News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

Fiachra2 · 23-06-2010 7:18am

Blanchflower wrote: »

Will there be another oral hearing following submissions from the public?

AS above I am not sure but I suspect any member of the public who makes a submission to the Bord could request an oral hearing. This may or may not be granted by the bord.

Annasopra · 23-06-2010 9:48am

danjo wrote: »

I understand it is a private practice which will relocate from the town to the harbour area.

Is it not going to be the HSE centre and a private practice in the same building?

Imhof Tank · 23-06-2010 2:52pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Is it not going to be the HSE centre and a private practice in the same building?

Thats was my understanding - a "primary care centre" - basically split between H.S.E. administrative staff dealing with the public, and a g.p private clinic area.

Blanchflower · 23-06-2010 11:23pm

Fiachra2 wrote: »

AS above I am not sure but I suspect any member of the public who makes a submission to the Bord could request an oral hearing. This may or may not be granted by the bord.

The submissions to the impending EIS will indeed be most interesting. I await it with baited breath. I wonder who the new inspector will be for the 3rd Royal installement?

pixbyjohn · 28-06-2010 10:34pm

pixbyjohn · 28-06-2010 10:36pm

recedite · 29-06-2010 9:53am

Just looking at those pics... the area of open water in the harbour/ marina seems to be shrinking more than I thought. Once all the boats have moved in it will get pretty crowded in there? Previously there was plenty of space for locals to go swimming or paddling around in a canoe etc.within the sheltered area of the harbour.

Blanchflower · 29-06-2010 1:14pm

Thanks for posting these very revealing images.

The place looks very higgly-piggly and untidy and a health and safety risk.

d'Oracle · 29-06-2010 1:53pm

recedite wrote: »

Just looking at those pics... the area of open water in the harbour/ marina seems to be shrinking more than I thought. Once all the boats have moved in it will get pretty crowded in there? Previously there was plenty of space for locals to go swimming or paddling around in a canoe etc.within the sheltered area of the harbour.

First up, you can't tell from those pics.
I'm pretty sure that the first one is showing a section of the marina not all of it. The wall you see in the back is a divider.

Second, if this had not been done, in a few years there would be no Harbour.
People seem to forget that the old harbour was silting up fairly quickly and would have probably been useless in maybe 10 years.

Also Blanchflower, its a building site. Not a public park.
As such, it doesn't look too bad to me.

recedite · 29-06-2010 3:26pm

d'Oracle wrote: »

. The wall you see in the back is a divider. .

Yes, but each dividing wall will presumably be the anchor point for pontoons and berths for all these yachts belonging to the good people of South Dublin

d'Oracle wrote: »

.
Second, if this had not been done, in a few years there would be no Harbour.
People seem to forget that the old harbour was silting up fairly quickly and would have probably been useless in maybe 10 years.

They have been saying that since it was first built!

thecommander · 29-06-2010 3:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Just looking at those pics... the area of open water in the harbour/ marina seems to be shrinking more than I thought. Once all the boats have moved in it will get pretty crowded in there? Previously there was plenty of space for locals to go swimming or paddling around in a canoe etc.within the sheltered area of the harbour.

It is a working harbour, not a swimming pool.

Most people launched canoe and then paddled out of harbour.

Blanchflower · 29-06-2010 10:07pm

d'Oracle wrote: »

Also Blanchflower, its a building site. Not a public park.
As such, it doesn't look too bad to me.

Properly run and solvent building sites are always tidy. Unfortunately the harbour building site is neither tidy nor solvent.

pixbyjohn · 29-06-2010 10:37pm

Blanchflower wrote: »

Properly run and solvent building sites are always tidy. Unfortunately the harbour building site is neither tidy nor solvent.

You have no proof about the solvency of the harbour project, is it just bar room babble ?

Alan_P · 30-06-2010 9:31am

pixbyjohn wrote: »

You have no proof about the solvency of the harbour project, is it just bar room babble ?

No it's simple logic and arithmetic. The project promoters were adamant that the amount of residential development was the absolute minimum required to make the project financially viable.

Since they did their projections, the price of residential property has fallen by at least 50% (probably by more in fact, but that's what Lenihan told the Dáil last Autumn).

So half their projected residential development revenue has disappeared, and there was, by their own claims, no slack in their business plan. Ergo the project is no longer viable.

And of course that's entirely ignoring the fact there's around 300,000 empty residential properties in this state, and the question is no longer what the expected price for the residential stuff will be, it's whether and how many of them can be sold at all.

Fiachra2 · 30-06-2010 10:12am

Blanchflower wrote: »

Any idea when the EIS will be available to the public?

