M28 - Cork to Ringaskiddy [advance works pending; 2024 start]

Cork Trucker

Hibernicis wrote: »

Their finances are a mystery, and frankly a cause of concern given the impact they are having on the common good. They have never published any accounts and are neither answerable nor accountable to anybody other than themselves. The fundraising events that took place could not have raised anything like the money necessary. I’ve wondered from the get-go what vested interests are bankrolling them. If only we had a decent investigative press.

I’m aware that 2 of them are self employed, one is an architect, but surely that isn’t bringing in enough to bank roll it all. What happens from here now? Can the court refuse leave?

L1011

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Can the court refuse leave?

Yes. You can only appeal on the basis of legal error at this stage and many appeals are denied.

Cork Trucker

L1011 wrote: »

Yes. You can only appeal on the basis of legal error at this stage and many appeals are denied.

Great to hear! I take it this aspect is quick enough due to the deadline to appeal?

kub

Is this a request for an appeal rather than an actual appeal beginning?

If so, if they are granted an appeal, no doubt they will be back with the begging bowl out.

danny004

kub wrote: »

Is this a request for an appeal rather than an actual appeal beginning?

If so, if they are granted an appeal, no doubt they will be back with the begging bowl out.

Well there wasn't a begging bowl first time round ,yeah there was one social event that seems to be more a token of raising funds the first time round. I think its safe to assume they have big backers which there is nothing wrong with that in itself ie a groups gotta do what they gotta do but like it or not and it continually happens in this thread in no way should their efforts be underestimated ,even if they ran out of steam today they have gone an awfully long way and it doesn't appear they are out of steam yet. Number of supporters where they are getting funds from etc is neither here nor there.

hans aus dtschl

danny004 wrote: »

safe to assume they have big backers which there is nothing wrong with that

Agreed about nothing wrong with that, but I don't understand in whose else's interests could this possibly be?

danny004

id say its themselves its a fairly affluent area of the city and probably homes some wealthy people who could string the cost together without going public

Hibernicis

danny004 wrote: »

I think its safe to assume they have big backers which there is nothing wrong with that

I disagree strongly. I think we are entitled to know who is backing this. It is having a substantial impact on a lot of people's lives and so is a matter of public interest. Those who are impacted should know who they are up against. It was certainly never the intention of the planning/judicial system that key players could hide behind a public front. That would appear to be exactly what is happening in this case.

I agree with you that the fundraising events were no more than token gestures. The money is coming for somewhere.

Cork Trucker

I don't know how much money self employed people need behind them but i know with near certainty that 3 of them are, maybe this is a partial factor. Not a hope in hell the "10,000" they claim to represent contributed. Every time i look at the video on their Facebook page i can only laugh.

Hibernicis

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I don't know how much money self employed people need behind them but i know with near certainty that 3 of them are, maybe this is a partial factor. Not a hope in hell the "10,000" they claim to represent contributed. Every time i look at the video on their Facebook page i can only laugh.

Of the four I know to be self employed, two might be described as being of very average net worth, one comfortable and one probably has a bit more. None are anywhere near wealthy (as in net worth = millions). There is one family of which three/four members have been involved at different times, and they do have some land, but again it's unlikely that they are bankrolling the operation.

It is frustrating that the backers do not have to be declared. For all the good it will do I will be raising this with the politicos on the doorstep, if any of them turn up.

Cork Trucker

Hibernicis wrote: »

Of the four I know to be self employed, two might be described as being of very average net worth, one comfortable and one probably has a bit more. None are anywhere near wealthy (as in net worth = millions). There is one family of which three/four members have been involved at different times, and they do have some land, but again it's unlikely that they are bankrolling the operation.

It is frustrating that the backers do not have to be declared. For all the good it will do I will be raising this with the politicos on the doorstep, if any of them turn up.

While i would be raising it with all the politicians the one i'd be gunning for is Buttimer.

