McDonalds; another planning application

LEIN

Harry Bosch wrote: »

Could you by any chance explain why you say that?

I know moderators are allowed express opinions, but perhaps they should explain them, too, especially as they hold such power as moderators.

I'm not a Moderator of this section.

This whole situation is cringe worthy and an embarrassment for Greystones in general.

The town where parents can't say no.

This campaign is boiling down to snobbery in my opinion.

Harry Bosch

Have to disagree with you on all of that, LEIN.

Far more 'embarrassing' to Greystones to have a giant McDonald's drive-through dominating the gateway to the town.

But embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder. Obesity is not. Yesterday was World Obesity Day, and just the previous day the World Health Organisation issued a very scary report on the matter.

Basically, the message is that growing obesity could completely overwhelm all existing health services and resources within two generations if action is not taken.

And the WHO report firmly placed the responsibility on the international food industry, dominated by five giant multinationals, due to their policy and practice of 'denaturing' food by filling their products with additives, chemicals and so forth, and by boosting the sugar, fat and salt content to make them 'addictive'.

It's these products which are causing the epidemic, and as they dominate the shopping aisles in supermarkets and the menus in fast food joints, it's a bit hard for consumers to escape them.

Which also means it's more than a bit hard for parents to have the sole responsibility for the quality of their children's diet. To get natural, healthy grub not loaded with additives, sugar, salt and fat is incredibly more difficult and time consuming than loading a trolley in a Tesco or Lidl.

But so what.

I guess we shouldn't take any action to stem climate change either.

As Paddy always says, 'It'll be all right on the night".

recedite

Harry Bosch wrote: »

Which also means it's more than a bit hard for parents to have the sole responsibility for the quality of their children's diet. To get natural, healthy grub not loaded with additives, sugar, salt and fat is incredibly more difficult and time consuming than loading a trolley in a Tesco or Lidl.

Of course parents have sole responsibility for their kid's diet.
And as already pointed out, the checkouts at all supermarkets are lined with sweets and sugary snacks.

Harry Bosch wrote: »

I'm also told that if Lidl don't agree, a boycott of Lidl will be organised, with a big media circus to go with it.

I don't like blackmail or boycotts against legitimate businesses. If this happens, I'll have to shop exclusively at Lidl for the duration.

DubOnHoliday

A boycott of lidl where lots of local people work. Get ready to fail.

LEIN

I will go out of my way to shop at Lidl if it's boycotted.

2011

In my case it has nothing to do with self control or saying no to my child (a student in Templecarrig).
I simply showed her "Supersize me" (on Netflix), a book called "Fast-food Nation" and a few videos on Youtube.
She refuses to go to McDonalds now

The fact that a McDonalds is being permitted so close to the schools really annoys me TBH.
I feel that they are deliberately targeting the kids. I completely accept the point that parents are responsible for their children's diet (that will work for my child), but the reality is that it will not work for many others.
I also agree that supermarkets sell a lot of junk too, but lets be honest they do not have the same lure as McDonalds.

However as it is a free country and in the interest of balance I think that McDonalds should be permitted in sensible locations, with good road access where the impact is reduced.
This works well in retail parks. In Greystones case perhaps near Procap would be a better location.
Not quite the eyesore that it will be in Blacklion, the litter would be easier to control, it is not right on top of schools and it is still a short walk from the centre of the town.

Call me a snob, but I prefer Greystones without it!
If you need a big mac that badly Bray is only 10 minutes away.

Taltos

2011 wrote: »

Call me a snob, but I prefer Greystones without it!
If you need a big mac that badly Bray is only 10 minutes away.

I prefer a short drive to Coyne's cross....

It's where I go when I want a treat but not close enough that I am tempted to pop in all the time. For that I have Kilcoole and the chips in Henry and Rose - they remind me of the chips I used to get from the Vevay in the 80s.

Spot on with your post though. Claim what they like, situating a take-away with a token health club beside 3 schools where there is already a traffic problem is nothing but blatant lunch money grabbery.

My bigger regret is I used to love the drive down windgates looking out at the old harbour - now it's looking across to the golf club. Coming up past the graveyard I really didn't want my first sight of home to be golden arches.

If I'm a snob too, so be it.

Cerco

Harry Bosch wrote: »

Have to disagree with you on all of that, LEIN.

