Aarhus Convention to be ratified after 14 long years

MadsL

The final step in the process of ratification is consideration of the motion by Dáil Éireann on Thursday. Ireland signed the Aarhus Convention on its adoption in June 1998. Ireland is the only EU Member State yet to ratify it.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/News/MainBody,30480,en.htm

Finally!! Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming to ratification. I predict another five years to implement at the rate of most ratifications.

I believe Ireland is still the only EU state to charge for participation in the planning process, €20 for a planning observation, and €220 to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

Can anyone see any major roadblocks to this passing swiftly through the Dáil Éireann?

MadsL

Let me change the question perhaps?

Should the €20 for a planning observation, and €220 to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála charges be dropped in the light of Aarhus implementation and the Mahon Tribunal?

MadsL

There have been calls for the government to raise public awareness of rights granted to Irish citizens following the Dáil vote today to allow ratification of the Aarhus Convention.

This international convention upholds the right of every person to have access to information about the environment, the right to participate in decision-making, and the right of access to justice.

Michael Ewing, speaking on behalf of the Environmental Pillar, welcomed the vote approving ratification as "an important milestone on our road to sustainability" but warned that "these rights are only meaningful if they are exercised. Raising public awareness of the Convention is therefore crucial for its effective implementation.

"Informed public participation is essential if the many important decisions that need to be made regarding the future of humanity are to be supported by these same members of the public," he continued.

The convention is unique in the extent to which it seeks to enable ordinary people to have a say in decisions that affect their environment. It sets minimum standards for citizens' rights, and is legally binding on those States that have signed up to it. This means that public and private bodies such as providers of natural gas, electricity and sewage services must respect these rights. Although Ireland signed up to the Convention in 1998 it has taken until this year for the government to ratify it. Public and private bodies have one year and 90 days from ratification to prepare for their new responsibilities.

Irish citizens will now have access to environmental information possessed by any government agency, and many private bodies, made available at a 'reasonable' charge, and generally within one month of receiving the request. These bodies must tell the public what kind of environmental information they have, and how to access it. In emergency situations, such as a day of unusually bad air pollution, authorities must immediately distribute all information in their possession that could help the public take preventative measures or reduce harm.

The right to participate in decision-making gives citizens the opportunity to express their concerns and opinions when authorities make plans that could affect the environment.

Finally, it places importance on environmental justice - a crucial factor in the drive to empower people to seek a good quality of life. It has the potential to provide socially excluded communities with the tools they need to influence and challenge decisions that will result in the degradation or destruction of the environment

Environmental Pillar of Social Partnership

murphaph

MadsL wrote: »

Let me change the question perhaps?

Should the €20 for a planning observation, and €220 to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála charges be dropped in the light of Aarhus implementation and the Mahon Tribunal?

The €220 should be reduced to €20 as well as I think it's too high, but that should be it IMO. There are already many spurious objections made to planning applications as it is with the nominal fee. It would (likely) be even worse if it literally cost a stamp to make an objection.

People often abuse things that cost them absolutely nothing (doctor visits by medical card holders are 8 times more frequent than those by people who have to pay full whack, for example). A nominal fee deters spurious objections at least to some extent.

If you have a genuine concern about an application, €20 is not going to prevent you making your case.

Godge

Freedom of information requests cost money, so requests for environmental information should also cost money. In fact, given the state the country is in, the prices for requesting this information should be greater than the cost of compiling it in terms of staffing and other costs so that the state makes a profit on such requests.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Freedom of information requests cost money, so requests for environmental information should also cost money. In fact, given the state the country is in, the prices for requesting this information should be greater than the cost of compiling it in terms of staffing and other costs so that the state makes a profit on such requests.

If information was properly made available in the first place, there would be no costs involved. I'm currently having a bizarre debate with a local council who put out a request for consultations/submissions and now refuse to publish the submissions in any other form except me travelling to the office, by appointment and viewing them there. The idea of making a profit is absurd in the context of Aarhus.

€20 is not going to prevent you making your case.

What if your local authority is in the habit of making a number of bad planning decisions. Without a submission on file you cannot appeal. The €20s stack up.

murphaph

MadsL wrote: »

What if your local authority is in the habit of making a number of bad planning decisions. Without a submission on file you cannot appeal. The €20s stack up.

I suppose one guy's "bad planning decision" is another guy's good one-it'll be subjective depedning on your position (and I favour quite tight planning controls, despite being refused what I thought was a resonable proposal). I support the right of the likes of An Taisce to make appeals to ABP free of cost and without having made a submission originally (they currently have that right) but I don't support opening the system up to allow free of charge spurious objections from anyone.

MadsL

murphaph wrote: »

I suppose one guy's "bad planning decision" is another guy's good one-it'll be subjective depedning on your position (and I favour quite tight planning controls, despite being refused what I thought was a resonable proposal). I support the right of the likes of An Taisce to make appeals to ABP free of cost and without having made a submission originally (they currently have that right) but I don't support opening the system up to allow free of charge spurious objections from anyone.

An Taisce have to pay to make appeals. They are usually exempt from fees for observations.

As to spurious objections, if they are clearly spurious they can be ignored. There is no obligation on the LA to treat objections as genuine if they are clearly without basis in fact. Objections need to reference the Development Plan and other Guidelines.