SIB or the Burial of the Statutory Undertaker.

by ouch Sat Jun 17, 2006 17:32

many of your links do not work

can you explain simply what this means?

by Chris Murray - etc Sat Jun 17, 2006 18:02

THE GOVERNMENT ARE FUCKING YOU.

This legislation is a one-stop shop for the erosion of your rights to protect your heritage
that is water, land, Archaeology, forestry.

It mandates the lobbies including the Nuclear lobby to use Ireland as a prostitute.

The government is giving the powerful lobbies a carte-blanche to use our courts and legislation
to push fast-track infrastructure projects on us. These are not required. we all know that it is about
capital, selling to the highest bidder and creating a market that is unaturally inflated.
Subsidiaries of companies presently attacking Iraq are involved in the bidding and drafting process.

SIB does not include POOLBEG PENINSULA incinerator works. One TD is ensuring holding onto his electoral Majority: Stand up Mr MC Dowell.

Apologies that the Links don't work.

{Instead of war, Cultural identity and relationship to place is eroded (along with individual right to seek due process thru the courts) through corrupt legislation}

Can't make it any clearer.

by Agreeing Sat Jun 17, 2006 19:16

It's important for people not to assume that everyone knows what you're talking about when putting up cryptic postings on legislation. Plain English please.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sat Jun 17, 2006 21:45

An Bord Pleanala because it allowed him to junk the National Infrastructure Board , in favour of a sweetheart deal which fast-tracks planning but does not include the Indaver Ireland Project at Poolbeg Peninsula.

This was first reported in the Irish Times by Tim O Brien.

In the speech at the launch of the bill, Mr Roche confirmed that
The Indaver ireland Project would not be included in the new
fast-track planning system for which the courts and the Planning Authority are to be re-structured.

Martin Cullen worked on the NIB plan, (bumped to transport)
Mr Roche drafted the Planning and Development Act (which travelled
through the senate yesterday).

In addition to this the SIB reduces the right of the citizen to question the planning decisions of the authority:
(From Dick Roche's Speech . (16/02/06)

"finally the Board will be permitted to take more flexible decisions to ensure that the project is right for the locality and the country: IT
WILL NOT BE CONFINED TO ACCEPTING OR REJECTING A PROPOSAL. "

The new division of the Planning Authority is envisaged as a one-stop shop for corporate and semi-state bodies to make application
for what they consider to be infrastructural projects of strategic importance.

google : Matheson Ormsby Prentice.

(document file 1619,e.)
Environmental section
Lisa Broderick: Advising bidder in relation to NRA M3 Kells to Clonee
The project finanacing of an off-shore pipe-line project.

"The legal Political and regulatory environment is becoming more complex. Our lawyers have an in-depth understanding of how it works"

by Niall Harnett. Sun Jun 18, 2006 01:36

This looks pretty bad allright, but at least this kind of scenario/political development clarifies and simplifies things for individuals, communities, groups and NGO's who are fighting.

In other words, as Chris says, we are being fucked every which way but loose ... BUT, they can't stop non-violent direct action in the form of physical resistance ... bodies on the ground ... blockade ... people who are prepared to go to jail ... to keep CONTROL.

All the Shell sites in Erris are closed forever, till the clean up. That raw-gas pipeline will never be laid in Rossport.

They are still holding the line in Pallaskenry and it doesn't matter what the fuck kind of judicial review may or may not take place or what legal action Limerick County Council are prepared to take if people are committed to face the consequences - jail - to hold the line and keep CONTROL.

People power beats all.

Dick Roche, you creep, you liar, you empty tomb of rot and stench, how fuckin dare you put people in that position, you criminal, you judas.

Debate us, meet us, challenge us ... eh ...consult us!
No, but you'll be working away to fuck us and jail us

Dick Roche, Martin Cullen and all their kind are just banking on people being asleep and/or ignorant. The Rossport Five have woken a lot up and they are not prepared to lie back down. In terms of support, we've learned a lot too from the ROSSPORT MODEL OF RESISTANCE.

BLOCKADE!