Far more 'embarrassing' to Greystones to have a giant McDonald's drive-through dominating the gateway to the town.

But embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder. Obesity is not. Yesterday was World Obesity Day, and just the previous day the World Health Organisation issued a very scary report on the matter.

Basically, the message is that growing obesity could completely overwhelm all existing health services and resources within two generations if action is not taken.

And the WHO report firmly placed the responsibility on the international food industry, dominated by five giant multinationals, due to their policy and practice of 'denaturing' food by filling their products with additives, chemicals and so forth, and by boosting the sugar, fat and salt content to make them 'addictive'.

It's these products which are causing the epidemic, and as they dominate the shopping aisles in supermarkets and the menus in fast food joints, it's a bit hard for consumers to escape them.

Which also means it's more than a bit hard for parents to have the sole responsibility for the quality of their children's diet. To get natural, healthy grub not loaded with additives, sugar, salt and fat is incredibly more difficult and time consuming than loading a trolley in a Tesco or Lidl.

But so what.

I guess we shouldn't take any action to stem climate change either.

As Paddy always says, 'It'll be all right on the night".

Do you also think we should boycott every pub, supermarket and corner shop that sell cigarettes. More people die in Ireland, from smoking related illnesses than by obesity. It is all a matter of proper parenting and self control.

2011

Cerco wrote: »

More people die from smoking related illnesses than by obesity.

Not for much longer at this rate.

Kind of puts it in perspective doesn't it?

Harry Kane

Wholeheartedly agree that it is indeed a very bad image for Lidl to 'sponsor' Ronald McDonald right beside three schools by giving some of their land to the sinister clown. Such treachery should have consequences such as the promised BOYCOTT unless they reverse this.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Of course parents have sole responsibility for their kid's diet.

I dont believe this should be the case at all. I believe educators and government have a role in this in promoting responsible healthy diets and assisting the general populace in public health issues. Obesity is clearly a public health issue in Ireland for young people.

Call me a statist or snob if you want but I find the argument that schoolchildren are not being targeted laughable to be honest. Its blatant targeting. In the US fast food giants target poorer areas where people work 2 and 3 part time jobs.

I also think the idea that this is about snobbery utter bunkum to be honest. There are clear public health concerns about children being delibetately targeted outside their schoolgates. If this was snobbery it would be "No McDs anywhere in Greystones" but its not. It's no McDs directly outside a school gate.

Harry Bosch

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe this should be the case at all. I believe educators and government have a role in this in promoting responsible healthy diets and assisting the general populace in public health issues. Obesity is clearly a public health issue in Ireland for young people.

Call me a statist or snob if you want but I find the argument that schoolchildren are not being targeted laughable to be honest. Its blatant targeting. In the US fast food giants target poorer areas where people work 2 and 3 part time jobs.

I also think the idea that this is about snobbery utter bunkum to be honest. There are clear public health concerns about children being delibetately targeted outside their schoolgates. If this was snobbery it would be "No McDs anywhere in Greystones" but its not. It's no McDs directly outside a school gate.

This post was referring to a phrase truncated from my post, about parents having sole responsibility for their kids' diet.

Obviously some people strongly believe that parents DO have sole responsibility. Some don't. But as with everything else, we exercise our responsibility not in the abstract but in a social context which is changing, and fast.

What I was pointing out is how much harder it is for responsible parents to feed their children healthy food, and thereby discharge their responsibilities. If five giant food corps dominate everything, and their model is to produce cheap, semi-nutritious products high in sugar, fat and salt, then consumer choice becomes more and more limited.

So you end up with a round of visits to various shops, markets and so on, to find the good quality stuff. But many people, especially if they are poorer, can't do that, and they end up accepting the food giants offerings.

That's the problem. That's why it can't be a matter of SOLE responsibility for parents. There has to be regulation.

Another poster asked rhetorically about tobacco, or drink. But these ARE regulated, and especially WRT to children, because they are dangerous. Parents are not expected to take sole responsibility for keeping their kids from smoking or drinking. Fast food is not regulated, except in terms of immediate dangers to health due to unhygienic preparation, but it should be, because it is equally dangerous.

I don't know if any of you have friends with diabetes, or has any idea what the end stages are like. A friend of mine died from diabetes complications at 45. Just as well. If he had continued on, he would have started to lose organs and, if he survived long enough, limbs through necrosis.