Hibernicis

Cork group seeks to appeal permission for N28 upgrade

High Court ruled in December that €220m project properly assessed by An Bord Pleanála

Irish Times - 21.01.2020

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cork-group-seeks-to-appeal-permission-for-n28-upgrade-1.4146533


Based on the way this is written it appears this that they will be seeking a Judicial Review of the Judicial Review. :rolleyes:

Hopefully they will be refused Leave to Appeal by the High Court (it was previously erroneously reported that this had already been done) and if and when they petition the SupremeCourt it will also tell them to take a hike. The bar for a direct Supreme Court challenge is high and would rest on a legal issue of significant importance.

danny004

Hibernicis wrote: »

I disagree strongly. I think we are entitled to know who is backing this.

Disagree as strongly as you like fact of the matter is your not entitled to know ,how private citizens choose to spend their money on private services within the confines of the law is purely up to them ,its not a political party its a group of individuals working collectively and therefore are not bound by scrutiny.

as for others knowing one member who has land nonsense the truth is you ,me ,all of us have no knowledge of the financial wealth of who is either financially sympathetic or a member of the wider group -i would have thought it is pretty obvious its probably not the board members and their own wealth funding all of this

Hibernicis

danny004 wrote: »

its probably not the board members and their own wealth funding all of this

That is the key point. After the many experiences we have had with planning "corruption" in this country, much of which involved people with significant resources operating unseen in the background, we are entitled to transparency. I'm not for a moment disputing people's right to engage in the planning process. But we absolutely should know who is involved and where the funding is coming from.

Ludo

Hibernicis wrote: »

That is the key point. After the many experiences we have had with planning "corruption" in this country, much of which involved people with significant resources operating unseen in the background, we are entitled to transparency. I'm not for a moment disputing people's right to engage in the planning process. But we absolutely should know who is involved and where the funding is coming from.

Should that knowledge affect how the appeal is treated and the outcome?

If not, why do we need to know.
If so, that is against the right of anyone to engage in the planning process.

Aontachtoir

Ludo wrote: »

Should that knowledge affect how the appeal is treated and the outcome?

If not, why do we need to know.
If so, that is against the right of anyone to engage in the planning process.

How would requiring objectors against strategic infrastructure projects to declare their sources of income and financial conflicts of interest prevent them engaging in the planning process?

If they are not taking money from shadowy groups, they have no problem and can go ahead. If they are taking money from shadowy groups, then all they have to do is declare where the money is coming from and they can still go ahead. The Irish public deserve to know who is preventing necessary public infrastructure being built.

It will ideally have no impact on the trial itself, but could help prevent frivolous cases being taken in the first place by shining a light on those who have vested interests in opposing infrastructure. The Irish public shouldn't have to lose out for their benefit.

danny004

Aontachtoir wrote: »

How would requiring objectors against strategic infrastructure projects to declare their sources of income and financial conflicts of interest prevent them engaging in the planning process?

If they are not taking money from shadowy groups, they have no problem and can go ahead. If they are taking money from shadowy groups, then all they have to do is declare where the money is coming from and they can still go ahead. The Irish public deserve to know who is preventing necessary public infrastructure being built.

It will ideally have no impact on the trial itself, but could help prevent frivolous cases being taken in the first place by shining a light on those who have vested interests in opposing infrastructure. The Irish public shouldn't have to lose out for their benefit.

Im sure this isnt some star wars emperor or drug barons or property developers funding this more likely just wealthier people who want to protect the status quo around their properties who by the way are also the "the Irish Public" ,its a bunch of objectors playing the system really well and any other speculation about who they are ,how the are funded and their values that people believe they should have towards the common good doesn't really add anything

Aontachtoir

danny004 wrote: »

Im sure this isnt some star wars emperor or drug barons or property developers funding this more likely just wealthier people who want to protect the status quo around their properties who by the way are also the "the Irish Public" ,its a bunch of objectors playing the system really well and any other speculation about who they are ,how the are funded and their values that people believe they should have towards the common good doesn't really add anything

That's fair, maybe I'm being too harsh - there are good-faith objections as well as the bad-faith ones. I am quite frustrated by how easy it is to stall important things like this in this country though, and I am concerned that this project will be on the chopping block after the election. I do think more needs to be done to stop frivolous objections like these, but I am open to different solutions.

marno21

It's the same everywhere. Older, more affluent people pulling up the ladders before them. It can be seen with every proposed housing or major public transport scheme in the country. It's just that the group here are better resourced than some of the other groups.