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sun Jun 18, 2006 13:08

At time of writing two cases are proceeding thru the Supreme Court
which are tackling the constitutional issues around the (almost)
outdated legislation.

The Presidential seal / council of State may hold SIB for a time.

One of the cases, re Carrickmines has been adjourned on two if not three occasions. The last adjournment called 24 hours before the launch of this bill (15/02/06).

In terms of precedence. This was set by the Glen O Downs action, wherein the Physical resistance of the campaigners was pilliored by the mainstream media. During the period of that action the use of injunction was refined and 16 campaigners went to prison, many of them women.

Only one remained in prison for the period wherein the injunction became unnecessary.

The Dali Lama sent these women flowers and the left in Ireland did not use the issue to highlight the illegal transfer of land from
the ownership of the state to the ownership of Wicklow County Council.

The facilitation of the corporations by the State is perceptible in the
bastardisation or abuse of language. Interesting places to look
or Indymedia shld look at are:
Applications for EIS.
An Bord Pleanala .
Requests for written response or objection to planning decisions

These appear in the back of the daily newspapers.

The consultative process is generally oxymoronic (forgive , if I use the wrong term) . There is no consultation in matters of planning. it is presented as a fait accompli which we must adhere to.
In the case of roads: There will be no route change after EIS stage.

The State appointed boards of the NRA and an Bord Pleanala
and the court system are facilitators.

Since the abolition of Duchas (the statutory agency in 2003) there has been no independent body to oversee planning in relation to heritage in this country.

+ D.C.C wants the Port Tunnel Named the C.J Haughey Tunnel,
which is fitting as it is indicative of over-costing corruption, it goes up his back passage and has a huge leak.

by Maria Dempsey Sun Jun 18, 2006 13:13

The derogratory meaning of the NIMBY is the person who will always say
"Not in My back Yard"
Stand Up Mc Dowell, the constitutional imperative is yours-
Indaver Ireland Won't be Building an Incinerator in your back Yard
(Until the next election is accomplished).

KMRIA- Kiss My Royal Irish Arse.

by Mick Butler - CFSD Sun Jun 18, 2006 18:21

Dick Roche's bill will turn into a storm that will shake our rights more than the barley, to paraphrase the old song and the current film.

It will be critical that public awareness is raised on this, public meetings with speakers and activists who know what they are talking about are urgently required across the country. FG voted with the Govt on this last week while the media were wallpapering with CJH funeral etc. (nice diversion for Dick, Enda Kenny, Ahern and the rest of them)

This mob are renowned for "guillitioning"bills through before the end of July term, appeals in the courts may hold up sections of the bill but without widespread agitation and exposure it will be an upward, nay straight forward, vertical battle with us at the end and developers at the top. A facade at some sort of level field to use as leverage by people will be gone, people saying "fuck the law" sounds revolutionary maybe, but I would rather mould the law to do the right thing and exposure is going to be crucial. EXPOSURE of the falsehoods and dramatic lies being pedalled to justify this as neccessary and good law is paramount.

One more thing if people in Dublin have posters to advertise meetings in Dublin re this issue, inform Michael Philips Director of Traffic DCC that you will be advertising for your meeting on public property eg lamposts (NOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS) in the city. Supply a contact phone number and the name of your group with your letter and inform Mr Philips in your letter, of the council meeting of May 22, 2006 at which the elected councillors voted to revoke the ban on posters advertising public meetings in the city.

This kind of thing is why they brought in a ban on posters in the first place, aint it all indexed linked ? Absolutley. But the ban was unconstitutional and I have no problem invoking the Constitution if it will protect my rights and those of my fellow men and women.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sun Jun 18, 2006 19:24

Signed was the Housing Bill (2002) Miscellaneous Provisions.
notoriously known as the trespass law.
Wherein Irish citizens, in the main travellers, were expelled from
public lands.
At the time there was a heated debate on human rights abuses
contained within the law. The left did nothing. or maybe they did....

