Victory For Bantry Pylon Campaign?

by Volteir Mon Dec 09, 2013 14:59

Sorry to be a nit-picker but we have heard many people including politicians calling for the pylons to go underground. It's the powerline cables that must go underground - not the pylons! Keep up the great work, Indymedia!

by outsider,concerned.very concerned. Wed Apr 15, 2009 22:59

from what i have read here so far it would appear that yes the electric company would suffer a big hit on this one. has a test case ever been taken?there must be thousands of devalued homes all over the place.who exactly is liable?it is either the landowner or the electric co.
it situations like this it is often better to settle the matter in the courts.

from reading the article of 2nd April 2009 from bruscells about emf,it appears the electric co. have a major problem on their hands.If the insurance company have invoked the "precautionary principle"and reading from that document,they already have done so, then who is going to take responsibility for the EMF and peoples health?
this is a most serious situation and apart from new planned power lines that will probably never get built,what about all the existing overhead high voltage power lines?are there any groups out there who know more about this,websites maybe?
it is all very well to talk about compensation for this or that but where does a person living close to one of these lines come in?its a guarantee of our health and safety we need,not compensation.Does the electric company give such a guarantee before they build these lines?
this needs to be investigated as it is an urgent matter.People have a right to live in safety and the profit of the electric company will have to take second place.People must come first.After all isnt it the people who pay their electricity bills that actually pay for these power lines anyway?
This may be a case for the European courts,.....more information please.

by look out Mon Apr 13, 2009 13:09

It is quite possible I believe that the ESB/Eirgrid would go burst (is it not) if they had to pay out to everyone under the 'legal compensation ' headings (heads of claim) If ESB had to pay out for devaluation of peoples homes alone (not to mention their properties) wouldn't this bill run into billions?

Thats not to mention paying for land take and injurious affection and the other heads of claim .. underground would be def cheaper then wouldnt it?

In my honest opinion a home is totally devalued if theres a large pylon within mile of it - there must be hundreds if not thousands of homes around Ireland totally devalued by massive pylons in the surrounding areas? Wonder if ESB ever compensated these homeowners for their devaluation and losses?

by mr farmer Sun Apr 12, 2009 22:36

You mention compensation and powerlines............in ireland the electric company,ESB/Eirgrid, pay compensation to landowners "in return for the landowners signature of a deed of easement". the problem the ESB are having all over ireland just now is that the landowners have got very well organised and are simply refusing to sign.In ireland there is no law which can make you sign.The simple solution to all of this is to bury the lines but ESB dont want to do this.Reason;under a 2001 planning regulation any existing structure can be used for a phone mast,in other words if the pylons are built,the ESB can then rent out the pylons to whoever they like.The phone companies will jump at the chance because they wont have to look for planning permission as the "existing structures" are exempt from planning.There will be others too interested in renting out spaces on the pylons,for example satelite TV and who knows what else?
Mr mentioned in last comment about "injurious affection".............In ireland if compulsory acusition or CPO as its known,is used,for example in the case of new roads,then CPO rule applies. The rules of compensation re CPO include many "heads of claim". Theese heads of claim include injurious affection,general devaluation,devaluation of house and farm,devaluation of remainder of farm and so on.Its hard to avoid this type of development as a road is of benifit to everybody including the landowner who has the farm disected in many cases.There is a house however on the motorway between Manchester and Leeds in the north of England.The road goes each side of the farmhouse as the landowner refused to move! However i think in most cases of CPO,for road making, the landowner gets well compensated,at least the health issues of overhead powerlines do not exist with a road.
The reason the ESB wont use CPO is because they would have to pay compensation for the total "land take" which would be the entire sterile corridore. That is if you like a working corridore which can be over 200 metres wide and would ammount to thousands of acres of land.To have to pay compensation under theese rules would make an overhead line ten times more expensive than an underground one.
The biggest problem now with overhead lines is the whole issue of health/safety and especially the whole issue of EMF, Electric and Magnetic fields and Insurance.

See "health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields" Provisional edition,as of thu 2nd April 2009-Brussels.
There is no insurance company who will give EMF cover.In other words the Insurance co have invoked the "prcautionary principle" The electric company will have to do the same and bury the powerlines,not the people.

by Ben Lenton - Cambridge Land Consultants Sun Feb 15, 2009 14:08

It is really good to hear of the issues here. We experience similar circumstances in the UK when a new overhead electricity line/power line and pylons are proposed. How are property owners compensated when a new power line is proposed in New Zealand? We have a set procedure in the UK providing compensation for what is called injurious affection but also disturbance. I

In some circumstances UK property owners can be compensated for loss of value to their homes or ability to develop land because of the presence of existing power lines which, in some cases, can be several decades old. I have a firm specialising in this work in the UK if this is of interest (see Cambridge Land Consultants - www.cambridgelandconsultants.com). It may be interesting to compare the procedure between the different countries. In some cases, the existing power line can be undergrounded. The ability to be compensated in the UK for existing power lines is mainly because of our law surrounding terminable wayleaves although I have a feeling that you do not use such terminable licences in Ireland and Deeds of Grants/Easements are issued from the outset.