It is a terrible disease and a terrible death. And it is one of the main 'side effects' of obesity. An epidemic of early onset diabetes is no joke.

To me, it's a no brainer to conclude that 'parental responsibility' needs to be reinforced by consistent regulation to prevent the death of countless thousands in their 30s and 40s, the needless shortening of lives, the untold grief of their older parents.

And indeed, some of the parents need protecting, too. Some are irresponsible in every way known to man.

We don't, unless we are extreme 'libertarians', agitate for the utter freedom to consume as much booze or cigarettes or drugs anytime we like, in any circumstances. (Or to allow them to be sold at school gates!) We accept that these need regulation and that there are people who, in fact, need to be protected from themselves.

Why is it so difficult for some to accept that 'food' has changed so much that protection is as much needed in that area as in these?

Harry Bosch

Anyway, apart from all that, thanks to all who answered for the comments on the possible boycott of Lidl.

It is a tactic that objectors should think carefully about, especially the chances of rousing the 'contraires' to shop there deliberately. It could backfire.

But I get the impression they hope that the first step, a petition to Lidl, might work if the boycott threat hung in the air.

Also, that it's not about whether it would be an effective boycott, but would generate such bad publicity for Lidl nationally that its present campaign of 'Irishness' and 'chefiness' would be undermined.

After all, if Lidl is responsible for bringing Ronald to the gates of three schools, how does that square with its campaign to create and build its own image as healthy, pure and high quality?

Just think about it. Posters and banners saying BIG MACS COMING SOON — THANKS TO LIDL! Or RONALD AND LIDL — PARTNERS IN POISONING YOUR KIDS or some such, all over national TV.

Got to be a marketer's nightmare.

2011

Personally I would direct my anger at McDonalds and the panning authorities not Liydl.

recedite

Harry Kane wrote: »

Wholeheartedly agree that it is indeed a very bad image for Lidl to 'sponsor' Ronald McDonald right beside three schools by giving some of their land to the sinister clown. Such treachery should have consequences such as the promised BOYCOTT unless they reverse this.

Lidl would not be sponsoring anyone. All they are doing is selling or leasing the land. Its up to WCC and ABP to decide what gets permission on that site, and what does not.
Your anger is misplaced. If you read this thread from the start you'll see that ABP gave WCC ample opportunity to insert a ban on fast food outlets near schools into the Blacklion Local Area Plan. And they declined to do so.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the councillors.

Harry Bosch wrote: »

..it can't be a matter of SOLE responsibility for parents. There has to be regulation...
Another poster asked rhetorically about tobacco, or drink. But these ARE regulated, and especially WRT to children, because they are dangerous...

..To me, it's a no brainer to conclude that 'parental responsibility' needs to be reinforced by consistent regulation ...

Parents are ultimately responsible for their kids. Schools have a role in reinforcing the parents, and educating kids about healthy choices. Govt. and local govt. have a role in making the regulations.
What you advocate is none of the above; its some kind of community vigilante action against a completely unrelated business entity.

I can imagine a small group of protestors outside Lidl carrying posters saying "Down with this sort of thing". You should root around in the old cinema, the original Father Ted posters might be still there

loyatemu

The snobbery angle is being exaggerated - if they were opening in the Meridian, or at Tesco there would be a lot less opposition and it wouldn't be in the national press.

Even so, I've never been in a nice town or city and thought "this place could do with more McDonalds (or Burger King or KFC)"

Jammyc

Can I first say this post is not attacking any local businesses but is purely for comparison.

How is McDonalds at that location any different than St. David's students going up the town for lunch and availing of the "School Specials" at any of the chippers in the main street?

Plans to boycott Lidl seems like a feeble, pathetic last ditch attempt by a failing campaign. Fully agree with Lein, this reeks of snobbery and will go out of my way to shop at Lidl if it is blackmailed unfairly.

2011

Jammyc wrote: »

How is McDonalds at that location any different than St. David's students going up the town for lunch and availing of the "School Specials" at any of the chippers in the main street?

I don't completely disagree with you, but I will highlight some of the differences that I see:

1) I don't believe that any of the existing fast food outlets in Greystones were strategically placed to target school children.