The point is the astigmatism of linear campaigning and community
isolation by the State feeds into the mainstream media agenda of
treating each of these laws, which are an erosion of community rights
as separate issues. Mr Mc Dowell does not want an incinerator in his
back yard , it would wreak havoc with his voting majority.
The mooted idea of the NIB is thrown away in favour of a restructuring of the courts
and An Bord Pleanala to facilitate the election majority of one man.

Each time a community is isolated by planning laws, it is the responsibilty
of other groups to support and communicate with them, therin a movement
is engaged.

+ The Housing Bill (miscellaneous Provisions) 2002, was passed into law after a meeting of the Council of State. The wealth and community of an ethnic group
within Ireland was subjugated beneath provisions that favoured the private sector.
+ we do not have to study every law, but we must become aware of its impact
on people.

by anarchaeologist - GrassrootsDissent Mon Jun 19, 2006 08:00

I've been trying to research this issue all weekend and still don't have a clue who McGowan is or what the specific relevance is to the Bill. What templates were furnished? A bit more clarity here perhaps?

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:45

Apologies;

The NRA launched a policy on how to deal with the legislation currently available
to the corporate (government appointed lobbies) . The document was launched
at a conference in Croke Park on the 30th March 2006.

Each section of the conference was addressed by a speaker. Margaret Mc Gowan
was the speaker dealing with the EIS. She had been involved in the M3 project as a consultant.

I reported on the issue in a story : NRA Conference : Building a Better Road Environment on
March 30th on Indymedia. As I don't have my notes, you can enter Chris Murray into the search
engine on the indy site and read the original story. failing that the NRA website should have
a link , as it was widely publicised at the time.

Planning Assessment and Construction Guidelines : (is the title of the folder produced.
I only retain hard copy.)

The template provided by corporate entities is an attempt to systemise or codify
the factors which work. The conference was worthless, except that it pointed to
the flagrance of this systemic abuse as well as coming with a government endorsement.

The Route of a road will not be changed after the production of an EIS.
This subverts the consultative process to which the public are invited to participate
in. It is called " Partnership, Progress, Prosperity".

(The same template is used with unions . in relation to pay-deals)

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:57

The Bills specific to Planning abuse in the Statutes at the moment are:

The National Monuments Act 1930-2004(as amended)
The Roads Act 1993.
The Planning and Development Bill (Strategic Infrastructure) 2006.

One of them is being challenged through the courts by Dominic Dunne.

In 2003 : Duchas , The Heritage Agency was abolished. It has not been replaced
with a statutory body to implement the legislation in relation to our natural and built
heritage. This would include Parks and Nature reserves.

Ireland has been fined because of failure to implement heritage directives over a period of many years.

The Aarhus Convention has not been transposed into Irish Law. Elements of aarhus
will be transposed into Irish Law along with the SIB. These are in relation to
recognised environmental groups and access to judicial process, (see section 50
of the SIB.)

+ In relation to individual rights to access judicial process, locus Standi has to be proven.
The ability to pay to test a case has to be proven. The injunction (by the corporate entity and the offending county council) usually prevents individuals from protesting). the opposition has not engaged with the people in relation to these human rights erosions.