An Bord Pleanála have advised me that it is up to WCC when they actually produce the EIS. It will howver be available for the public to comment on and this will be published in local and national newspapers. There may be another oral hearing.

youknowwho · 30-06-2010 1:50pm

Forgive me now if I am raising something that was mentioned earlier but I haven't read the 13 or so previous pages. I thought that the public side of the harbour (open space, slip way, and club houses) was to be completed first independant of the rest. Is it the case now that the builder is in financial difficulty and refusing to complete that part until the plans for the balance of the project are changed to suit him?

I know the town council have mettings from time to time as I see them reported in the paper discussing the issues, but every week there's a different story regarding the harbour or the la touche. Living her over 30 years I think its a shame what is happening.

Would the council or the councilors not call a public meeting and tell us 1. their plans 2. their rights/position with respect to the contract and the developer, and 3. reasons for any of the changes and decisions. As it stands nobody knows anything for certain.

It's probably a lot to ask, but with everything that has developed they are coming across more incompetent than usual.

Blanchflower · 30-06-2010 7:54pm

pixbyjohn wrote: »

You have no proof about the solvency of the harbour project, is it just bar room babble ?

The property bubble has well and truely burst with prices already down by over 50% from their peak levels in 2007 when Sispar prepared their financial plans to justify the project. Property prices are still falling and there is little or no demand for property with little prospect of a recovery in prices for a long long time. There is therefore no profit in this project for Sispar. The banks have no more cheap money to bankroll these types of speculative developments. So the vital cashflow tap is dripping slowly and will soon stop.

So it is damage limitation time for Sispar. As your first loss is your best loss it would seem that they may be about to abandon their unfinished building site and leave us to clean up their mess.

It's about time for Wicklow COunty Council to call in their security bond of €10 million before it's too late.

d'Oracle · 01-07-2010 4:03pm

Blanchflower wrote: »

The property bubble has well and truely burst with prices already down by over 50% from their peak levels in 2007 when Sispar prepared their financial plans to justify the project. Property prices are still falling and there is little or no demand for property with little prospect of a recovery in prices for a long long time. There is therefore no profit in this project for Sispar. The banks have no more cheap money to bankroll these types of speculative developments. So the vital cashflow tap is dripping slowly and will soon stop.

So it is damage limitation time for Sispar. As your first loss is your best loss it would seem that they may be about to abandon their unfinished building site and leave us to clean up their mess.

It's about time for Wicklow COunty Council to call in their security bond of €10 million before it's too late.

That is speculation and handwringing.
Any of the proof that was asked for?

d'Oracle · 01-07-2010 4:04pm

recedite wrote: »

1) Yes, but each dividing wall will presumably be the anchor point for pontoons and berths for all these yachts belonging to the good people of South Dublin

2)They have been saying that since it was first built!

1) Yes, on the far side of the wall.

2)No, just since they realised that it was silting up due to the presence of the old Kish Lighthouse base at the end of the wall.

Blanchflower · 01-07-2010 10:07pm

d'Oracle wrote: »

That is speculation and handwringing.
Any of the proof that was asked for?

The construction sector has shrunk massively. In the first three months of the year, quarterly housing completions plumbed depths recorded only twice before in the 35-year history of the data series. In April, they fell further, to stand at 1,166, almost one-tenth of their monthly peak at the end of 2006.
Despite this, the industry still has a way to go before it hits bottom. With an oversupply of homes and a government whose empty coffers prevent it from spending on much extra infrastructure, there is little going into the industry’s new orders pipeline.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0701/1224273706406.html

pixbyjohn · 01-07-2010 11:11pm

Blanchflower, do you want to see the harbour works being a success ?
I want to see it being successful and I believe it will be.

d'Oracle · 02-07-2010 12:17am

Blanchflower wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0701/1224273706406.html

Quoting an opinion piece from a paper as proof.
Thats hilarious.
If I believed the crap they put up there then John Waters would have convinced me that social workers are out to get me for the good of womankind.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and restate the question.
Have you any valid proof that the marina development is insolvent?

darter · 02-07-2010 12:51am

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Blanchflower, do you want to see the harbour works being a success ?
I want to see it being successful and I believe it will be.

Everybody (I think) WANTS the harbour to be a success, even those who were opposed (like me) now want it to be a success.

What one BELIEVES in is a personal issue.

However, neither wants nor beliefs will ensure success.

What is most frustrating is the total lack of information, from the Council and from Sispar. If we KNEW, rather than had to keep guessing, what the near-future plans are, then we would either relax and be comforted or rise up and take action. As it is, we are in limbo.

We are like mushrooms, as in kept in the dark, but even mushrooms are fed something... We're not even being given sh*t...

Alan_P · 02-07-2010 9:25am

d'Oracle wrote: »

Quoting an opinion piece from a paper as proof.
Thats hilarious.
If I believed the crap they put up there then John Waters would have convinced me that social workers are out to get me for the good of womankind.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and restate the question.
Have you any valid proof that the marina development is insolvent?

