Fast track planning?
- This topic has 28 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Does this not sound a bit iffy to anyone else? A cable car for Dublin, for example is hardly something that needs fast tracking.
Fifty projects submitted under fast-track planning process
02/08/2007 – 08:00:24Developers are reportedly seeking permission for more than 50 major infrastructural projects under a new fast-track process designed to bypass the normal planning system.
The system was established by the last Government to allow important schemes to bypass county council planners and go directly to An Bord Pleanála for approval or rejection.
Reports this morning say state agencies and prominent private developers have already put forward plans for 53 projects, including the controversial Corrib gas pipeline and new LUAS, metro and rail lines.
One company has also reportedly put forward plants for a cable-car service in Dublin city.
In order to qualify for the fast-track planning scheme, the project must be of strategic, economic or social importance.
@vkid wrote:
One company has also reportedly put forward plants for a cable-car service in Dublin city.
I hope its not this yoke again …
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4650&highlight=dublin+cable+car
Afraid so, Peter.
That application is an insult to the citizens and makes a mockery of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act- the developer is just using it to bypass as much public participation as possible because he knows the idea would be laughed out of town if it went through the normal channels..
This is neither strategic nor infrastructural. I can only presume the Board will put it straight into the bin where it belongs.
i’ve no real problem with the idea of fast tracking essential projects but i can’t see why private developers are allowed to use this process. I’m sure they’ll all be at a certain tent in Ballybrit this week making their case!
That Suas thing is a joke.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
I hope its not this yoke again …
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4650&highlight=dublin+cable+car
Indeed Peter, as CTE says “fraid so” – from today’s times:
© 2007 The Irish Times wrote:53 projects apply for fast-track planning approval
Olivia KellyDevelopers, including State agencies and prominent private companies, are seeking planning permission for more than 50 major infrastructural projects under the new fast-track planning process.
The new planning system allows developers to bypass the county council planners and go directly to An Bord Pleanála for permission. However, they are likely to have to pay a five-to-six-figure application fee for the faster service.
An Bord Pleanála is conducting initial consultations for 53 developments of national or regional importance including the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route, a cable car for Dublin city called the “Suas” and new Luas, metro and rail lines.
The projects are the first to be developed under the Planning and Development Strategic Infrastructure Act introduced by the previous minister for the environment Dick Roche, which came into force on January 31st. An Bord Pleanála has so far held consultation meetings in relation to about 30 of the 53 schemes and expects to be receiving formal planning applications from next month.
Planning applications made under the new system could be determined in as little as six months.
The planning board is currently agreeing fees for the new system with the Department of the Environment and is seeking to impose an application fee of between five and six figures. The fee for appealing against the projects has yet to be determined, but a final decision on all fees is due in the coming weeks.
Twenty-eight of the schemes are being developed by private companies including oil company Shell, wind energy firms Hibernian Wind Power and Atlanticwest Energy and the newly formed Liffey Cable Car Company. The remaining 25 schemes so far submitted to the planning board are being developed by State agencies including Bord Gáis, Bord na Móna, the Railway Procurement Agency, the Dublin Airport Authority, the ESB and several local authorities.
However, An Bord Pleanála will not permit all the schemes to be developed under the fast-track route. It has turned down some schemes at the consultation stage and is likely to reject more before they submit planning applications.
An application from Fingal County Council for a new electricity transformer at a local power station was rejected as not qualifying as a Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) as was a similar electricity-related application from Monaghan County Council.
To qualify for fast-tracking the project must be a major development of transport, energy or environmental infrastructure]
I suspect that if SID is going to be used by developers of projects that are large but not neccessarily crucial, it is likely to become discredited…Roll on Jim Mansfield & other airports masquerading as garden sheds :p
that feckin cable car is a sick joke, I hope it’s chucked striaght into the bin by the Bord.It;s frivolous nonsense like this that ties up the Bord’s resources when major important applications such as T2 and what could be a landmark ruling on Greystones Harbour, are delayed and delayed. Surely it should be obvious what constitutes “strategic” – ie does it have regional, national or major policy implications. If not, off you toddle to the county council.
as an aside, can we call the interconnector SÃos?
Would the development of new large offices in Ballsbridge come under ‘economic importance’?
not in my opinion. Certainly not.
@alonso wrote:
that feckin cable car is a sick joke, I hope it’s chucked striaght into the bin by the Bord…
as an aside, can we call the interconnector SÃos?Very good :D… But if so, what about calling the suas “the Scar by Temple Bar”? :p
This case is registered on the new SID hot lists of An Bord Pleanala
New Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) Cases Week ended: 13th July 2007
Meath County Council
Case reference: 17 EN3001
Case Type: Changes-Local Authority road development
Description: Ministerial Directions on National Monument at Lismullen, County Meath – M3 Clonee to North of Kells Motorway Scheme.