by Dáil Observer Mon Jun 19, 2006 15:19

Dái Éireann, 15th June 2006

Joe Higgins (Socialist Party): The Bill involves a severe diminution of the input by ordinary people - citizens of this State - to the planning process and a diminution of their ability to influence the planning process in a democratic way. The various subsections of section 37A onwards, dealt with in section 3 of the Bill, change An Bord Pleanála from a court of appeal, as it were, to a court of first instance. By any standards, that is a major change in planning legislation in this State. This point needs to be hammered home and highlighted for individuals who are interested in the future development of their communities, neighbourhoods and counties in terms of infrastructural developments.
It is not that I am particularly enamoured of much of the current planning process. However, when a project, especially an important infrastructural project, goes first to a local authority for thorough scrutiny and decision, that very fact brings the decision closer to the communities in the local authority area. While the planning officials make the decision and, indeed, sometimes fly in the face of genuine community interest, nevertheless, when a local authority is making a decision, the community can exercise significant influence through their councillors and also directly on the local authority. The officials of the local authority making the decision are well acquainted with the views of the community and organisations which might be, for example, objecting to or seeking modifications of a major infrastructural project. It is a huge step to remove the first decision on significant projects from the local authority and give it to An Bord Pleanála, which, for ordinary people, is a faceless institution.
Section 37E(4) and (5) provides for a certain input by the local authority, including the elected members, even to the extent of passing a resolution and having that submitted as part of the planning process to An Bord Pleanála. That in no way makes up for the diminution of the input of the community. A resolution by a local authority or remarks made by the elected members in the local council will just be a slip of paper, a few pages at most, in what will be an otherwise massive submission with an enormous amount of detail. In no way will that input by the local authority be of a similar weight to what it otherwise would be if the local authority were the court of first instance for important issues such as this.
We are dealing with major infrastructure - power stations, oil and gas infrastructure, transport terminals, incinerators and other waste disposal facilities. By any standards, these developments will have a major impact on neighbouring communities as well as communities far afield. It is correct that those communities should have a major say in the planning process that applies to them. The Bill removes, weakens and significantly dilutes the influence of local communities with regard to these issues.
The provision for consultation with the infrastructure providers will be read with suspicion by communities and those who have a genuine interest in protecting our environment and in good planning. Those provisions which provide for an infrastructure provider to have discussions with An Bord Pleanála before making an application will be interpreted as allowing for cosy chats behind closed doors between An Bord Pleanála and those who have most to gain from the proposed project. From my reading of the Bill, other groups, such as community groups, environmental groups or good planning groups, could be similarly provided for but undoubtedly those who will in the main have access to An Bord Pleanála for pre-application discussions will be those who seek to develop a major infrastructural project.
Currently, local authorities, even as courts of first instance, can be quite autocratic and bullying in the way they deal with local communities. Last night I debated with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the situation in Pallaskenry-Kildimo where the council is attempting to impose a water supply from a polluted source, the River Deal, on a community which at present has a perfect supply of pure spring water from Bleach Lough. It is an inexplicable decision that is not required for planning reasons. We have not yet discovered the real agenda or the reason for the decision.
This morning I was stunned when it came to light that the contractor employed by Limerick County Council to bring this pipe to Pallaskenry is in flagrant dereliction of the construction industry registered employment agreement pension assurance and sick pay fund. It is not registered in the fund as it is legally obliged to be. The Minister will be aware that it is a requirement of the public tendering process, which this local authority had to go through to award this contract, that every contractor employed by the local authority must be compliant with this agreement. This is a flagrant illegality.
This is the same council that had decent residents on the rack because they were peacefully protesting against the invasion of their community with water they do not want. It brought them before the High Court and required them to obey the law, yet the council is in flagrant breach of the law. I submitted parliamentary questions about this to the Minister's office this morning. I urge the Minister, to whom local authorities are responsible, to conduct an urgent and immediate investigation into how Cro-Bar Construction Limited could be employed by Limerick County Council in flagrant breach of the public tendering process. I look forward to the Minister replying to me on that point and seeking an immediate explanation from Limerick County Council. I am not speaking off the top of my head. This fact was established this morning by those who are at the coalface of the pension scheme in construction.
Diminishing the rights and influence of communities over planning is adding insult to injury. In the greater Dublin area, for example, the corruption scandals in local authorities in the 1980s and 1990s had already diminished the democratic rights of ordinary people by giving them planning decisions that were detrimental to the community. In Dublin west, communities I represent are still suffering from the planning decisions which, as we now know, were made by councillors among whom a significant number were rotten to the core. Communities are stuck with those decisions. It is not a good time, while the tribunals are still sitting, to provide for a further diminution of community input and influence……. I am not impressed by the provision for community gain. I recall fighting bad planning applications and rezonings in the 1990s where the landowner or developer, to secure a rezoning, would include a community centre or some other type of what I call a poisoned carrot.
The possibility of communities or individuals securing a judicial review with regard to projects is severely restricted by the requirements that before a judicial review is granted the judge must be satisfied, at a preliminary hearing before granting a judicial review, that there are substantial grounds for it and that the applicant has a substantial interest. What is a substantial interest? Will a community that might fear some detrimental effects, environmental or otherwise, be interpreted as having a substantial interest? It is left wide open.
In addition, they might have to give undertakings as to damages. That is a huge blow to the rights or ability of ordinary people to use the court in a last instance situation. This is my last point, a Chathaoirligh.