It's purely a delaying tactic anyway. If this does get overturned TII/Cork County Council can plough the M28 through Fernhill Golf Club instead and there's your M28

Ludo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

How would requiring objectors against strategic infrastructure projects to declare their sources of income and financial conflicts of interest prevent them engaging in the planning process?

We have already had speculation here about them owning land, their net worth etc. Can you imagine what this place would be like if the names were public? Why should anyone have to subject themselves to that to exercise their democratic right?

I don't care who they are as long as they follow the law as it stands. The law itself being right or wrong is another matter of course.

You even said yourself that "IDEALLY have no impact on the trial itself". that ideally recognises that it might impact it which would be wrong.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

That's fair, maybe I'm being too harsh - there are good-faith objections as well as the bad-faith ones. I am quite frustrated by how easy it is to stall important things like this in this country though, and I am concerned that this project will be on the chopping block after the election. I do think more needs to be done to stop frivolous objections like these, but I am open to different solutions.

What is a bad-faith objector? People object to things all the time and they do it for reasons that are important to them and for their own benefit. Just because you don't happen to agree with them does not make them bad-faith or frivolous.

Cork Trucker

marno21 wrote: »

It's the same everywhere. Older, more affluent people pulling up the ladders before them. It can be seen with every proposed housing or major public transport scheme in the country. It's just that the group here are better resourced than some of the other groups.

It's purely a delaying tactic anyway. If this does get overturned TII/Cork County Council can plough the M28 through Fernhill Golf Club instead and there's your M28

Their sole aim is to keep it out of Bloomfield/Maryborough, when the quarry came into it that was just another excuse to “join forces” so to speak, Harrington,O’Dea,Kelleher,Collins couldn’t give a fúck about the quarry. Regardless if the quarry argument wins out in the end can you see the court of appeal or Supreme Court telling ABP it can’t go via the N28?

danny004

I think all of the above posts are right and I believe this process is changing anyway but I do believe your objection should be solely related to within a certain radius of your property interest and any objections to the wider environment including habitual areas should only be allowed by recognised bodies with strict rules of recognition including scrutiny of funding ,affiliation to more global bodies etc.

kub

danny004 wrote: »

Im sure this isnt some star wars emperor or drug barons or property developers funding this more likely just wealthier people who want to protect the status quo around their properties who by the way are also the "the Irish Public" ,its a bunch of objectors playing the system really well and any other speculation about who they are ,how the are funded and their values that people believe they should have towards the common good doesn't really add anything

Well if their status quo is the current situation there at rush hours, then that says a lot about their take on things.

Ludo

From my posts on this topic, I guess people probably assume I am against the road going ahead. I am not...It has to be done and I would not object or sign any petition. However, I do understand the concerns some people have though.

If they succeded in the appeal and it was blocked, I wouldn't lose any sleep for the selfish reasons I outline now:

I do also believe this road will make the traffic situation worse at Bloomfield (particularly in the mornings heading onto the N40).

It will also dramatically increase the traffic according to the report on the road where I live (Coach Hill) and there no plans to widen the pinch point on this road . There is no footpath here also (or plans for one) with kids walking to the primary school further up the road in Foxwood.
Currently 2 cars cannot pass each other (unless they are both very small cars) and there are regular crashes when they try it at speed. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt there and yet they are knowingly increasing traffic on it without addressing the known issues.

marno21

Ludo wrote: »

From my posts on this topic, I guess people probably assume I am against the road going ahead. I am not...It has to be done and I would not object or sign any petition. However, I do understand the concerns some people have though.

If they succeded in the appeal and it was blocked, I wouldn't lose any sleep for the selfish reasons I outline now:

I do also believe this road will make the traffic situation worse at Bloomfield (particularly in the mornings heading onto the N40).

