New Galway Bypass route - shoutout to 2Pack

[fishfoodie]

Wanted to hear from our man in Whest

I won’t exactly be impacted, but I certainly have relatives who will be impacted if the latest route goes ahead, so I wondered if ‘2 of the family Pack’, had heard anything on the grapevine ?

I had a look at the PDF online, & it was a real ‘Yes, Minister’, moment for me . It was as if they went out of their way to pick the most insane option available, just to spite the objectors to all the previous ones ?

I mean, they’re no basically driving the route right up Chestnut lane, where half of UCGs faculty lives, rather than nibbling off a few feet at the end of the lane, & then turning across onto the old railway route, they’re ploughing thru the place, & will have to demolish a number of houses & will absolutely destroy the prospective prices of the rest. It really looks like a case of them saying; ‘Well fuck you boys; you rabble roused over all the alternative routes; so now suck on this one !’

The previous routes seemed to avoid houses close to the city, & move a bit further out & use the gaps between the strips to only impact the odd one-off house; this one seems so destructive, & in such an ‘exclusive’ area, that it could only be deliberate ?

[Magpie]

The original route was, and still is the best route. But that is now off the table as possible alternatives have been found. There was a big whohaa a few months back when all the alternatives were presented and then opposed. So now we have this hybrid that will cost crazy money, and I doubt we see it before 2025.

On the brightside, after 15 years we have a route, now all we need is planning permission, and that should be a breeze

[2Pack]

Detailed map here ( zoomable) . I cannot see any other than small changes to this route Fishfoodie. A more sensible route avoiding peoples houses was thrown out by Ecomentalists and Greens with their interminable court cases. At this stage I just want to see something built, fast, so I can avoid the place unless I have to.

Near Chestnut Lane rather than up Chestnut Lane perhaps…only a few metres away. The original route was a mile west of there. An access route to NUIG Playing grounds to the east is bisected along with some of the pitches. There is a lot of scrub land west of Corrib Village that could take a pitch or two, generally NE of the Business Park opposite the Westwood so I don’t really see this as a mega disaster like.

Map > n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/u … etin-6.pdf

Blame the poxy greens as always!

[Carrot_and_stick]

@2Pack

Detailed map here ( zoomable) . I cannot see any other than small changes to this route Fishfoodie. A more sensible route avoiding peoples houses was thrown out by Ecomentalists and Greens with their interminable court cases. At this stage I just want to see something built, fast, so I can avoid the place unless I have to.

Near Chestnut Lane rather than up Chestnut Lane perhaps…only a few metres away. The original route was a mile west of there. An access route to NUIG Playing grounds to the east is bisected along with some of the pitches. There is a lot of scrub land west of Corrib Village that could take a pitch or two, generally NE of the Business Park opposite the Westwood so I don’t really see this as a mega disaster like.

Map > n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/u … etin-6.pdf

Blame the poxy greens as always!

Why don’t they just go the IROPI process
U can force anything through with that. Muppets but the real idiocy is the crack handed planning in Galway. Rotten low density housing making cars the only transport option. Any bypass will just end up clogged as soon as its finished

[BuMble]

@Carrot and stick

@2Pack

Detailed map here ( zoomable) . I cannot see any other than small changes to this route Fishfoodie. A more sensible route avoiding peoples houses was thrown out by Ecomentalists and Greens with their interminable court cases. At this stage I just want to see something built, fast, so I can avoid the place unless I have to.

Near Chestnut Lane rather than up Chestnut Lane perhaps…only a few metres away. The original route was a mile west of there. An access route to NUIG Playing grounds to the east is bisected along with some of the pitches. There is a lot of scrub land west of Corrib Village that could take a pitch or two, generally NE of the Business Park opposite the Westwood so I don’t really see this as a mega disaster like.

Map > n6galwaycity.ie/wp-content/u … etin-6.pdf

Blame the poxy greens as always!

Why don’t they just go the IROPI process
U can force anything through with that. Muppets but the real idiocy is the crack handed planning in Galway. Rotten low density housing making cars the only transport option. Any bypass will just end up clogged as soon as its finished

All compounded by almost all of the housing built in the 80s and 90s and a high proportion of the 00s being built on the west side of the city with all of the industry on the east

[temene]

Galway would be perfick for a light rail/tram type system.
Bring it on!

[Stapler]

@temene

Galway would be perfick for a light rail/tram type system.
Bring it on!