Acting Chairman: Seans nár thuig an Teachta mé. Tá sé nóiméad fágtha aige.

Mr. J. Higgins: Ba é canúint Dhún na nGall nár thuig mé i gceart.

Acting Chairman: Tá mé ciontach, mar sin.

Mr. J. Higgins: Níl an Cathaoirleach ciontach in aon chor. Tá gach canúint chomh maith leis an chéad chanúint eile, chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le muintir Mumhan.
An undertaking that damages for the delay of a project, which is what is involved here, should be underwritten by an ordinary person or community organisation is a crippling blow to people's option of resorting to the courts. Litigation in this country is strictly for the rich. Two and a half years ago a county council brought me before the High Court. On the Wednesday morning the council had a senior counsel on his feet for far less than three hours in the course of rather ordinary injunction proceedings. The council paid the senior counsel €7,500. That was his fee for the morning. His junior, who studiously studied the back of his senior for the less than three hours, was paid €5,000.
Two days later, I was again before the High Court and the same senior and junior counsels represented the council. The senior counsel was on his feet for less than three hours and was paid another €7,500. His junior counsel, who by this stage must have known every contour of his senior's back from sitting and staring at it throughout this time, was paid another €5,000. A total of €25,000 was the barristers' fee for less than six hours work and one or two hours in the background preparing fairly routine papers. How can ordinary, working people give an undertaking to bear the costs of the opposition, let alone the damages that might be assessed? This provision must be removed from the Bill.
The Bill also narrows the appeal possibilities to the Supreme Court. That is another severe diminution of people's rights. Of course, nobody approaches the Supreme Court with anything less than trepidation about the costs. Nevertheless, individuals and organisations have found that, as a court of last resort, on occasion they have been able to find justice in some decisions that have been made. The case involving Merck, Sharpe and Dohme in Tipperary comes to mind in that regard.
There are severe problems with this Bill. Communities are dealing with enough problems in planning; there has been enough diminution of people's democratic rights. Mobile telephone companies can put masts virtually where they wish, even beside children in primary schools. This has happened in Huntstown, west Dublin, and is a source of great agony for the community because we do not know what will be the health effects of these. That is a huge diminution of the democratic rights of communities.
Management companies are being imposed on communities. The Taoiseach condemned them outright in the Dáil yesterday, saying they were unfair and unnecessary. However, they are being imposed and constituents of mine from Tyrellstown in Dublin West are being dragged into the courts next Wednesday, on foot of bills sent to them by management companies.
Dá bhrí sin, deirtear gur "Acht do dhéanamh socrú, ar mhaithe le leas an phobail, maidir le harratais ar chead pleanála a dhéanamh go díreach chuig an mBord Pleanála i leith forbairtí beartaithe áirithe a bhfuil tábhacht straitéiseach leo i dtaca leis an Stát" é an Bille um Pleanáil agus Forbairt (Bonneagar Straitéiseach) 2006. Ní chreidim go bhfuil an Bille seo "ar mhaithe le leas an phobail". Laghdaíonn sé an chumhacht dhaonlathach atá ag gnáthdhaoine a ladhar a chaitheamh isteach sa chóras pleanála. Aon rud a laghdaíonn an tionchar ar féidir le gnáthdhaoine, eagraíochtaí pobail agus a leithéid a bheith acu ar an chóras pleanála, níl sé "ar mhaithe le leas an phobail" ach ina choinne.
Dá bhrí sin, nílim ceadmhach an Bille seo a chur chun cinn. Táim chun cur ina aghaidh, agus tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh daoine eile an rud céanna agus go dtógfar amach as an Bhille na haltanna a laghdaíonn cumhacht na ngnáthdhaoine, a gcearta agus cearta an phobail an tionchar is mó a bheith acu ar an chóras pleanála agus ar cén saghas pleanála a chuirfear isteach ina gcontae, a réigiún, nó pé áit atá i gceist.

by anarchaeologist - GrassrootsDissent Tue Jun 20, 2006 00:34

The archaeologist involved is actually called Margaret Gowen. Her company did indeed carry out the EIS for the N3 and recommended an alternative route to the one chosen. In fact, the route which was chosen was the route which scored highest in her company's 'don't touch me with a bargepole' stakes when it comes to archaeology.

