in REPs/AEOS and that contractual enforcement vector could never have been applied to me.



Oh and 15(2) Don't read that if you have a headache. It is pretty much irrelevant anyway mainly applying to licenced extraction not customary extraction.

You previously specifically mentioned Regulation 12 - so I responded to you on that. Now you mention 13 and I'll respond to you on that too. There is nothing in 13 that says the Minister has to have a contract or has to have a Management plan.

So back to your original argument - it remains debunked. None of the legislation you quote compels the Minister to introduce a management plan or a contract. The Minister may if he feels it appropriate.

Farmer Pudsey

Uriel. wrote: »

I'd like to see your valuation on bog by the way.

Looking at it from a commercial extent an acre is more than 200X200 foot square or 60mX60 m and the average bog is over 1.5 metres deep.

So an average bog would be 1.5 metres deep so the cubic capacity would be greater than 5500 cubic metres of turf.

I have not got the U value so all I can use is what it makes when sold I have not got a bog but buy a tractor of turf every couple of years last time I paid 350 euro. Now allowing for cutting and delivery costs lets assume that a load of turf is worth half that 175 euro. They use a small enough tractor trailer which is about 11 X 8 X 5 foot = 11.88 cubic metres. Now allow for 50% shrinkage from wet to dry turf. So now a trailer of turf is 24 cubic metres

According to that calculation an average acre of bog will contain 230 trailers of turf at 175 euro's each or 40250 euro. If you increase the trailer worth after costs to 250 the value would be 57500 euro.

This is a back of the back of a match box calculation but there goes

joela

The 1997 Regs have been replaced by S.I. No. 477/2011 — European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Uriel.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Looking at it from a commercial extent an acre is more than 200X200 foot square or 60mX60 m and the average bog is over 1.5 metres deep.

So an average bog would be 1.5 metres deep so the cubic capacity would be greater than 5500 cubic metres of turf.

I have not got the U value so all I can use is what it makes when sold I have not got a bog but buy a tractor of turf every couple of years last time I paid 350 euro. Now allowing for cutting and delivery costs lets assume that a load of turf is worth half that 175 euro. They use a small enough tractor trailer which is about 11 X 8 X 5 foot = 11.88 cubic metres. Now allow for 50% shrinkage from wet to dry turf. So now a trailer of turf is 24 cubic metres

According to that calculation an average acre of bog will contain 230 trailers of turf at 175 euro's each or 40250 euro. If you increase the trailer worth after costs to 250 the value would be 57500 euro.

This is a back of the back of a match box calculation but there goes

No, that is a fair enough calculation. It could even argued that it is on the low side potentially, but I am not a sure.

The thing is though, in terms of your method of valuation and not just yours I might add, it a value based on commercial exploitation of the bog - this is not a true valuation. It does not factor in the likelihood that various planning and other consents are required.

My land would be worth 10x what it might be if I could build a shopping center, a private hospital, a hotel etc... on it. In all likelihood I'd never get planning permission for this. Therefore, I cannot value my land at the price that full permissions would allow.

Similarly, you cannot simply value a bog on the basis that If I cut x amount each year and this is worth €x then multiply by the life time of the bog and that gives a total. Going beyond various thresholds etc... required Planning, EIA, IPPC, AA. You are not compensated for potential value.

Uriel.

joela wrote: »

The 1997 Regs have been replaced by S.I. No. 477/2011 — European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

You are probably wasting your time. Our resident legal expert here can see the text in the law that no one else, including the Irish legal system, can see.

Sponge Bob

joela wrote: »

The 1997 Regs have been replaced by S.I. No. 477/2011 — European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

I am perfectly well aware of that, it actually makes enforcement messier where the Management Plan was not completed by September 2011 which is around when those regs came ino force.

Section 41 of the 2011 Regulations explicitly enshrine the principle of Compensation <> Management Agreement where the 1997 regulations didn't. A very slippery slope that in blanket bog areas given their scale as compared to the few 100 acres that Ming and his merciless band are squabbling over with eco NGOs.

Only one Galway megacSac has completed Management planning in the 15 years since initial designation, a disgraceful situation that.

As for Section 30 of those 2011 regulations, a Ministerial order has no effect in a particular SAC if the order follows from an undisclosed or 'hidden' Management Plan for that SAC which has not been published or which may be proven to have been deliberately withheld from stakeholder/public consultation or to have been withheld in order to facilitate commercial activities of Coillte or ESB Networks for example and where Bog owners were not equally facilitated.

Very messy indeed. :cool:

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am perfectly well aware of that, it actually makes enforcement messier where the Management Plan was not completed by September 2011 which is around when those regs came ino force.

