Greystones Marina

Marcais

Marcais wrote:

Branding somebody who objects to: 341 apartments and a car park where a harbour of natural beauty now exists and, objects also to the building of 210 houses behind his own (when he purchased his property expecting that this would not be the case and the zoning supported this), as: a liberal tree-hugger, somebody who objects to everything as if just for the sake of objecting, and questioning his activity in relation to other local issues is certainly a cop-out. I could certainly address the questions as to how active I have been in my short time here in regards to Charlesland issues Bertie and put you to shame;) but that is not the topic!

Now, back on topic...Greystones Marina

1. The harbour is in a state of disrepair and should be refurbished, nobody disagrees, so this point does not need to be repeated time and time again.

2. Any refurbishment needs to be financed - agreed

3. The €300m Marina is the only option - NO - as pointed out many times in the thread, the GPDA put forward a much more modest self-financing proposal. This was dismissed by the Council as not being finacially viable (a shortfall of €8m according to their review). However, the costings used had the 70 houses proposed valued at below €300k! Harbourside houses with a lifetime view almost as far as Wales.....put me down for 3 please.

Sispar stated that the removal of any apartments from the 375 originally proposed would not be financially viable, but now say that it is viable with less units because of the growth in property prices. So where would this growth put the GPDA proposal, how much would those 70 houses sell for?

Their review also stated that the GPDA proposal would lead to silting and not solve the erosion problems, they now accept that not only will the €300m Marina not solve the erosion problems, it will in all probability cause worse erosion!

It has been reported that the Council have spent €3m to date on the Marina proposals and it cost €155k of Council money (i.e. our money) for the oral hearings, where councillors sat for 7 days. This would have gone a long way towards the €15m needed by the Council to "fix" the harbour (per Derek Mitchell outside Greystones town council building) and almost 50% of the (so called) shortfall to make the GPDA plan viable and satisfy everybody, except Sispar.

George Mitchell's Neswletter (paid for by us and insulting our intelligence) called on everybody to get behind the amended plans (i.e. 375 minus 34 apartments!) If we could all agree to get behind something, surely we could get behind a sensitive, imaginitive harbour development?

BY THE WAY BERTIE! The petition you say you signed and since changed your mind, was this the same petition you said you didn't sign in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50921864&postcount=101 ....credibility....

Just to get this back on topic - GREYSTONES MARINA - Tearing the heart out of Greystones

Ossie

Managing coastal settlements - The Heritage Council

Ireland’s coastline is not only magnificent in terms of its natural beauty; its many settlements, from port cities to small hamlets, have evolved over the centuries into attractive human habitats. In recent decades, poorly informed development has in a number of instances severely damaged that settlement heritage. It is now imperative that national, county and local planning strategies take seriously the conservation and enhancement of this rich settlement heritage. Levels of development must be seen to harmonise with the scale and character of the relevant settlements; in particular, far more precise guidelines need to be established with regard to the layout of new housing areas. Equally important, far more attention needs to be paid to fostering sympathetic forms of architecture in keeping with the existing townscapes and village-scapes, while the possible impacts of climate change must also been taken into account. In this context, different strategies are needed for coastal settlements in metropolitan hinterlands which are undergoing severe development pressures as against the enhancement strategies needed for coastal communities/settlements experiencing decline. In all cases, the coastal communities living in these settlements should be empowered to play a constructive role in planning the future of their coastal habitats.

Policy Paper on Conserving Ireland’s Maritime Heritage – April 2006

Fiachra2

[
Policy Paper on Conserving Ireland’s Maritime Heritage – April 2006[/QUOTE]

Could you post the source of that quote Ossie?

Sparks115

Have you all seen the lastest item for sale on ebay!!!

http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320050910007

Ossie

Fiachra2 wrote:

[
Policy Paper on Conserving Ireland’s Maritime Heritage – April 2006

Could you post the source of that quote Ossie?[/QUOTE]

Source as follows:

http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/marine_policy_2006/index.html

gomarinago

INCH wrote:

Have you all seen the lastest item for sale on ebay!!!

http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320050910007

Petty childish stuff from objectors>This is a serious matter and if we are to be taken seriously on the matter of planning and area planning in greystones this stuff should not be done I 'll never take any of marcais comments here seriously again.When the public reps get emails about this they will think they are dealing with a crowd of clowns in greystones.Its a pity after all the serious hard work done by local activists.