But that would only ruin the story. Please, let's see a bit more accuracy when reporting this story on Indymedia.

Is it only me or am I sorta detecting here an anti-archaeologist vibe which I noticed in a previous Indy story by Tara Watch (see link below)? This post began by stating that 'everybody knows the construction industry is corrupt, the archaeological profession is corrupt and of course the property development/rezoning industry is rank', which I thought at the time was a bit rich.

Archaeologists have been getting it from Bertie recently too. It looks like nobody likes us. Sure, a few archaeologists have become very wealthy out of the construction boom over the last few years, the vast majority of us though haven't. Our work is only for the very dedicated or the mad. We're incredibly poorly paid when compared to the construction industry as a whole, most of us have a precarious existence with no long term contracts, bad working conditions (in all weathers) and a job which is physically wrecking.

In fact, I can think of no other job in this mechanised/computerised age which demands the intensive labouring which is the diggers lot. It has an air of Marxian misery and is sometimes Victorian in its squalor. There is little solidarity evident among our own ranks; most digs last a few months at most and few crews move on together to locations, splitting up those who may be interested in working to improve our lot. Plus the fact that known agitators are frowned upon and find it difficult to get work and rise up through the ranks.

I've been curious though over the past year or so why so few of us archaeologists have come out against the Tara thing. From my own point of view, the whole peak oil issue is a much more obvious problem than the destruction of our cultural heritage, but that's only me.

There are some archaeologists who relish what might be found along the route; few of these however are academics, most are of the younger more managerial type who wouldn't know what a mattock was if it hit them in the face. These are the new breed of Irish archaeologists and they don't do much digging. They have nice jobs in the NRA and probably wanted to be archaeologists from when they were little boys (and girls).

To be fair to the NRA though, they are attempting to force the private consultancies carrying out the work on their (on our, the people's) behalf to publish and disseminate the results of their labours (or the labours of their poorly-paid workers). That knocks a few Euro off the profits.

The analogy Chris makes with pay deals is sorta lost on me, but maybe if I'd enough brains to get it I wouldn't be an archaeologist.

by Conservationist Tue Jun 20, 2006 13:10

Given that the government chief archaelogist was protected from cross-examination during a recent hearing.
(which Margaret attended. that is another issue).
+Mr Brian Duffy. Government chief -archaeologist only has basic degree- Irish Times +

The money that is put into the PR for Roads, infrastructure and brown envelopes is breath-taking,
every launch is investigated from every possible angle. We have the biggest media-monitoring service
and spin-doctory in Europe. Our data-Retention Laws are the longest in Europe. The PPP idea
or road-map (one size fits all- Unions, planning, health service) is an excerise in how to sell things
including corrupt planning to an unwilling citizenship.

A simple application of the PR/corruption nexus is to look at the scandal on E-voting. (Martin Cullen Td).

The current administration take a simple idea and PR it out of existence.
The SIB will include the Metro, which we need desperately,
(all those S.U.V's are clogging the roads, the plan involves the digging up of St Stephen's Green and its closure for three years). The crony lobby will apply
and the contract will go to the highest bidder. (Usually a friend of the administration.)
+Source: Sunday Business Post.

This includes the siting of the New Children's Hospital at the Mater.
The launch of the Science programme( sadly disrupted by the resignation of the science advisor to
the government as he wasn't properly qualified)- Yesterday in which 5 TDs and the Taoiseach were present.

Historically: The closure of the Glassworks in Ringsend and the export of our glass for re-cycling to other countries. Which leaves us in Ringsend, where Poolbeg residents have a stay of execution
regarding Indaver Ireland's incinerator project because the local Td can't be arsed with that.

Michael Mc Dowell.