It will also dramatically increase the traffic according to the report on the road where I live (Coach Hill) and there no plans to widen the pinch point on this road . There is no footpath here also (or plans for one) with kids walking to the primary school further up the road in Foxwood.
Currently 2 cars cannot pass each other (unless they are both very small cars) and there are regular crashes when they try it at speed. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt there and yet they are knowingly increasing traffic on it without addressing the known issues.

Just as a matter of interest, what is your reasoning for the increase on traffic on Coach Hill post M28? I have done a decent amount of peak time commuting in the area but I've always kept west of the N28 if avoiding it and I am unfamiliar with the area east of the N28.

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what is your reasoning for the increase on traffic on Coach Hill post M28? I have done a decent amount of peak time commuting in the area but I've always kept west of the N28 if avoiding it and I am unfamiliar with the area east of the N28.

To get to Carrigaline/Ringaskiddy you currently have to go into Douglas to get onto to the old Carrigaline Road or go along the coast through Passage and Monkstown. Now there will be another option to go up Coach Hill towards top of Maryborough Hill and get on around there. Actually, you can get that way to Carrigaline already but by a country road rather than a motorway so not as appealing to do it currently.

That EIS report or whatever it was called pointed out this increase also. I think it may have been the only road in the area to actually see an increase...certainly the largest increase anyway.

I can't imagine it will increase much in fairness as it doesn't seem worth it but any increase on that road shoudlbe avoided until it is widened.

Hibernicis

Ludo wrote: »

It will also dramatically increase the traffic according to the report on the road where I live (Coach Hill) and there no plans to widen the pinch point on this road . There is no footpath here also (or plans for one) with kids walking to the primary school further up the road in Foxwood.
Currently 2 cars cannot pass each other (unless they are both very small cars) and there are regular crashes when they try it at speed. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt there and yet they are knowingly increasing traffic on it without addressing the known issues.

Your absolutely right about the dangers relating to that pinch point, and general risk to pedestrians in particular resulting from the lack of decent footpaths for most of Coach Hill. I’ve asked Council Engineers and Councillors about this on numerous occasions and the answer has always been that they don't have the money to do this and to do Clarkes Hill at the same time, and that Clarkes Hill was being prioritised. For a while in 2018 it looked as though Clarkes Hill would proceed apace, but that went on the back burner around the time that development of SLR12 was judged to be premature and the improved access was no longer needed. There is no doubt that if Clarke’s Hill was to be upgraded it would take some of the pressure off Coach Hill, but your point is valid - Coach Hill will see an increase in traffic heading to the M28 that it is ill equipped to handle. And irrespective of any of the above Coach Hill urgently needs footpaths, either on the hill itself or a joined up pedestrian route through Lower and Upper Kensington.

kub

danny004 wrote: »

you cant accuse them of lack of tenacity but they are appealing.

From the steering group facebook page

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
OF 20TH DECEMBER 2019.

Following an indepth and comprehensive review of the recent high court judgement to refuse relief by way of granting a Judicial review of the M28 APB EIA we have been advised by our legal team to seek a certificate from the high court to appeal its decision of the 20th December 2019. Following careful consideration of the advice given we have decided to give instruction to our legal team to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal and / or to petition the Supreme Court.

Our decision to seek leave to appeal will initially take place this coming Thursday the 23rd January 2020 at the High Court in Dublin.

Gerard Harrington
Chairman
M28 Steering group

As it is 21:26 now on 23rd Janurary, just wondering has anyone heard of anything new on this ?

ianobrien

kub wrote: »

As it is 21:26 now on 23rd Janurary, just wondering has anyone heard of anything new on this ?

Here's hoping that no news is good news, from a commuter that has to tackle the N28 (and have spent regularly 45 minutes to get from Bloomfield to Ringaskiddy)

Cork Trucker

ianobrien wrote: »

Here's hoping that no news is good news, from a commuter that has to tackle the N28 (and have spent regularly 45 minutes to get from Bloomfield to Ringaskiddy)

I used to drive it 4/5 days a weeks a few times a day in an artic until not that long ago, the road would put years on you.