Positive changes at An Taisce
- This topic has 40 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
RTE presenter named as An Taisce president
From:ireland.com
Monday, 5th July, 2004Originally published by http://www.eircom.net
An Taisce has appointed the popular environmentalist and broadcaster, Ms Eanna Nà Lamhna, as president of the national trust.Ms Nà Lamhna, a presenter on RTÉ Radio 1’s Mooney Goes Wild programme, was unanimously elected at An Taisce’s AGM last Saturday.
The National Trust also returned the current officers of the organisation for another year.
The organisation’s chair, Mr Frank Corcoran, said “Eanna has been a great supporter of our
projects, such as Green Schools, from their inception. Her long experience and appreciation of environmental issues is an invaluable asset, not only to An Taisce, but to the country. ”Frank Corcoran has now filled the position as Chairperson
Peter Hennessy a Farmer from Co Tipperary has been appointed vice-chair. 🙂
Diaspora senses that An Taisce has a leadership that can restore the organisation on its path of growth.
She’s certainly a popular one with the public, no nonsense approach and all that – from that perspective she will be a great boost to the organisation.
Ah yes,…. that’s that mad aul’ wan who talks about the birds and the beez on the radio. Will be good for the protection of the countryside no doubt…..but I dunno about in an urban sense.
I read somewhere that Michael Smith was challenging the accounts of An Taisce and asking that the treasurer’s report be thrown out, or somesuch. Anyone know what happened on that front?
There was a letter in the Irish Times from Michael Smith who was in Bejing, Michael was as I understand it defending himself against some groundless rumours doing the rounds. I think that Michael is about the only one who got more abuse than An Taisce over the past year.
The accounts were passed without incident as was every motion put to the A.G.M. by all accounts it was the quietest in years.
Thankfully the organisation is now able to allow Eanna and Frank make all the noise now, it is a more positive message than before
she was up against Michael Healy Rae on the Last Word the other evening. Her line seems to be “we don’t actually object that much”, rather than outlining the organisation’s problem with one off housing
The point that Eanna makes is simple, if your one off house is refused it is generally because it is in breach of planning and development guidelines.
An Taisce objected to 276 dwellings during 2003 out of 70,000 units completed or a whopping 0.0039% of all dwellings.
The Healy Raes (I have my own Danny poster) are promising people we’ll get you planning permission, when the planners don’t give it in comes the section 140. According to the family when the permission is refused it is all An Taisce’s fault.
An Taisce object to a disproportionate number of one off houses in Kerry because the County has a dispropotionate number of one off houses proposed in conservation areas (SAC’s)
This is the nub of the problem, the OECD average of SAC as a proportion of overall land mass is 14% the average in IUCN ( association of world National Trusts) countries is 16% in Ireland it is 1%
If this is such a beautiful country why is only 1% worthy of full protection? To make things worse Danny and Michael can circumvent this protection through section 140.
What Eanna is basically saying is that An Taisce as a private organisation is longer prepared to do the governments job for free, our policy is still that the broadly accepted principles of spatial planning should be utilised but that the organisation is not prepared to be the media punch bag for political dynasties such as Jackie & co.
I think they object to an An Taisce mentality, basically we do things our own way around here. Farmers used to be very reluctant to sell sites, break up fields as land was so precious now as incomes are falling they see it as a chance to make a few quid and sure isn’t that what most people are doing these days in our wonderful country
Originally posted by anto
now as (Farming) incomes are falling they see it as a chance to make a few quid and sure isn’t that what most people are doing these days in our wonderful countryWhy can’t they be honest about their motives instead of spouting all the ‘My son (who actually has lived in San Francisco for the past decade) can’t build a house for himself on MY LAND?
I agree Anto with what your saying as being absolutely the truth, everyones expectations and needs for money are off the scale in comparison with 10 years ago.
But should farmers have the right to make money in areas of outstanding natural beauty just because the CAP grants have dried up?
I think not
afterall, its only bad luck that they still own the land, the smartest and fittest took boats and left decades ago 😉
However, they still do own the land. Unless we live in a communist system, or a system of serfdom, then land owners own land and should get to build on it – within limits.
I am sure that there are plenty of legitimate cases where people are denied the rights to build for their children on land owned in that family for generations. Elites from Dublin then move in and get the land. Why isn’t Tasice condeming that?