Section 41 of the 2011 Regulations explicitly enshrine the principle of Compensation <> Management Agreement where the 1997 regulations didn't. A very slippery slope that in blanket bog areas given their scale as compared to the few 100 acres that Ming and his merciless band are squabbling over with eco NGOs.

Only one Galway megacSac has completed Management planning in the 15 years since initial designation, a disgraceful situation that.

As for Section 30 of those 2011 regulations, a Ministerial order has no effect in a particular SAC if the order follows from an undisclosed or 'hidden' Management Plan for that SAC which has not been published or which may be proven to have been deliberately withheld from stakeholder/public consultation or to have been withheld in order to facilitate commercial activities of Coillte or ESB Networks for example and where Bog owners were not equally facilitated.

Very messy indeed. :cool:

I don't see any relevance to Management Plans etc... in respect of consent to carry out activities being required. The Regs don't specify that at all.

Can you explain your interpretation of Regulation 30 and Regulation 41 because what you quote above is not reflected in the Regs

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

Can you explain your interpretation of Regulation 30 and Regulation 41 because what you quote above is not reflected in the Regs

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Not reflected in them, written in them. :cool:

41. (1)(a) Where the Minister refuses consent to an activity under Regulation 30, he or she shall, save for the reasons set out in paragraphs (5) and (6), pay to the owner or occupier or user as the case may be by way of compensation an amount equal to the loss suffered by the owner, occupier or user by the depreciation of an interest in the land to which he or she is entitled.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Not reflected in them, written in them. :cool:

You might want to swap the sunglasses for some prescription ones on that emoticon you are so fond of.

Where does this reflect your ideas of a management plan? - You might also note please that my previous post asks you to show me where your interpretation in respect of the need for management plans is reflected. you have not done this.

btw, S.I. 94 of 1997, Regulation 20:

20. (1) ( a ) Where the Minister refuses consent to an operation or activity under Chapter III of this Part, the Minister shall, save for the reasons set out in paragraphs (5) and (6), pay to the owner or occupier or user as the case may be by way of compensation an amount equal to the loss suffered by the owner, occupier or user by the depreciation of an interest in the land to which he or she is entitled.

look familiar?

johngalway

Uriel. wrote: »

You are not compensated for potential value.

Pretty good reason to reject compensation and keep cutting so.

Farmer Pudsey

Uriel. wrote: »

The thing is though, in terms of your method of valuation and not just yours I might add, it a value based on commercial exploitation of the bog - this is not a true valuation. It does not factor in the likelihood that various planning and other consents are required.

My land would be worth 10x what it might be if I could build a shopping center, a private hospital, a hotel etc... on it. In all likelihood I'd never get planning permission for this. Therefore, I cannot value my land at the price that full permissions would allow.

Similarly, you cannot simply value a bog on the basis that If I cut x amount each year and this is worth €x then multiply by the life time of the bog and that gives a total. Going beyond various thresholds etc... required Planning, EIA, IPPC, AA. You are not compensated for potential value.

You have to value it one way or the other, in the last 20 years we have been too fast to sign up to EU protocols and then use them to either raise more taxes or use them for other purposes like the Green Party did while they were in power. Only latly we had the attempt to use the water extraction protocol as a way to levey a charge on domestic wells when it has very limited applications in Ireland due to we not having a water table level issue like they have in Spain and they will ignore it anyway like they do with the EU fishing law's.

Planing is not required for peat extraction and as it is an on going process opver hundreds of years the planning process is not applicable in this case. EIA's if used would be an abuse of there power the reality is that this is another f##kup by the Civil Service it was put on the long finger rather than a proper process put in place the same as happened with the nitrates directive there seems to be a policy of leaving it until the last minute and then bring in the severest regulations possible.

Sponge Bob

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

the reality is that this is another f##kup by the Civil Service it was put on the long finger rather than a proper process put in place the same as happened with the nitrates directive there seems to be a policy of leaving it until the last minute and then bring in the severest regulations possible.

Exactly what it is. The NPWS (Dúchas then) notified a load of SACs including mine to the EU around 12-15 years ago and told the EU A "Management Plan" was "in preparation" or would be drawn up.

Then they thought they could bully people into stopping lots of activities without going to the trouble of preparing management plans, that worked to an extent until it stopped working....and then they belatedly realised they should prepare management plans ( once the road schemes ran out and the lads wanted consultancy gigs ).......shouldn't they.

Absent the management plan there is no framework to manage a managed SAC and no framework within which a management agreement with an individual landowner in that SAC should do their bit within the overall Management matrix.

Altogether an administrative farce of the highest order. I just kept cutting and never asked for any consent off anyone...and I never asked for compensation either.

johngalway

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

the reality is that this is another f##kup by the Civil Service it was put on the long finger rather than a proper process put in place the same as happened with the nitrates directive there seems to be a policy of leaving it until the last minute and then bring in the severest regulations possible.