What exactly are you asking for proof of ? Is it

A. That the Irish residential property has suffered an extreme slump since the business model for this marina was developed ?

B. That the marina is dependent for it's viability on the residential elements selling at a certain price ?

C. That the marina promoters said that the residential element was the absolute minimum needed to make the project viable ?

Point A is trivially provable from available online sources, points B and C would probably need pay for view access to newspaper online archives.

And of course it depends on what would constitute proof in your eyes. The IT article already cited has been dismissed as an "opinion piece", which it wasn't :- it was an analysis piece. And the relevant sentences from it were simple recorded,reported facts about the Irish housing market.

Even in the IT's opinion columns, let alone analysis pieces, facts are sacred :- if John Waters (whom I agree is a complete idiot) says the capital of Slovakia is Prague, a correction will be issued.

And by the way I'm not saying it's insolvent, I'm seeing it's not viable, and inevitably loss making. It can be loss making and solvent, if Sisk are willing to put the money in to finish it and just absorb the loss. But that would be intensely unlikely behaviour for a commercial organization.

Fiachra2 · 02-07-2010 10:06am

d'Oracle wrote: »

Quoting an opinion piece from a paper as proof.
Thats hilarious.
If I believed the crap they put up there then John Waters would have convinced me that social workers are out to get me for the good of womankind.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and restate the question.
Have you any valid proof that the marina development is insolvent?

Can I sugest a few points before this goes completly off track. (An bear in mind that we agreed to try and keep opinion out of this)

Most if not all economic commentators accept that the housing market is down 50%

Irrespective of what SIPAR or anyone says it is very likely therefore that this is now a loss making project. Thats business. Im sure its not the first project SISK have lost money on nor the last.

SISK have committed to finishing the harbour walls (not the marina or any other elements)and show every indication that they will do this. Presumably they have loan finance in place to complete the project or are funding it from their own resources. (I think their profits were 150M in 2008)

What happens after they finish the harbour is a lot less clear but at present speculation is not much use. One local politician is pressurising them to ensure that the hoardings are removed irrespective of what happens and hopefully eventually the other local politicians will follow suit.

Lets try and keep it to facts as much as possible.

pixbyjohn · 02-07-2010 10:07am

I wish to thank everyone who has a view on the harbour works for their news and views posted. I hope that I have not annoyed or caused any upset to anyone by airing my views. I will not be commenting further on the harbour works but occasionally I will post photos of the harbour in this forum.
Regards , John

d'Oracle · 02-07-2010 11:14am

Alan_P wrote: »

Even in the IT's opinion columns, let alone analysis pieces, facts are sacred :- if John Waters (whom I agree is a complete idiot) says the capital of Slovakia is Prague, a correction will be issued.

I know, from personal experience that this is not true.
But this is not the place to go into it. It was a throw away comment to illustrate how if you make a statement and are asked to prove it, opinion pieces do not stand up. This thread is not about the Irish Times.

And analysis is the same as Opinion. Its the journalists interpretation of the facts and certainly not adequate as proof in this instance.

Alan_P wrote: »

And by the way I'm not saying it's insolvent, I'm seeing it's not viable, and inevitably loss making. It can be loss making and solvent, if Sisk are willing to put the money in to finish it and just absorb the loss. But that would be intensely unlikely behaviour for a commercial organization.

Nobody but Sisk can declare this a lossmaking project.
This is purely speculation. Regardless of the state the housing market is in, nobody here has even the slightest idea what state the project is in.

You can trumpet on about the state of the economy all you want, but the remark made was that the project is Insolvent. All you are doing is dragging the thread off topic.

Tabnabs · 02-07-2010 4:11pm

pixbyjohn wrote: »

I wish to thank everyone who has a view on the harbour works for their news and views posted. I hope that I have not annoyed or caused any upset to anyone by airing my views. I will not be commenting further on the harbour works but occasionally I will post photos of the harbour in this forum.
Regards , John

Regrettable but very understandable, I for one would greatly appreciate the updated development photos.

LEIN · 02-07-2010 8:59pm

darter wrote: »

I ask that all of you who want to discuss anything other than "News and views on Greystones harbour and marina" do it in a separate thread. That way perhaps we can avoid the thread being closed whilst there are still very active participants providing useful information to the community...

darter

May i just remind everyone posting on this subject of the original post?

Please keep it to the point as we really would prefer to keep this one open.

Thanks.

Blanchflower · 03-07-2010 9:49am

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Blanchflower, do you want to see the harbour works being a success ?
I want to see it being successful and I believe it will be.

Of course I want the development to be completed. However I fear that the developer is trying to escape its contractual obligations in an attempt to mitigate their losses. For the sake of the people of Greystones the county councillors must not let them off their contractual hook.

News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

Comments