2) None of the existing fast food outlets can compete on price with McDonalds. Just look at how much "food" can be purchased for so little in McDonalds. I now that people will argue that parents should give their children money to "fund" their junk food habits, but most kids would be able to get their hands on €1. Look at the Euro Saver Menu

3) I do not believe that the existing establishments have the same lure as McDonalds. Children are enticed into McDonalds with toys and a very aggressive well funded marketing campaign.

4) None of the existing fast food outlets in Greystones will have the capacity that the McDonalds outlet will have nor will they be able to dispense "food" at the same rate.

5) The proposed location for McDonalds is at a pick up / drop off point for school children. Although existing chippers may be close to schools students are less likely to hang around them waiting to be collected or waiting for school to start.

I am open to correction but I would not have thought that students from Davids were permitted to leave the school during lunch?

Plans to boycott Lidl seems like a feeble, pathetic last ditch attempt by a failing campaign.

I do not support this either.

Fully agree with Lein, this reeks of snobbery and will go out of my way to shop at Lidl if it is blackmailed unfairly.

As per my earlier post my issue is really to do with the location.
I would not mind it as much if located near Procap or in retail parks in general.

Jammyc

1) I don't believe that any of the existing fast food outlets in Greystones were strategically placed to target school children.

This is a fair point and perhaps I'm naive but I think there are other reasons such as more passing traffic as to why the site was chosen.

2) None of the existing fast food outlets can compete on price with McDonalds. Just look at how much "food" can be purchased for so little in McDonalds. I now that people will argue that parents should give their children money to "fund" their junk food habits, but most kids would be able to get their hands on €1. Look at the Euro Saver Menu

3) I do not believe that the existing establishments have the same lure as McDonalds. Children are enticed into McDonalds with toys and a very aggressive well funded marketing campaign.

4) None of the existing fast food outlets in Greystones will have the capacity that the McDonalds outlet will have nor will they be able to dispense "food" at the same rate.

5) The proposed location for McDonalds is at a pick up / drop off point for school children. Although existing chippers may be close to schools students are less likely to hang around them waiting to be collected or waiting for school to start.

I urge you to take a look at these chippers during lunch time and after school when students are waiting for a bus. Also take a look at one in particular's Facebook page and you'll see it's the self-proclaimed Official Lost and Found for St. David's students.

I am open to correction but I would not have thought that students from Davids were permitted to leave the school during lunch?

To my knowledge, students in the senior cycle are allowed out during lunch.


I just don't see McDonald's coming to the town resulting in a massive increase in overweight and obese children (or adults for that matter!) but that's just my crystal ball vision.

I think ultimately if parents don't want their kids in McDonalds, don't bring them or give them money for same. I also don't recall such an opposition when Little Ceasars Pizza or other fast food outlets opened beside Lidl?

BigGeorge

Turns out Lidl do indeed own the land & looks like the sale is subject to McDonalds getting planning permission. Lidl is a business and pays most attention to their bottom line & will / have sold to the highest bidder, regardless of how cynical the intended use of the site

They also depend on you & I for revenue in the form of our weekly shop, which is my case is about €80 each week with them. However, I equally have a right to decide that they do not deserve that spend given that they support the location of a McDonalds besides 3 schools. My issue is with the location & not the brand.

Lidl will proceed with sale unless they decide that it is not in their best interest to proceed. It is up to you & I to decide them of that. To my mind, by continuing to shop in Lidl, then I am directly supporting the location of a McDonalds beside 3 school. For one am voting with my wallet.

Harry Bosch

2011 wrote: »

Personally I would direct my anger at McDonalds and the panning authorities not Liydl.

Agreed. But I would also direct my anger and frustration at the Fine Gael/Labour government.

Why? Well, not long after the last election the then Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald, issued a major photocall to the media. She duly announced that the new government would introduce 'no-fry' zones around schools, parks and playgrounds to protect children from junk food.

That was early 2011. Now it's late 2015.

The government is on its way out, and still no sign of the no-fry zones.

Then there is Section 29 of the Planning Act 2000.

This empowers the Minister for the Environment, among other things, to issue Directives to "all planning authorities", which includes Bord Pleanala, to observe the National Planning Guidelines (or named elements of them) in making decisions on planning applications.

Has this been done? No.

A promise of legislation or regulation — broken, or not delivered.