Eoin

Multiple accounts are strictly against boards.ie rules, and have gotten people banned from the entire site on most occasions. If you can't make your point with one username, then don't bother trying to make it with two of them.

Ossie

gomarinago wrote:

Petty childish stuff from objectors>This is a serious matter and if we are to be taken seriously on the matter of planning and area planning in greystones this stuff should not be done I 'll never take any of marcais comments here seriously again.When the public reps get emails about this they will think they are dealing with a crowd of clowns in greystones.Its a pity after all the serious hard work done by local activists.

Gifting the Public Foreshore to private property developers is pretty serious stuff. The more people that know about this outrage the better. Marcais should be congratulated rather than insulted.

Sparks115

I agreee with Ossie....the council are gifting the foreshore for 30years!!!

Look we all know something needs to be done with the harbour but we should be lobbying the government to pay for it and not get private developers that hold us to ransom to fix the harbour. At what cost do people really want this to go ahead?

ouch!

i live in greystones near the harbour ( La Touche Rd.) and i am for the development of the harbour, the revised plans are much better than the previous and i think there has been enough objecting. Please try to see that there are a lot of people in Greystones that want this development, mainly the young ( i am 17). It'll be our town in the future and we will build if your generation doesnt, although i think it would be great if its done now. My entire family is for the development ( and my parents are 50!) we're all sick of objectors just rejecting anything good that is proposed for this town and we want the harbour.

ouch!

sportbilly wrote:

Like it or not Greystones is growing and in 2015 there could be near 20k people living in the place. At least we have an opportunityto influence how the town will look then.

This plan looks quite good. It makes sense to create attractions at the other end of the town and move the focus from the cramped current town centre and harbour.

I'm sure this will also create better swimming and facilities for waterbased activites than currently exist down that end of town, it will also provide a quicker access to the seaside for people living in Charlesland.

i would like to point out that this is one of the huge factors influencing the problem of urban sprawl at the moment, people do not realise that development must be kept in one place, yes these plans for Charlesland golf course look fantastic but i think first we should re-develop what really needs work. If there is a huge demand for property, high rise developments should be built instead of the country side being eaten up by ugly housing estates.

mikedragon32

ouch! wrote:

i would like to point out that this is one of the huge factors influencing the problem of urban sprawl at the moment, people do not realise that development must be kept in one place, yes these plans for Charlesland golf course look fantastic but i think first we should re-develop what really needs work. If there is a huge demand for property, high rise developments should be built instead of the country side being eaten up by ugly housing estates.

How would you feel about a nice 10 storey apartment block on the La Touche site then? Or maybe ditch the current marina plans in favour of a "docklands" type development.

While I am ambivalent about the harbour development, on the basis that something has to be done, I suspect nobody wants high rise in Greystones. Even the apartment buildings in Charlesland are too high imho.

As for urban sprawl, if you wish to remain in Greystones when you come to take your first step on the property market, you may well be grateful for the development of "ugly housing estates".

Sparks

mikedragon32 wrote:

As for urban sprawl, if you wish to remain in Greystones when you come to take your first step on the property market, you may well be grateful for the development of "ugly housing estates".

ouch says he's 17. Which means that by the time he goes to get on the property ladder, the building bubble will have burst and it'll be a buyers market anyway

Fiachra2

ouch! wrote:

iand i am for the development of the harbour, the revised plans are much better than the previous and i think there has been enough objecting. .

Interesting point of view ouch. Can I ask why you think the new design is better? I dont ask this in a critical way. Its just that as an objector I see very little difference between the two.

