Unfair tactics
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Costs over failed incinerator project not paid
Tuesday, 3 August 2010 19:15
The US company behind an unsuccessful incineration project in Co Dublin has failed to pay over €140,000 in costs arising from the planning hearing.An Bord Pleanála had ordered the company Energy Answers to pay the costs following a lengthy oral hearing into the proposed Rathcoole incinerator.
The board turned down the project in February last year, ruling it posed an unacceptable risk of pollution because of the emission height, and also cited traffic concerns.
AdvertisementIt was hailed as a victory for people power as residents in Rathcoole had organised and raised funds to fight the incinerator beside the N7.
Energy Answers was ordered to pay An Bord Pleanála nearly €77,880, South Dublin County Council €15,000, Local residents €12,500, and developers and other property owners €37,000.
But none of these were paid, and local residents in particular are angry.
An Bord Pleanála said it is still pursuing its costs.
Local Green Party TD Paul Gogarty said Environment Minister John Gormley is considering laws that would ban companies which breach planning condition from future development.
Mr Gogarty also said An Bord Pleanála could have insisted on a larger up front payment from the US company.
Energy Answers declined to comment.
If I were a local resident I would serve a winding up petition as the company is clearly abusing the process
The local residents haven’t paid up either, and they’re complaining?
BTW, can anyone cite the particular act or regulation that allows the Bórd to levey costs for hearings?
Always useful to have a ready reference on this stuff.
Used be, you pay your Appeal fee and whatever if cost up front to seek an Oral Hearing and that’s it.
ONQ.
Sounds like An Bord Pleanala, in demanding payments of these costs, are behaving as if they believe they are part of the Jucidicial system – which of course they have always aspired to. Send it to the Taxing Master!
is ABP actually answerable to anyone? i remember Donegal Co Co looking for meetings with them over various projects in donegal town (over about 10years, probably more) which were granted by the council and then rejected by ABP. ABP didnt even respond to these requests. The latest was for a change of use to an aldi, about 500meters from the town centre which abp thought was too far out.
actually looking back over that it was a bad example because for a rare change that was Donegal coco that refused. force of habit, it usually was abp (0721007 Donegal CoCo number, (6unit development) aldi tried to change one from retail warehouse to discount foodstore (0920225) so you were spot on with the bulky goods.
walking distance to the centre given was the only reason given
to be honest though it was ABP’s refusal to even explain to Donegalcoco why they were reversing more or less all of their major approvals and ignoring the council’s town development plan that i was trying to bring up.In terms of retail there were some good schemes done in Donegal including Letterkenny SC; which is I understand fully let. Aldi are a tough bunch to please at the best of times in that they have pretty rigid criteria i.e. it should be freehold but must have certain levels of parking; narrow floor area ranges per catchment reference etc. I can understand why ABP may not wish to allow creation of a precedent in them going into a retail park; although you feel that a similar application today might not be brought to their attention in the first instance.
Out of interest was the appeal brought by another retailer and if so was it prepared by consultants and were national retail strategies heavily referenced in that appeal?
this is Donegal Town, where nothing was built, letterkenny has probably got more in it that Derry at this stage. Appeals were submitted by a solicitor and consultant, im pretty sure though that both were on behalf of people linked in some way to a rival developer in the town who objected to anything and probably still will.
the change of use application was made by aldi and not the developer so they must have been happy with the scheme
i think they referred mainly to traffic in the objections but the NRA didnt object which has the n56 bordering the site, although there was no access from it
ps as i think i mentioned in the last post this wasnt actually abp, it was just force of habit thinking it was them as almost every development was shot down at their door
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