A failure to use an existing power to compel planners to include public health as an equal factor in weighing up planning decisions, and especially when schools, parks or playgrounds are concerned.

If either of these had been done, ordinary citizens trying to protect their children would not have to enter into the topsy turvy, Alice in Wonderland world of Irish planning.

A world where Bord Pleanala can take health factors into account when it makes one decision — and then in a similar case blandly state that it is not a "relevant planning matter".

A world where Bord Pleanala can turn down a proposal for a small McDonald's at Blacklion on the grounds that it is intrusive and does not fit in with what already exists on site, and then turn around and allow a McDonald's which is three times bigger but miraculously no longer intrudes or mismatches.

A topsy turvy world where the first proposal would be inappropriate because the site is a 'gateway' site to the town — but the second, far bigger proposal on the exact same site is appropriate even though it is still a gateway to the town.

With this kind of nonsense in the planning system, is it any wonder that frustrated objectors are thinking of having a go at Lidl as the enablers of Ronald's presence at Blacklion?

2011

Jammyc wrote: »

This is a fair point and perhaps I'm naive but I think there are other reasons such as more passing traffic as to why the site was chosen.

Agreed, but my pint still stands i.e. that the McDonalds site is strategically placed to target school children. The existing outlets are not located at pick up / drop off points for school children.

I urge you to take a look at these chippers during lunch time and after school when students are waiting for a bus. Also take a look at one in particular's Facebook page and you'll see it's the self-proclaimed Official Lost and Found for St. David's students.

Fair point, but they have no Euro Saver menu or equivalent.

I just don't see McDonald's coming to the town resulting in a massive increase in overweight and obese children (or adults for that matter!) but that's just my crystal ball vision.

Not a massive increase, but it will have an impact (hopefully limited).

I think ultimately if parents don't want their kids in McDonalds, don't bring them or give them money for same.

Some parents simply do not understand the impact that regularly eating this food can have on children. As for not giving them the money I addressed this in my last post.

I also don't recall such an opposition when Little Ceasars Pizza or other fast food outlets opened beside Lidl?

They are quite different mainly because they do not target children in the same way (free toys, Ronald McDonald type character, marketing) which may explain why they do not lure children in the same sort of numbers. This outlet will have a far higher capacity as fellas a drive through.

Let's step back a bit. Would you really consider this a good addition to the area? Do you not agree that there are far more suitable and acceptable locations?

2011

Harry Bosch wrote: »

But I would also direct my anger and frustration at the Fine Gael/Labour government.

Agreed.
My point was that I would not direct my anger at Lidl.

Harry Bosch

2011 wrote: »

I would not mind it as much if located near Procap or in retail parks in general.

What is Procap?

Taltos

Plastics factory on the left hand side as you drive to Charlesland from Greystones.
Also known as the shiny building from the top of Coolegad woods - but don't start me on that one

Harry Bosch

recedite wrote: »

Your anger is misplaced. If you read this thread from the start you'll see that ABP gave WCC ample opportunity to insert a ban on fast food outlets near schools into the Blacklion Local Area Plan. And they declined to do so.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the councillors.

The fact is, the campaign against McDonald's beside schools includes all our local councillors — and many elsewhere in the county support them.

Greystones Municipal District voted against this McD proposal and submitted its own objection to Wicklow County Council. The planners ignored them.

Greystones Municipal District submitted an appeal to Bord Pleanala, and paid €220 of YOUR money as a fee. Bord Pleanala ignored them.

Greystones Municipal District has unanimously submitted a resolution to amend the Local Area Plan to create a 400-metre 'no fry zone' around schools, parks and playgrounds in respect of new applications. The planning officials object, surprise, surprise.

Amending a LAP is a tricky and lengthy process. Assuming the resolution is discussed and passed at next month's WCC meeting, it would take at least eight months to go through the public consultation process, final decision, and be enacted.

So, as far as our local councillors are concerned, there is no reason for anger with them (unless you are a Ronald fan). They have been onside and responsible on this issue all along.

As have the two north Wicklow TDs. As a person who finds the present government callous, cruel and abhorrent in its devotion to bankers and to austerity, this may stick in my craw somewhat, but I have to say it. Anne Ferris and Simon Harris have been ace on this issue, especially the expert advice from the Bray deputy.