Same thing happened with destocking of ewes way back, they done SFA for years, EU stepped in and said fix it now, so 20% of sheep were rounded up and killed for no good reason. They have an illustrious history of fcuking up.

Sponge Bob

The destocking was a good thing to do but handled dreadfully (and plenty of utter BS about being told to do so by the EU I recall ).

johngalway

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The destocking was a good thing to do but handled dreadfully (and plenty of utter BS about being told to do so by the EU I recall ).

In some cases it was necessary for sure, in others not, again because of a ramshackle, rushed, foolish way of going about it that didn't give due consideration to the facts on the ground. We, Ireland, had years & years to sort it, the then Govt sat on their hands, then a bad plan of action was forced through.

Anyway, that's getting away from the topic.

Uriel.

johngalway wrote: »

Pretty good reason to reject compensation and keep cutting so.

Of course you can reject compensation and keep cutting. That doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions for both you personally and the State generally though.

johngalway

Uriel. wrote: »

Of course you can reject compensation and keep cutting. That doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions for both you personally and the State generally though.

Won't affect me, don't have a bog. I was looking at it from an economic point of view. If I had a company that had the potential to earn me 60k would I give it up to the Govt for 15k? It's not much of a thinker. Not everything written into law is good law, paper never refused ink.

Uriel.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

You have to value it one way or the other, in the last 20 years we have been too fast to sign up to EU protocols and then use them to either raise more taxes or use them for other purposes like the Green Party did while they were in power. Only latly we had the attempt to use the water extraction protocol as a way to levey a charge on domestic wells when it has very limited applications in Ireland due to we not having a water table level issue like they have in Spain and they will ignore it anyway like they do with the EU fishing law's.

Planing is not required for peat extraction and as it is an on going process opver hundreds of years the planning process is not applicable in this case. EIA's if used would be an abuse of there power the reality is that this is another f##kup by the Civil Service it was put on the long finger rather than a proper process put in place the same as happened with the nitrates directive there seems to be a policy of leaving it until the last minute and then bring in the severest regulations possible.

Planning may be required.

Turf cutting in area of greater than 10 ha
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html
see class 17 for example.

And for other areas, potentially including areas under 10ha see Regulation 31 of the 2011 Regs.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Uriel.

johngalway wrote: »

Won't affect me, don't have a bog. I was looking at it from an economic point of view. If I had a company that had the potential to earn me 60k would I give it up to the Govt for 15k? It's not much of a thinker. Not everything written into law is good law, paper never refused ink.

Leaving aside this particular issue of turf cutting. I personally would not want to see people getting compensated by the State for potential value, where there has been no intent or previous plan to develop something. Something silly like that would cost the State billions. I think that is good, sensible law actually.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Exactly what it is. The NPWS (Dúchas then) notified a load of SACs including mine to the EU around 12-15 years ago and told the EU A "Management Plan" was "in preparation" or would be drawn up.

Then they thought they could bully people into stopping lots of activities without going to the trouble of preparing management plans, that worked to an extent until it stopped working....and then they belatedly realised they should prepare management plans ( once the road schemes ran out and the lads wanted consultancy gigs ).......shouldn't they.

Absent the management plan there is no framework to manage a managed SAC and no framework within which a management agreement with an individual landowner in that SAC should do their bit within the overall Management matrix.

Altogether an administrative farce of the highest order. I just kept cutting and never asked for any consent off anyone...and I never asked for compensation either.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that supports your claim that the Minister has to introduce a management plan in order to restrict activities. It is not there in the Directive and it is not there in the transposing legislation.

You have been shown this by a number of people citing the legislation.

Sponge Bob

You have posted nothing at all on the function of a management plan and I had to drag links out of you for a lot of your sources where I referenced mine unprompted.

You will have to forgive me for being amused at your last post.

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

And for other areas, potentially including areas under 10ha see Regulation 31 of the 2011 Regs.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

S31 obviously refers to strategic infrastructure and infrastructure type developments not to family bogs. Inferring it Somehow applies to domestic turf cutters is unfounded and wrong.

Please withdraw that inference.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Uriel. wrote: »

And for other areas, potentially including areas under 10ha see Regulation 31 of the 2011 Regs.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

S31 obviously refers to strategic infrastructure and infrastructure type developments not to family bogs. Inferring it Somehow applies to domestic turf cutters is unfounded and wrong.

Please withdraw that inference.

LOL

Sorry I won't be withdrawing anything.
Can you show me how s31 obviously relates to strategic infrastructure or infrastructure type developments. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Regs.

Of course if you can prove otherwise you'll be posting a link and source won't you?

I find your approach to this thread very strange. In some cases you see text that no one else can see and in other cases you fail to read text that everyone else can see. Very strange indeed.