by hello Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:58

If ESB convince landowners they have no choice but allow pylons/poles be built on their lands and if the landowner is foolish enough to accept compensation no matter how big or small and sign the Deed of Easement without asking questions. In a sense the landowner has been fooled into signing away a right to his/her land. Could that mean the ESB are trespassing on property (as they managed to fool/hoodwink people into giving consent/signing deed)?
I thought you could not run a business through trespass - is it legal to run a business through trespass?
if ESBtelecoms put mobile phone/telecommunications antennae etc on poles / pylons on landowners property without giving them extra compensation surely that cannot be legal practise either? Could that be why they need a formal Deed of Easement so that once they have your signature they will then proceed to do what they like and use your property anyway they want to create more profits for their companies?

by ear Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:47

ESB are brave when it comes to bullying - that we do know. They will threaten High Court Injunctions and look for COSTS also....is this not a bullying tactic by our electricity monopoly?? Yes indeed. They must remember the High Court Injunctions got them no where in Bantry and why not? The High Court cannont make a landowner sign his/her name for a formal Deed of Easement. (a legal document). ESB forget they need the goodwill of the landowner and should try other tactics(like consultation) rather than bullying and threatening. The 1927 Electricity SUPPLY act is of no use to them for transmitting electricity without a landowners consent and his/her signature of a Deed of Easement. ESB telecoms are now according to their own website www.esbtelecoms.ie freely using poles/pylons and other structures all over this country for telecommunications transmission and the great question is 'Does the landowner on whose property these pylons /poles etc are located get any compensation for having mobile phone dishes/radio antennae or wireless broadband services on the pylons or poles located on his/her lands?.We presume the landowner was given no choice in many cases a long time ago of allowing pylons onto his land and s/he would have presumed it was for electricity transmission not telecommunications. Who gets the annual rent paid by the other telecommunications companies in Ireland (€1000/month approx.)? Is it the ESB or the landowners whose property is being used who is entitled to the compensation? Where can we get a transparent report? Any ideas please comment below. Perhaps ESB/ESB telecoms would care to comment?

by eye Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:56

as last comment says,watch it.Shell said (mr cassells)they would move a pipeline.That wasnt the issue at the time,i think the refinery is / was the problem? Same in bantry; a story goes out"the line is going to be put underground".Then they will say to the landowners whats your problem now? What i do know of esb and their kind;if you havent it in writing..........you have nothing.What is talked about is one thing.
Have the landowners anything in writing to say who will be responsible for the line,under or over ground? Who insurance will cover what?Will they have to sign a deed of easement?A right of way is not enough for esb,they will look for a deed of easement as you cannot bring services on a right of way,to bring services you need a formal deed ,the landowner would have to actually sign a deed of easement.This has been written in indymedia before,noby can be forced to sign anything and THAT is the reason the esb and their likes have such problems.That is why they pay massive compensation,its to get your signature.
For example; the esb have statutory power to build a powerline under the 1927 electricity act.Why then did they go to the high court to get injunctions against the farmers of Bantry? Why did they not go in and build the line? When they had the injunctions got,they still didnt go in,a stand off lasted a month,they still didnt go in ,WHY/ Because they didnt have a deed of easement from the landowners,its as simple as that.No body can make you sign your name. Stand your ground,people of Bantry,you have them on the run,keep up the pressure on the lowlife that took out high court injunctions against you.Kennedy said"forgive your enemys.. but never forget the ba********s names "...

by JM Thu Aug 31, 2006 01:55 Rossport

Well done to everyone down in Cork! The rebels are living up to their name.

A word of caution, though. Now that the argument has been won in principle, your campaign may be vulnerable to pressurised compromise. This has been attempted by Shell in Mayo, where a modified project is being lauded as the solution, despite continued calls for a total overhaul.

However, if you stick to the facts and keep strong, I've no doubt you'll get what any group anywhere in the world is entitled to... justice!

by Niall Thu Aug 31, 2006 00:10

Plans are currently being made to realise this. News in due course.

by iosaf Wed Aug 30, 2006 19:43

The speed of this campaign victory which began in mid 2005 http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76465 & which gave us many standoffs (one of which saw lots of photos on indymedia ireland) http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77007 ought be considered in the light of how weakly social movements are developed in the Irish republic. We might perhaps be better considering this victory as further proof of what is mostly a wide acceptance in our Europe of power providers & their political state associates. "That these pylons are dangerous". Yet the whole medical & health research sector outside of those in employment of "power providers" came to that conclusion a long time ago. It may be widely accepted by the states of the EU, but _not in every country nor at every occassion_. Continuing campaigns against longer and more powerful overhead power lines are still ongoing throughout Europe, notably in the Pyrennes and Italy. I'm sure the people who volunteered for the camp & gave their support & solidarity to the property holders at the crux of this particular case will be as pleased as the next.

But what remains is the question :- now that Ireland's pylon builder's have given into a campaign based on health concerns, why is the Irish state not diverting all similar overhead pylons to underground options?
After all, not only would it save the department of Health money, it would provide employment & free our landscape for something alltogether prettier & more 21st century..........like windmills.