Talk:An Bord Pleanála

Government interference

Caveat Lector, ABP's inspector produces a damning report on the Bellinaboy refinery application:

"From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site. At a time when the Board is now required, in accordance with the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000, to have regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of an area in which a development is proposed to be constructed, it is my submission that the proposed development of a large gas processing terminal at this rural, scenic, and unserviced area on a bogland hill some 8 kilometres inland from the Mayo coastland landfall location, with all its site development works difficulties, public safety concerns, adverse visual, ecological, and traffic impacts, and a range of other significant environmental impacts, defies any rational understanding of the term “sustainability”. It is an irony that this large industrial proposal is linked with a natural gas resource, the exploitation of which adheres to the concept of sustainability."

A Minister dismisses ABP's refusal as "just a hitch". Shell's executives meet with Ahern and other ministers, which wins them a meeting with ABP's board. Suddenly, the "wrong site" becomes the perfect site. You work it out. Start here: http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to these events and the attached link have been deleted since I last visited this article, but I can't find an explanation here or in the edit history. Would anyone care to explain?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#NEWS. In this case, Shell To Sea does not deserve a mention. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, on all counts. A decision to so completely ignore such a damning report by one of its Senior Planning Inspectors is unprecedented in ABP's history. When Shell recently revised its planning application, they insisted that Kevin Moore (the Senior Planning Inspector who wrote the report the above excerpt was taken from) not be one of the inspectors reviewing it. ABP rolled over again. Why do you refer to Shell to Sea? These irregularities stand on their own and need no reference to the Shell to Sea campaign. When you say it's not in the news, what news media are you referring to? Here's four articles referring specifically to Shell and ABP, all from the last fortnight: [1]

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS says that Wikipedia shouldn't cover news, not that wikipedia shouldn't cover things that aren't mentioned in the news. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's worthy of Rumsfeld's "Known knowns" speech. And you've successfully made another reply without addressing any of my substantive points.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it really worth it trying to address your points? You want to include the section because of its relevance to Shell to Sea, or because it's related to the Corrib controversy. I want it to stay out due to WP:UNDUE. I'll say no due to policy, you'll say it's important while saying little bits of POV like "damning" and "ABP rolled over again", I'll say it's not important and point to policies, you'll say the policies don't apply. We'll go round in circles and get nowhere so I don't really see any point trying to engage. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"...wrong site...wrong site...wrong site...wrong site..." I could think of stronger words to describe the original ABP report than damning, but I don't want to upset you with adjectives you could well feel are "POV". I'm talking about an unprecedented sequence of events in ABP's history. There is nothing comparable. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (From WP:UNDUE) Says it all, really. If you feel so strongly that even the couple of sentences that existed previously give undue weight to the topic, we could always start An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Bias section by User Blue-Haired Lawyer

The fact that a Supreme Court Judge declared the Board's decision "biased" is not a minority view by any means and is entirely relevant.

The argument that the section fails WP:UNDUE because it "gives undue weight to a single planning decision among many thousands of decided cases" is wrong and not relevant. The Board is supposed to be unbiased in 100% of its cases. Being biased in just one case is an incredible perversion of justice by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. It raises questions about the fairness of every other case deiced by the Board.

The argument that the section should be deleted because out of all the Board's many cases this was only one that was specifically declared biased by a Judge is quite incredible.

Please start a discussion on the Talk Page, and come to a consensus before making any more deletions. Thanks. Sun Ladder (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In the 1980s the then board was dissolved and re-established with a different membership because it was felt to be full of political appointees. Yet this is not mentioned but a particular decision (by a then High Court judge) concerning how the board handled a specific case is. Not only is the section in possible violation of undue, it also uses a particular decision by the board to imply that the the board is biased across the board when the source only refers to a particular case. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re. your deletion of the line "The judge's ruling raised serious questions...": I undid your deletion because it is not "opinion masquerading as fact". It is the unavoidable and blindingly obvious factual implication of the the Judge's ruling and has citation.

Re. your comment above: I'm sorry but your point doesn't make any sense. The Judge's ruling is a very important highlighting of bias by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. Your argument that it fails WP:UNDUE is plain wrong.

Please stop deleting parts of the "Bias" section without discussion and consensus. Thank you.Sun Ladder (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding 'Undue' material which amounts to 'coatracking'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a request for help on the dispute resolution notice board here (It's been moved here now And now here. Now its here)Sun Ladder (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 DRN volunteer note:I have opened the DRN discussion if any one would like to participate. The discussion can be found at the link above. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with User Blue-Haired Lawyer here, due to WP:Weight. Hohenloh ⁺ 13:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)