One scenario for potentially requiring planning permission in this instance would be the Minister judging an in combo effect on on the site affecting an area of more than 10ha eg multiple cutters requesting consent to cut turf and the impact of the. Associated drainage. Minister screens for appropriate assessments and feels that An Bord Pleanala needs to make a determination. The Bord decides that an appropriate assessment is required and so exempted development status is lost and planning is required.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have posted nothing at all on the function of a management plan and I had to drag links out of you for a lot of your sources where I referenced mine unprompted.

You will have to forgive me for being amused at your last post.

A management plan is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this thread which is about illegal turf cutting. As has been cited by a number of people a management plan existing or not does not negate the requirement for consent to cut turf in these 53sites. It also does not negate the fact that cutting without the consent is an unauthorised action.

In a bigger picture, do I think SACs should have management plans.... Yeah I think long term it is a good idea and hopefully in time we'll get to that point.. But for now the law remains in respect turf cutting in these sites

joela

Sponge Bob you miss the other legislation which also applies to the turf cutters.

Those who cut turf illegally this year are also liable under the Environmental Liabilities Directive which was transposed into Irish law http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0307.html Please note that ELD is not limited to Natura 2000 sites, Habitats & Species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive are protected from damage outside of Natura 2000 sites under this piece of legislation.

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

LOL

Sorry I won't be withdrawing anything.
Can you show me how s31 obviously relates to strategic infrastructure or infrastructure type developments. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the Regs.

Well it does so go off and read it again properly.

joela wrote: »

Sponge Bob you miss the other legislation which also applies to the turf cutters.

Those who cut turf illegally this year are also liable under the Environmental Liabilities Directive which was transposed into Irish law http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0307.html Please note that ELD is not limited to Natura 2000 sites, Habitats & Species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive are protected from damage outside of Natura 2000 sites under this piece of legislation.

Yes that is true Joela and the collective environmental liabilities regulations 2008 to 2011 can be used to protect Annex 1 Biome and Speciation ex geographic designation and management ...lest you think I don't know the jargon.

I would observe however that your link is to a GEOLOGICAL Carbon Sequestration amendment and that a bog is a BIOLOGICAL Carbon Sequestration mechanism.

The regulations do not apply to cutaway blanket bog where the bulk of the cutting was completed many years ago. There is no Annexed Restoration Objective for blanket bog where there is for certain raised bog ...you should know that. Consequently and as the key 'damage' is 30 years old already Environmental Liability does not apply to my bit of Blanket Bog. Sorry.

It could apply were I to start draining a new set of cutting stripes or at least I believe it could.

Pete_Cavan

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have posted nothing at all on the function of a management plan and I had to drag links out of you for a lot of your sources where I referenced mine unprompted.

You will have to forgive me for being amused at your last post.

Perhaps you could provide a link or some evidence to support your claim that site specific Management Plans are required for the designation of SACs because Article 6(1) of the Habitates Directive does not impose this. MANAGING NATURA 2000 SITES The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, the documnet intended to facilitate the interpretation of Article 6, in section 2.4.What form can the necessary conservation measures take?, states;

2.4.1. Management plans
The necessary conservation measures can involve ‘if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans’. Such management plans should address all foreseen activities, unforeseen new activities being dealt with by Article 6(3) and (4).
The words ‘if need be’ indicate that management plans may not always be necessary.

It is obvious that management plans are not required and therefore are irrelevant to this thread. Now perhaps you can provide some real evidence to support your claims because Article 6(1) clearly isnt it.

Sponge Bob

Because the NPWS Said they Would in 1997, eg. Barroughter Bog.

http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/images/protectedsites/natura2000/NF000231.pdf

SITE MANAGEMENT AND PLANS
Plans in preparation.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Well it does so go off and read it again properly.

Now now, if you are going to proclaim something you have to back it up - show me the part of the Regs or P&D Regs that proves what you are saying.

Yes that is true Joela and the collective environmental liabilities regulations 2008 to 2011 can be used to protect Annex 1 Biome and Speciation ex geographic designation and management ...lest you think I don't know the jargon.

I would observe however that your link is to a GEOLOGICAL Carbon Sequestration amendment and that a bog is a BIOLOGICAL Carbon Sequestration mechanism.

The regulations do not apply to cutaway blanket bog where the bulk of the cutting was completed many years ago. There is no Annexed Restoration Objective for blanket bog where there is for certain raised bog ...you should know that. Consequently and as the key 'damage' is 30 years old already Environmental Liability does not apply to my bit of Blanket Bog. Sorry.

It could apply were I to start draining a new set of cutting stripes or at least I believe it could.

you have a lot interpretations for yourself but you don't back it up with an awful lot

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OK, this has just turned into the same people sniping at and reporting each other. For sanity's sake, let's just end this here.