Category: Local Authority Project
Date lodged: 09-07-2007
Applicant: National Roads Authority (Road Authority)
EIS required: No
Status: Case is due to be decided by 12-11-2007From An Bord Pleanala’s website http://www.pleanala.ie/lists/2007/sid/new_sid20070713.htm
@hutton wrote:
“the Scar by Temple Bar”
The Pie in the Sky? :rolleyes:
(If I’m repeating an old gag, I apologise. I seem to remember cracking it before, but I can’t find it.)
@ctesiphon wrote:
Afraid so, Peter.
That application is an insult to the citizens and makes a mockery of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act- the developer is just using it to bypass as much public participation as possible because he knows the idea would be laughed out of town if it went through the normal channels..
This is neither strategic nor infrastructural. I can only presume the Board will put it straight into the bin where it belongs.
I simply cannot believe that this is being viewed as being of strategic importance. I think it is an insult on the citizens of Dublin.
i don’t like suas either.
Its strange indeed. Stranger still because the Board seemed to have weeded out many proposed developments which were not felt to be “strategic”.
I think this cable car idea is a bad one.
An Bord Pleanala Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) Cases Week ended: 8th June 2007
Local Authority: Dublin City Council
Case reference: 29NPC0014
Case Type: Private Development S.37B consultations (Pre-App Consultation)
Description: Proposed Suas Cable Car Transport System to run from Heuston Gate area to Dublin Docklands providing a tourist facility along the River Liffey, Dublin City, Co. Dublin.
Category: Strategic Infrastructure Dev
Date lodged: 08-06-2007Applicant
Type: Prosp. Applicant
Name: The Liffey Cable Car Company Ltd.EIS required: No
Status: Case is due to be decided by 26-10-2007
Daring plan inspired by London Eye
The proposal for cable cars along the Liffey is a sensational example of lateral thinking,
writes Frank McDonald Feb 06For decades, Dublin has been divided by the River Liffey, with the northside and the southside glowering at each other over its murky depths. But now there is a daring plan to celebrate the river, bringing the two sides together in a quite remarkable way.
The proposal to run cable cars over the river between Heuston Station and North Wall Quay, just west of Spencer Dock, is designed as a tourist attraction rather than a transport service.
But like all bright ideas, it is a sensational example of lateral thinking. Developer Barry Boland, of Beaux Walk Properties Ltd, has been working on it for a year and earlier this week presented it to senior Dublin City Council officials, including city manager John Fitzgerald. Their response, not surprisingly, was enthusiastic.
It was inspired by the success of the London Eye, which generated some £60 million (€88.28 million) in revenue last year, according to Mr Boland. His cable car project would also be run as a commercial enterprise, but its thrill-seekers would be “going somewhere”.
The plan has its challenging aspects – not least the installation of four giant “towers” along the river to support the cable lines. But as conceived by architects McGarry Nà Éanaigh and engineers Roughan O’Donovan, these are light and elegant structures.
Both firms have good track records. McGarry Nà Éanaigh designed the lighting masts in Smithfield, as well as the highly successful Liffey Boardwalk, while Roughan O’Donovan designed the Luas bridge in Dundrum and the Boyne bridge outside Drogheda.
One of the principal objectives in the project, fully costed at €52 million by quantity surveyors Bruce Shaw, was to minimise the visual impact of the support structures. This has been done by limiting them to four, instead of cluttering up the riverscape.
Two of the steel towers – at the end of Marlborough Street and in front of the Civic Offices at Wood Quay – would be 85m high, while the other two – west of Watling Street bridge and Custom House Quay – would rise to a height of 55m.
With some 2,000 juggernaut trucks expected to vanish from the quays after the port tunnel opens later this year, Dublin City Council is about to start work on a new framework plan for the river – and the cable car proposal could become its most exciting element.
Chief planner Dick Gleeson and city architect Jim Barrett are certainly enthusiastic about the plan, which they see as a dynamic way of stitching the city together along the spine of its main river – though, obviously, it still has to go through the planning process.
Mr Boland cites figures showing that Dublin had 5.8 million visitors last year, with an average stay of 4½ days. But he says all of the city’s attractions are static, including the Guinness Storehouse, through which 740,000 trooped up to its Gravity Bar.
One of the terminals would be located within the Guinness Brewery on Victoria Quay, a short walk from Heuston Station; the other just west of the planned Calatrava bridge, some 50m from the site of the national conference centre at Spencer Dock.
Two new pedestrian bridges are being “thrown in free gratis”, as Mr Boland says. One would be located on the axis of Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street, providing an obviously needed link, while the other would span between Ormond Quay and Wood Quay.
