Shell in Rossport: A Photo Story

by anarchaeologist Thu May 05, 2005 08:23

Part VIII of the act deals with enforcement, including 'Offences by bodies corporate'. Basically the act gives the citizen the right to report unauthorised development (development, such as the compound pictured above which doesn't appear to have planning permission or development which hasn't gone through all the various stages of the planning process) and places the obligation on the planning authority to do something about it within a certain timeframe.

It's explained fairly clearly from Section 151 onwards (p. 161).

This has been used fairly successfully in south Donegal to force the Council's hand where councillors' cronies have been let away with various things like petrol stations, quarries and estates of holiday homes. Obviously, the local authorities and the DoE don't advertise the provisions, as it places more work on the shoulders of the planning authority while to a (very) limited extent, making the planning process more open to sustainable objection.

And no, you don't have to pay the 20 yo-yos, but you do have to make your observation in writing and follow it up with several phone calls to the enforcement officer. It also speeds things up to give the exact location, townland, local name etc. Remember, the observation is specifically on the presence of the compound on the landscape, in an area where development is usually not permitted by the planning authority. It has nothing to do with Shell or the larger picture of what's going on...

After all that, the fact that this hasn't been tried before in Mayo would lend me to think that the compound must be authorised, but the council haven't been back to me on that one. Does anyone in Mayo want to doorstep them (as anarchaeologist is based in Dublin)? Maybe the compound qualifies as exempted development (see Section 4 of the act), but it's hard to see how...

by anarchaeologist Wed May 04, 2005 01:21

Terry, if the compound hasn't got planning permission it constitutes an unauthorised development under the Planning Act 2000.

The planning authority are obliged under the act to issue a notice to the developer (Shell presumably, or is it another company?) once it has been brought to their attention. If they are in breach of the act, the planning authority is obliged to issue a notice and if they persist, to initiate proceedings against them.

I'll suss the relevant sections and paragraphs of the Planning Act tomorrow.

I know it sounds obvious enough and maybe they've found some way of getting around this, but has this avenue been explored?

Great piece btw. Keep up the good work.

by construct Tue May 03, 2005 22:57

well done again terry! its about time people started to get active on this one!! but what can be done?

by Terry Tue May 03, 2005 20:58

It relates to Shell in that they have to fence on commonland, to mark out the pipeline route, and this isn't done, that is one doesn't fence on common land, I'm not sure whether that is legally binding or not, but they havn't fenced on that land yet, as they have elsewhere.

by Terry Tue May 03, 2005 20:56

Hi cheers for the regular positive feedback...common land is jointly owned/or rented by a community, a thing usually known in the east of Ireland, in times past, as rundale, I think some 30 odd people have a share in the land in Rossport...though it could be more as I got showered with information (plus tea and food) while I 'blew in' there over the weekend...so it is a bit of a case of overload..there was in times past, though given that I thought common land was only to be found in history books may be it still exists, a particular system of running common land, with a person in charge of it, and this position either elected or rotated annually. Particular procedures applied to its use, it was/is divided up in strips and usage is rotated from tillage to pasture and so on, at least that is what is says in the social history books. The enclosures were where over hundreds of years the peasantry in England, in particular, were dispossessed of common land, this happened also in Ireland and France, and doubtless elsewhere, but, for various reasons, with less of an effect on the society. Social history is studying that sort of thing, as opposed to the political history of statecraft.

by redjade Tue May 03, 2005 20:46

Thanks for illustrating with photos something I had some difficulty conceptualising - more like this please :-)

Question:

you say: 'This is common land, as in the enclosures, for you social history geeks, its peculiarities are presenting Shell with problems, and it is part of the pipeline route'

Please explain more, 'social history'? What is 'common land' etc - how does it relate to Shell and so on.

I think there are many more issues with this pipeline than just big evil Shell, would be nice to see the other issues sussed out

by Terry - Shell to Sea Tue May 03, 2005 20:27 info at shelltosea dot com

Some more photos from Rossport

Stripped bog.

The pier in Rossport, the dune on the other side of the water is one of the very particular machairs, unique to the north west of Ireland and the north west of Scotland, the pipeline is landing on that side of the estuary and then crossing over.

This is the estuary the pipeline is cross over, construction of this part is planned for August.

Doesn’t seem to apply to Shell.

by Terry - Shell to Sea Tue May 03, 2005 20:17 info at shelltosea dot com

This compund doesn't have planning permission, and indeed Shell's pipeline is going on the side of the road where normally planning permission is not given, due to proximity to the estuary.
Shell have been given provisional leave to start building, but havn't, despite claiming urgency in court.

Caterpillar, as seen in Palestine.

This is all the work that has been done, stripping some bog away, as a sort of trial run.