This is Ghent, in Belgium, to pick any European example. Home to 250,000 people. It has an extensive light rail system, linked very well to heavy rail.

goo.gl/maps/U2Emz

Note the relative density of the urban area.

Here is Galway, home to 75,000 people, without any proper public transport infrastructure outside some city buses.

goo.gl/maps/GdXKQ

Hundreds and hundreds of European cities can manage to get this stuff right.

[Carrot_and_stick]

Ive been on the existing rail system. It fairly empty in the morning* rush* hour…

[Magpie]

@Carrot and stick

Why don’t they just go the IROPI process
U can force anything through with that. Muppets but the real idiocy is the crack handed planning in Galway. Rotten low density housing making cars the only transport option. Any bypass will just end up clogged as soon as its finished

Peter Sweetman objected because 1.47 hectares of rare limestone formation would have been destroyed by this road. There are about 250 hectares of this same formation that would be unaffected. If the planners had sought the correct ‘type’ pf planning permission 10 years ago none of this would have happened.

@ECJ Ruling

So far as concerns the assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it should be pointed out that it cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the protected site concerned (see, to this effect, Case C‑404/09 Commission v Spain, paragraph 100 and the case-law cited). It is for the national court to establish whether the assessment of the implications for the site meets these requirements.
45 In the main proceedings, the Lough Corrib SCI was designated as a site hosting a priority habitat type because, in particular, of the presence in that site of limestone pavement, a natural resource which, once destroyed, cannot be replaced. Having regard to the criteria referred to above, the conservation objective thus corresponds to maintenance at a favourable conservation status of that site’s constitutive characteristics, namely the presence of limestone pavement.
46 Consequently, if, after an appropriate assessment of a plan or project’s implications for a site, carried out on the basis of the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the competent national authority concludes that that plan or project will lead to the lasting and irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type whose conservation was the objective that justified the designation of the site concerned as an SCI, the view should be taken that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.
47 In those circumstances, that plan or project cannot be authorised on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Nevertheless, in such a situation, the competent national authority could, where appropriate, grant authorisation under Article 6(4) of the directive, provided that the conditions set out therein are satisfied (see, to this effect, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraph 60).
48 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCIs, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

From the outset Galway County/City Council and An Bord Planeala should have applied under Article 6(4) and said there were no viable alternatives, and the bypass might now be complete. But they messed up, and the alternatives are not as good as the original plan.

[Carrot_and_stick]

@Magpie

@Carrot and stick

Why don’t they just go the IROPI process
U can force anything through with that. Muppets but the real idiocy is the crack handed planning in Galway. Rotten low density housing making cars the only transport option. Any bypass will just end up clogged as soon as its finished

Peter Sweetman objected because 1.47 hectares of rare limestone formation would have been destroyed by this road. There are about 250 hectares of this same formation that would be unaffected. If the planners had sought the correct ‘type’ pf planning permission 10 years ago none of this would have happened.

@ECJ Ruling

So far as concerns the assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it should be pointed out that it cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the protected site concerned (see, to this effect, Case C‑404/09 Commission v Spain, paragraph 100 and the case-law cited). It is for the national court to establish whether the assessment of the implications for the site meets these requirements.
45 In the main proceedings, the Lough Corrib SCI was designated as a site hosting a priority habitat type because, in particular, of the presence in that site of limestone pavement, a natural resource which, once destroyed, cannot be replaced. Having regard to the criteria referred to above, the conservation objective thus corresponds to maintenance at a favourable conservation status of that site’s constitutive characteristics, namely the presence of limestone pavement.
46 Consequently, if, after an appropriate assessment of a plan or project’s implications for a site, carried out on the basis of the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the competent national authority concludes that that plan or project will lead to the lasting and irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type whose conservation was the objective that justified the designation of the site concerned as an SCI, the view should be taken that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.
47 In those circumstances, that plan or project cannot be authorised on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Nevertheless, in such a situation, the competent national authority could, where appropriate, grant authorisation under Article 6(4) of the directive, provided that the conditions set out therein are satisfied (see, to this effect, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraph 60).
48 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCIs, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

From the outset Galway County/City Council and An Bord Planeala should have applied under Article 6(4) and said there were no viable alternatives, and the bypass might now be complete. But they messed up, and the alternatives are not as good as the original plan.

Yeah. Im guessing also high density residental areas doesnt feature in the development plan given the amount of sprawling suburbs