But I still won't be voting for either of them, for other reasons.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Lidl would not be sponsoring anyone. All they are doing is selling or leasing the land. Its up to WCC and ABP to decide what gets permission on that site, and what does not.
Your anger is misplaced. If you read this thread from the start you'll see that ABP gave WCC ample opportunity to insert a ban on fast food outlets near schools into the Blacklion Local Area Plan. And they declined to do so.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the councillors.

When did WCC vote against amending the local area plan?

recedite

Harry Bosch wrote: »

The fact is, the campaign against McDonald's beside schools includes all our local councillors — and many elsewhere in the county support them.

Greystones Municipal District voted against this McD proposal and submitted its own objection to Wicklow County Council. The planners ignored them.

Greystones Municipal District submitted an appeal to Bord Pleanala, and paid €220 of YOUR money as a fee. Bord Pleanala ignored them.

Greystones Municipal District has unanimously submitted a resolution to amend the Local Area Plan to create a 400-metre 'no fry zone' around schools, parks and playgrounds in respect of new applications. The planning officials object, surprise, surprise.

Amending a LAP is a tricky and lengthy process. Assuming the resolution is discussed and passed at next month's WCC meeting, it would take at least eight months to go through the public consultation process, final decision, and be enacted....

So they are telling you one thing, and doing another thing in the council chamber of WCC. Surprise surprise.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

When did WCC vote against amending the local area plan?

They didn't vote on it at all, or even propose a vote AFAIK.
In November 2013 the ABP inspector visited the site and the issue of a fast food ban not being in the LAP was raised in his report. That's nearly 2 years ago. Plenty of time to organise a vote.
The following year Mc Donalds put in another application. I posted this post in this very thread in November 2014, pointing out that the ban still hadn't been inserted into the LAP.
Now it's nearly a year later, and still not a peep.

Harry Bosch

recedite wrote: »

So they are telling you one thing, and doing another thing in the council chamber of WCC. Surprise surprise.
They didn't vote on it at all, or even propose a vote AFAIK.
In November 2013 the ABP inspector visited the site and the issue of a fast food ban not being in the LAP was raised in his report. That's nearly 3 years ago. Plenty of time to organise a vote.
The following year Mc Donalds put in another application. I posted this post boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93161520&postcount=9 in this very thread in November 2014, pointing out that the ban still hadn't been inserted into the LAP.
Now it's nearly a year later, and still not a peep.

Well, it's not that simple.

When the first application was turned down by ABP, everyone felt that was most likely the end of the matter. It seemed inconceivable that McDonalds would resubmit a fresh application for the exact same site. In fact, it never crossed anyone's mind.

It also seemed that the ABP reference to the Area Plan was utterly perverse — effectively saying that if local authority planners ignored the National Guidelines, then so would the Appeals Board.

So, recedite, you may say that all the people who worked on the first campaign had no sense of foresight, or were lazy a$$holes for not immediately seeking a LAP amendment. Please do, if you think that.

However, and again let's give credit where it's due, it was a local councillor, Jennifer Whitmore, who came up with the idea of amending the LAP at the first public meeting to plan the second campaign. That meeting was in November — just around you posted your post, actually, so maybe she read it.

And she has carried that ball forward, to the point where the motion to amend has already been discussed at the Special Policy Committee and now stands ready to go to the Council chamber.

It's not something that the steering committee of the NO campaign want to rush — other councillors in other areas must be lobbied; documentation to rebut the officials' mostly specious arguments prepared; experts engaged — planning experts and lawyers. Our own local councillors thoroughly briefed.

Basically, you want to maximise your chances of winning the vote, so there's no point in going off half-cocked.

Harry Bosch

BTW, the National Guidelines were issued to local authorities only in June 2013.

The ABP meeting which decided the first application was September 2013.

Amending a LAP takes a minimum of eight months even if officials are all in favour and there are no objections.

So Bord Pleanala was absolutely perverse in giving as its reason for ignoring the fast-food-near-schools issue the notion that WCC had not inserted this provision into its LAP.

As a planning authority, the Bord should know that a statutory procedure must be followed, with extensive public consultation, and that it was absolutely impossible for WCC to have changed the LAP even if it wanted to between receiving the Guidelines in June and the Bord's decision in September.

Another example of topsy-turvy thinking from this body.