Originally posted by asdasd
However, they still do own the land. Unless we live in a communist system, or a system of serfdom, then land owners own land and should get to build on it – within limits.And let the Jackeen gobshites pay for the extra cost of services to these one off houses through increased taxation. Rural Ireland seems to want the benefits of urban Ireland without the costs.
Originally posted by ewanduffy
And let the Jackeen gobshites pay for the extra cost of services to these one off houses through increased taxation. Rural Ireland seems to want the benefits of urban Ireland without the costs.I would like to know roughly how much more it costs the ESB to supply electricity to a house in a rural setting. My understanding is that if no service passes the site – new poles etc have to be provided at the cost of the owner of the site they are to service. Add to this that water and sewerage are not linked to a public supply and we are only left with roads. Simply driving in rural Ireland should give the “Jackeen Gobshites” peace of mind that their hard earned tax dollars are not being spent on country lanes.
Is this service cost to rural sites a moot argument? If not, please feel free to enlighten me.Bloke
I always get a laugh out of the “Jackeens paying for the country” nonsense.
Jackeens tend to get away with non-payment of local taxes, it seems to me. Not the country folk.
Bin charges are payed down the country , and water charges too. My parents have been paying them all their lives. They also recycle, and pay for that. It is Dubliners that demur, and demand that the (natonal) “gubberment” pay for everything. National “gubernment” does not, however, pick up the bins.
One off houses should pay more for these charges, if necessary; but, if we were to go to a system of local taxation for local infrastructure, Dubliners would be paying more – not less – than down the country. The Luas does not benefit Killarney.
I live in Dublin, by the way, and keen to see it progress. If we are to build a metro, let’s get Dubliners to pay for it. The houses and businesses on the line should pay in property taxes, rates etc.
As for the one off housing, I believe that people should be allowed to build on their land. If An Taisce has a problem with the design, that is fine. I abhor many of the monstrosities down the country recently built, but not the building of them, unless in obvious scenic areas ( like the West Coast). We could protect these areas with seperate laws.
the whole of ireland isn’t equally scenic after all – although the part of it that is among the most scenic in the East Coast is riddled with one off housing ( Howth), and ribbon development ( the road to Howth), albeit that ribbon development has now joined up the dots.
Thats ok with An Taisce because there is no rich mine of culchie bashing in it.
It is a sad fact of life that it is cheaper to service urban areas than rural. The more houses in a given area, the lower the cost per unit. Simple mathematics. If you have a high voltage power line (which you generally do running across the country both urban and rural areas) and you are dividing the cost between 100 houses as against 1000 houses, it follows that the cost per unit will be higher in the case of 100 houses. I agree its not proportional, in other words, the cost of connecting each of the 1000 urban houses is not 10% of the rural ones, it will be more than 10%, but it is still remarkably lower.
The same underlying principle is why it is generally easier to get planning permission for infill developments than those at the edge of towns. The main services are already there and only the link to this main service is required.
For years, Dublin didn’t have to pay service charges because there were sufficent business to pick up the slack through rates (again the advantages of urban living).
I also pay my bin taxes without protest and believe that those who don’t should be subject to confiscation of wages orders.
With regard to cost of infrastructure – the cost of getting hooked up to electricty is the same whether you live in urban or rural for a single house. We live in a regulated market, and everyone has to be treated equal according to the regulator. It costs ALOT MORE to construct the services to a rural house. So effectively all of the country’s electricity customers (i.e. everyone) is subsidising these one off houses.
Where the houses are built is another matter – but why should the rest of us make the ride easy for them? We’re such a friendly country we want to live as far from each other as possible. Fine – do so, but you have to pick up your own tab.I agree totally with D_D_Dallas and Ewan, it is primarily about spatial planning and building an environment where local government can operate efficiently. The cost of ESB connections are just a symptom of a much wider cost base issue.
I like to use the image of the courier company, to move a letter from Merrion Square to Mount st costs about 4 euro to move an identical letter to Naas costs 40 euro. An Post is leaking money like a sieve while the workforce has never worked harder or smarter.
An Taisce does not have a problem with people building homes, they merely have a problem with uneconomic settlement patterns which lead to
Worse local services
Higher commercial rates in most counties outside Dublin
Worse roads due to the funds being spread thiner
A higher central government subvention to local authorities.
Less efficient Semi-states such as the ESB and An Post
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