Swiss manufacturer Doppelmayr Garaventa, which makes most of the world’s cable cars, are so enthusiastic about the project that they are going to invest in it. Mr Boland is banking on the likelihood that Dubliners and visitors to the city will be equally electrified.
(c) The Irish Times
The Wire by the Spire?
The Dangle by the Channel?
The Swing on a String (in Dublin)?An Bord Pleanala have not yet publicised fees for public submissions yet they have entertained and issued decisions relating to EIS. This is contempt for the public participation/consultation process.
Extract from 53 projects apply for fast-track planning approval by Olivia Kelly 2 Aug 07
“The planning board is currently agreeing fees for the new system with the Department of the Environment and is seeking to impose an application fee of between five and six figures. The fee for appealing against the projects has yet to be determined, but a final decision on all fees is due in the coming weeks. “ 2007 The Irish TimesAn Bord Pleanala [Extract]
A Guide to Public Participation in Strategic Infrastructure Development
1. Is there a fee for making a submission to the Board?
The question of fees has yet to be determined. The current position should be checked with the Board before making a submission.N.B. This draft guide is intended as an aid to the public participative process relating to applications to the Board for strategic infrastructure development. It will be updated particularly when the question of fees for making submissions or observations and requesting oral hearings has been determined.
Some Decisions Issued on SIDs by ABP
Sligo Borough Council
(#HD0001)
Case Type: LA road development EIS Direction
Description: Eastern Garvoge River Bridge and Approach Roads, Co. Sligo.
Decision: EIS required
Date lodged: 27-02-2007 Date signed: 28-06-2007Ballina Town Council
(#HD0002)
Case Type: LA road development EIS Direction
Description: Pedestrian Bridge over the River Moy, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
Decision: EIS not required
Date lodged: 07-03-2007 Date signed: 12-07-2007(#JD0002)
Case Type: LA Non-Road development – EIS Direction
Description: Construction of a new theatre, a riverside walk, a new Amenity Area, refurbishment of the existing Arts Centre, car park at Barrett Street, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
Decision: EIS not required
Date lodged: 08-03-2007 Date signed: 12-07-2007there have been NO decisions made by the bord on SID’s….. all that have been decided is that the applications come under the remit of SIDs…. there is no public involvement in this….
the public are allowed make submission during the actual deliberation stage….and as far as i know, at the moment there is NO fee to make a submission… and this will remain until fees are published….
your information needs to be clarified sloan….
Thank you for your point relating to the fees and the fact it may be possibe to make submissions for free until the fee has been decided.
However, you are not correct to say An Bord Pleanala have made NO decisions relating to SIDs – there is a list of decisions on their website http://www.pleanala.ie/lists/2007/sid/index.htm
Even the categorisation of a development being an SID is a decision that somebody has made. This decision has been made without reference to the public.
As i stated above, there is no publc involvement in the decision whether an apoplication comes under the remit of SID or not…
there have been NO decisions on applications that have resulted in granting or refusal of planning permission, does that clear it up for you….this is information i have directly from the Bord…
The public involvement is only required during the deliberation of the application…. what can the public provide in deciding whether an application conforms to stragetic infrastructural development or not???
personally i have seen no “contempt for the public participation / consultation process.” ……
Could someone explain the procedure?
The developer (public or private) will apply to ABP that their proposal falls under SID? Does this cost the developer money?
ABP decides whether this is the case. If not, presumably, the developer will fall back on the normal planning process.
If the project is deemed to qualify, it is only at this stage the public will then be invited to make submissions.
While an objection during normal planning has to be dealt with in a particular statutary way (and entitles the objector to an interest in the entire process), what is the status of these submissions? Could ABP simply bin all the submissions or do they have to be acknowledged in some way in the process? Normally ABP submissions have been filtered by the planning process, now they may end up being swamped which will surely dilute their influence on the board, no?
If the board fails to address a reasonably submission, is it the case that the high court is the only resort available?
I get the feeling that this process is a result of someone thinking “why does everything take so long in this country” and deciding the planning process was to blame even though if you actually rationally analysed how much time is spent putting projects through the current process, I doubt it can fairly be blamed. As a random example, the Lansdown Rd. redevelopment popped into my head. Yes the process took 8 months or so but this didn’t really “hold up” anything. The stadium was still being used while the planning was being processed and I’m sure the architects and engineers had plenty to keep them busy during this time. The build itself is going to take at least a couple of years so I don’t see what major time savings could have been achieved by bypassing the process in this case. In fact, I suspect it would have gone to high-court for sure which could have put the redevelopment back years.
to date there has been 7 decision made by teh bord as to the complicance with requirements to be considered SIDS….
2 were withdrawn, 2 were not required to prepare EIS, 2 were decided not to be SIDs and 1 was required to prepare an EIS… this case was actually brought by the LA themselves seeking direction……
jimg… allt he info you need is here…
An Bord Pleanala SID categorisation decisions are outside the public consultation process.