Ossie

ouch! wrote:

the revised plans are much better than the previous

The original plans were hideous. :mad: The revised plans are equally hideous.:mad:

None of the suggestions of Bord Pleanala were implemented. :eek:

They now want to plonk the largest square in Ireland on the Greystones foreshore. [SNIP] Flamebait [/SNIP]
We only want the refurbishment of the existing harbour and a small marina with none of the inappropriate high rise structures. Forget about the square we want to keep our beach!

Sparks

Ossie wrote:

[SNIP] Flamebait [/SNIP]

*expletive deleted*

mikedragon32

Ossie, please read the charter before posting again on this forum and consider yourself warned.

Flamebait will NOT be tolerated.

Sparks, you should know better than to rise to it!

Fiachra2

An Bors Pleanala have written to Wicklow County council and asked them to formally put their new plans on display and seek submissions from the public.

What this means is that the plans which have been on the Wicklow County Cuncil website for the last couple of months must be made available to the public in greater detail. The Council will be obliged to put copies on display in the Council offices in Greystones and you will be able to purchase hard copy.

Once it goes on display the public will have three weeks to make written submissions to An Bord Pleanala. After that there may be another oral hearing.

The website of the Greystones Protection and Development Association (www.greystonesmarina.ie) will carry information on whats going on and an explanation of the difference between the old an the new plans. (and no doubt we will have some lively debate on the subject here!)

It seems unlikely that the whole process will start before Christmas. If it does will let you know.

Fiachra2

The people of Greystones will have only three weeks in which to examine the new proposals for the development of housing and a marina at Greystones harbour. The plans went on display on 4 January and the public have until 29 January to examine the new proposals and submit their opinions to An Bord Pleanala.

The plans have not changed significantly from the proposals which were so comprehensively rejected by the community last Spring. Some of the apartments have been moved however the overall number of apartments has been reduced by a mere 8% and the height of the blocks has not been altered. Thus the main concerns of the community such as visual intrusiveness, failure to respect the character of the harbour area, loss of public amenities, traffic congestion and issues arising from disturbance of the dump have not, in any way, been addressed.

Copies of the new plans are available on CD or in printed form from Greystones Town Council offices or Greystones Library. The CD costs €5 and the printed version €50. However a copy is available to inspect free of charge. Unlike the last time it is not expected that there will be a large public exhibition.



Submissions on the plans must be sent to:

The Secretary
An Bord Pleanala
64 Marlborough St.
D.1

Sparks

...only three weeks...

...The CD costs €5 and the printed version €50...

...Unlike the last time it is not expected that there will be a large public exhibition.

Plus ca change...

Marcais

A picture says a thousand words, but the Council aren't listening. Get your objections in!



Greystones Harbour and Beach.......................................Private Marina and 341 apartments

Fiachra2

Just reading the piece of literature dropped into your homes by the Lord Mayor, Derek Mitchell. Some interesting Statements in it:

On page 1 he states that the sailing club has been "favourably treated" Funny then that the club is objecting to the development and is not included in the list of supporters! But then again the club was called "insular" and "selfish" by Derek and his fellow councillors so I guess its just more of that selfishness.

He gives over a whole page to the wave modelling report. Thats good because members of the public who requested that report were refused. Its a pity he doesnt tell us anything about the actual results of the modelling

On page three he tells us there will be "some disruption and extra traffic" during construction. In fact there will be 30 truckes per hour rolling through the town for two years. That would be "some disruption" alright!

On the last page he rubbishes the small scale harbour option on the basis of the assesment of three "independent" sets of consultants. Guess who these consultants were? The same ones who had already designed and marketed the large scale option Derek is promoting!
But then lets face it; independence is really a matter of degree.

And lastly, on page 1 he says "Lets stop talking and get on with it!"
Interesting point of view for a public representative and democrat.

Wineman

I have seen how some of the previous pro harbour supporters have been treated on this thread but here goes anyway. I just received a leaflet entitled " Greystones Harbour News" which outlines what this development entails and frankly I think it looks fantastic. I think it would be of huge benefit to Greystones community and will make the area unparraleled in the whole country. A new harbour, marina, public park, boardwalk, town square, maritime clubs, sandy beach...sounds great to me.
The leaflet also answers some of the misinformation out there, really opened my eyes. Now its time to duck for cover...

