In the recent Supreme Court judgement re the KCAS the justices wrote notes the Councils intent to remove the stones by the 31st October 2014....avoiding the risk of flooding, and any risk to aquatic life. Would that have happened if the Anti-CAS protest had not taken place? Presumably there was a calculation done that if the project started on time (in ?June), the pylons would be well in place by the end of October and the causeways removed? But if there had been snags would the causeways have been left in place for the winter? Left so as to protect any pylon stumps that might have been poured? At the points where they were created the causeways destroyed spawning grounds. Killed localised aquatic life. Who gave permission for that? The causeway method does not represent one that was avoiding any risk to aquatic life from the start. Its removal was not to be a process avoiding any risk to aquatic life. Well, at the time anyway. The idea seems to be avoiding any risk to aquatic life going forward? But even then, tons of stone must remain on the river bed that has destroyed the spawning grounds to which the salmon are annually drawn. In the Councils submission by Mr Tracey he observed that rock was known to be present at various depths under the river bed. He argued that because of the stratum of rock the causeway method was required. Was this information conveyed to An Bord Pleanála? If it had been, would an inspector have said ok, lets see whats the best alternative and use it in the least damaging manner possible. Best use preformed concrete boulders that can be hooked out of the river when done. Something like that? The Bennettsbridge agri limestones are likely to have created a quick lime when turfed in the river. And more quick lime was released when the constructor was forced to remove the causeways for the winter. Why such material was used is a mystery. Piers and jetties are built with preformed concrete Lego blocks. Whilst they would damage the spawning grounds and kill any fish etc that happened to be underneath them when dropped in the river, at least they would not have quick limed the downstream aquatic environment. In their decision the Supreme Court justices might have created a precedent. It might be interpretable as if you do a - Paddy the plasterer - environmentally damaging job, no matter. And even the damage you do when told to reverse the work can be overlooked. No sanction is entertained. Its all in the interests of public finances. Which now seem to have been decreed as outweighing protection of the environment. Avoid any risk. Any. If there is to be avoidance of any risk (to the river bed and aquatic life) then the bridge has to be suspension in design. That being the case, money has been wasted on a wrong method. The CAS needs to go back to An Bord Pleanála. For permission to construct such that any damage is avoided. Hang on. They refused suspension in the first place for visual impact reasons. And seem to have sanctioned a method of construction that is far more damaging. Did they realise this at 64 Marlborough St, Dublin? Would European environmentalists be surprised that a method of construction was entertained by the Marlborough Pleanála inspectors that was to be damaging? Damaging in order that the picture might be less ugly to the eye and the public finances a few quid better off? any. Theres a word. A little word. Has it been chosen by the justices to mean every possible? Therein lies argument. Needing an opinion from British, Dutch, German etc wise men, perhaps? Curious how the colours in a painting are reflected by random contents of the tavern - blues and greens. Features otherwise not noticed.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:59:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015