Any body (public or private) can apply to An Bord Pleanala to have their development categorised as SID which means that if An Bord Pleanala decide to categorise their development as SID then it becomes an SID. Please note that this is a decision by the Bord in respect of an application made to it.
This means that the criteria applied by the Bord for the purpose of categorising such application is not open for public comment/consultation. Consequently, the Act purports to give the Bord the power to diminish the public’s input compared with the participation level the public (i.e. us citizens) would have been entitled to, had the Bord not made such a decision behind closed doors. I say this amounts to an abuse of the public consultation process.
The Bord are lifting an application out of the normal planning process and landing it in a privileged position that it would not otherwise enjoy had the Bord not decided.
It must also be remembered that the Bord may conduct private consultations with the applicant of such a proposal, also behind closed doors, prior to deciding such categorisation. The public are also excluded from any comment on this “process”.
The legal flaw in the above process is that the Bord is being put in the position of purporting to decide what is essentially a question of law, and as everybody should know, questions of law are exclusively a matter for the courts to decide. The Strategic Infrastructure Act purports to dress the categorisation of development proposals by the Bord as “administrative procedure” – but the question as to what constitutes strategic infrastructure development is a legal interpretation with reference to the provisions of the Act. Under our constitution only the courts have the power to decide such matters.
The question of whether an EIA is or is not required is also a matter of law. Unfortunately, for us citizens the only way to have these matters legally adjudicated is by challenging the administrative body’s idea of the required legal interpretation of either SID or EIA in the courts. And that is another story.
There are 8 decisions
Case reference: 06FPC0030
Case Type: Private Development S.37B consultations
Description: South Apron Ramp Accomodation Village.
Category: Strategic Infrastructure Dev
Date lodged: 02-07-2007
EIS required: No
Applicant: Dublin Airport Authority Prospective Applicant
Decision: Case has been decided, details will not be available before 06-Aug-2007
Date Signed: 2007-08-01Fingal County Council (#VC0012)
Case Type: Electrity Development Consultation
Description: Installation of new 250 MVA 220/110 kV transformer in Finglas Station and extend both 220kV busbars in Finglas Station, Co. Dublin.
Decision: Is not Strat. Infrast. Dev.
Date lodged: 28-03-2007 Date signed: 11-06-2007Monaghan County Council (#VC0004)
Case Type: Electrity Development Consultation
Description: Installation of two 110kV capacitor banks in Lisdrum 110 kV station outside Monaghan town, Co. Monaghan.
Decision: Is not Strat. Infrast. Dev.
Date lodged: 16-02-2007 Date signed: 11-06-2007Galway County Council (#JA0004)
Case Type: LA Non-Road development – Application
Description: Costelloe Regional Water Supply Scheme, County Galway.
Decision: Application withdrawn
Date lodged: 13-06-2007 Date signed: 29-06-2007Sligo Borough Council (#HD0001)
Case Type: LA road development EIS Direction
Description: Eastern Garvoge River Bridge and Approach Roads, Co. Sligo.
Decision: EIS required
Date lodged: 27-02-2007 Date signed: 28-06-2007Kildare County Council, (#PC0015)
Case Type: Private Development S.37B consultations
Description: Bio Ethanol facility at Newbridge, Co. Kildare.
Decision: Withdrawn
Date lodged: 26-06-2007 Date signed: 03-07-2007Ballina Town Council (#HD0002)
Case Type: LA road development EIS Direction
Description: Pedestrian Bridge over the River Moy, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
Decision: EIS not required
Date lodged: 07-03-2007 Date signed: 12-07-2007(#JD0002)
Case Type: LA Non-Road development – EIS Direction
Description: Construction of a new theatre, a riverside walk, a new Amenity Area, refurbishment of the existing Arts Centre, car park at Barrett Street, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
Decision: EIS not required
Date lodged: 08-03-2007 Date signed: 12-07-2007give me 1 example of how the public can positively contribute to the decision to whether an application fits the criteria of SID or not????
the public WILL have input whether the application is deemed to be SID or not, so what is your point??? where is the abuse??? the system is set up to by pass the (often) worthless time consuming planning stage that may include 8 week FI request, 4 week clarification, 4 week re advertising, 4 week decision.. and then the inevitable appeal…
the bord have strict guidelines in deliberating whether the applications are worthy or SID status, a system of public involvement in 2 courses of actions in 1 planning application would, undoubtly, be totally contrary to the whole reason this legal framework has been concieved…….
@ctesiphon wrote:
The Pie in the Sky? :rolleyes:
(If I’m repeating an old gag, I apologise. I seem to remember cracking it before, but I can’t find it.)
Prominent Overhead eXtreme-transit Yokiemebob:rolleyes:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