Marcais

"Greystones Harbour News" the gall !:D

Pathetic how this and recent glossy pamphlets pick titles (such as Greystones Newsletter) to make them seem like they are monthly community newsletters when they are mere adverts for a commercial development.

Before reading this expensive piece of well presented propoganda read the disclaimer on the back:

Sispar and Wicklow County Council disclaims any responsibility.....the content of this newsletter should not be relied upon as to any statements or representations contained in the same. Sispar and Wicklow County Council shall not be responsible for any misstatements or misrepresentations of fact or otherwise !!!

In the words of John McEnroe..."You cannot be fcekin serious"

Fiachra2

Wineman wrote:

I
The leaflet also answers some of the misinformation out there, really opened my eyes. Now its time to duck for cover...

I think its a pity that you feel you have to duck for cover but I grant you that some posts on this forum can be a little OTT!

What is a greater pity is that the promoters of this development wont come on this board and debate the facts of the issue. Clearly you have made up your mind on the matter (which you are perfectly entitled to do) and so many the arguments raised by objectors are -in your eyes-misinformation which can be dispelled by promotional literature from the developers. The reality is that this is not misinformation. At the very least it is a different way of looking at the same set of facts.

The debate is being carried on by way of opposing newsletters which is not good.A structured debate involving people who are aware of the facts of the proposals would be useful in helping everyone make up their minds.

With regard to the literature dont forget that it is actually produced by people who have invested enormous sums of money in this project and who -as Marcais points out- take no responsibility for the accuracy of their statements.

Wineman

With regard to the literature dont forget that it is actually produced by people who have invested enormous sums of money in this project and who -as Marcais points out- take no responsibility for the accuracy of their statements.[/QUOTE]


Guys,
I am not that naive that I think this was a community newsletter, I simply like the plans laid out for the development. And Marcais as usual displays his contempt for anyone with an opinion contrary to his.

Sparks

Wineman wrote:

Guys, I am not that naive that I think this was a community newsletter, I simply like the plans laid out for the development.

I think you meant to say you liked what the ad said the development would be like...

Marcais

Wineman wrote:

With regard to the literature dont forget that it is actually produced by people who have invested enormous sums of money in this project and who -as Marcais points out- take no responsibility for the accuracy of their statements.

Guys,
I am not that naive that I think this was a community newsletter, I simply like the plans laid out for the development. And Marcais as usual displays his contempt for anyone with an opinion contrary to his.[/QUOTE]

Typical of the minority pro-marina element on here attacking the poster and not the post. If you can actually support your statements where I show contempt to you or anyone please do so, otherwise stay on topic. You were obviously expecting abuse from someone judging by the "duck and cover" comment and even though you may be disappointed you did not get any, you come back with this nonsense. [I was not commenting on your post, if I was I would have quoted you, and I certainly won't apologise for your misunderstanding]

My last post displayed contempt for the "newsletters" received from the Mayor and from Sispar, which come a week after George Jones talked about locals trying to "out do each other with their leaflets" and almost demanded that only his side should be heard.

My contempt is generally reserved for the process that allows this type of unsustainable development without public consultation.

If any contempt is being displayed on this issue it is by the Council for the people of Greystones when 92% of people surveyed on the previous Gubay proposal said they do not want multi-storey buildings at the Harbour and the Council promsied to provide an acceptable alternative. The 375 4 storey apartments in the harbour was the alternative and no public consultation took place...now that's contempt!

Wineman

Misread you then Marcais, plus I wasnt paying attention to the smiley faces..apologies. However I dont consider myself a part of any " minority element", I am just an individual with an opinion.:)

Marcais

Wineman wrote:

Misread you then Marcais, plus I wasnt paying attention to the smiley faces..apologies. However I dont consider myself a part of any " minority element", I am just an individual with an opinion.:)

No worries mate...to be continued tomorrow..goodnight