More Houses to be Built.

Marcais · 05-12-2006 12:13am #1

Another slap in the face for those that expect Greystones Councillors to heed any of our concerns. To be expected I suppose when they summarily dismissed the views of 6,000 objectors to the apalling Marina plans. If you are not on the electoral register, I would urge you to do so and have your say in May 2007, that is the only place they will isten.

This was of course a done deal quite some time ago.

We asked that these plans be put on hold and were told about the urgent need for the school etc. but all that is for certain is that houses will be built. We were blatantly lied to and told that lands would be given for facilities not that they would have to be bought!:mad:

As expected, today on the E2 rezoning for the Zapi lands behind Charlesland, George Jones proposed that the rezoning motion for the District Shopping Centre and 210 houses etc should stay in the plan and he was supported by Cllr Kathleen Kelleher. Only The Greens, 2 Labour and one Independent opposed.

A Section 47 agreement was entered into with the developers which will be activated if, and when, the retail and residential zoning is signed off. A great deal for the council. :rolleyes: While the developers agreed to reserve sites for a Garda Station, a Community Enterprise Centre and a Recycling Centre, they are not giving these sites to the council for nothing but rather the council will have to buy the sites off the developers. Cllr Jones and Cllr Mitchell talked about the great “community gain” for the people of Charlesland and ignored the objections of Paddy Hooper, the Senior Planner. So the housing and the shopping centre has now been agreed by the council.

Obviously the views of the combined residents of Charlesland which opposed the development meant nothing to Cllrs Jones, Mitchell or Kelleher.

Sparks · 05-12-2006 1:16am

Was this the plan to build on the current site of the park-n-ride car park?

Bertie · 05-12-2006 9:51am

When I said earlier in another thread that this would happen and an individual from ballymore told me theyd be back by the spring building I was rubbished now all they have to do is put in the permission .I'm putting a deposit on one of the houses as soon as I hear they are going ahead.

LMC · 05-12-2006 11:26am

80acre site to be rezoned in Greystones......See article on page 2 of todays Irish Times........

matt-dublin · 05-12-2006 1:05pm

The Irish Times wrote:

Greystones 80-acre site to be rezoned
Tim O'Brien

Wicklow county councillors yesterday voted to rezone an 80-acre site on the outskirts of Greystones for the construction of a large shopping centre, housing and community facilities.

Adopting the Greystones and Delgany local area plan, councillors amended the 80-acre employment zoning at Charlesland in return for a legal agreement from high-profile property developers Seán Dunne and Seán Mulryan that they would provide a range of community facilities.

The agreement stipulates that the developers offer the Department of Education a five-acre site for a primary school at school site prices; offer another site to the Department of Justice for a new Garda station; provide a recycling centre and develop an 8,000sq m enterprise centre, some 2,800sq m of which would be given free to the local community. The developers also agreed to provide €3 million towards the development of a community centre.

In return, the developers, who are developing about 1,400 new homes and commercial facilities on neighbouring land, would get their site rezoned to allow for an additional 210 houses and a "district level" shopping centre of 20,000sq m.

The deal was strongly supported by a majority of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael councillors, including the mayor of Greystones, Derek Mitchell (FG).

Mr Mitchell said the changes would allow the children of Charlesland to walk to school. He added that the new enterprise centre was needed to provide space for small industries that were being forced from spare rooms and garages in houses because of planning enforcement.

On the shopping centre, Mr Mitchell said: "We need to be able to buy clothes, children's things, washing machines etc in Greystones."

Greystones was also now one of the few large towns in Wicklow without a recycling centre.

Mr Mitchell said the town had grown rapidly in the last six years and facilities were needed.

The deal was approved by 17 votes to four. One of those opposed to the deal, Cllr Deirdre de Burca, said a number of elements of the plan disturbed her. The rezoning had only been first mentioned on September 4th last, she said, giving locals very little time to study the implications. Those who had studied the plan were opposed to the deal, maintaining that Charlesland already had enough new homes, she added

In todays paper

Sparks · 05-12-2006 1:20pm

Still don't know the answer to my question though.

matt-dublin · 05-12-2006 1:40pm

no as far as i know this is the plan for the land alongside superquinn and the main plan is for the golf course (correct me if im wrong)

MuffinsDa · 05-12-2006 1:41pm

matt-dublin wrote:

On the shopping centre, Mr Mitchell said: "We need to be able to buy clothes, children's things, washing machines etc in Greystones."

dead right. How could we live without being able to buy washing machines in Greystones. Misery....

matt-dublin · 05-12-2006 1:54pm

it is kind of a random item to pick....
although a burger kind would be nice!

Sparks · 05-12-2006 2:01pm

MuffinsDa wrote:

dead right. How could we live without being able to buy washing machines in Greystones. Misery....

Yup. Having to drive to DID electrical on the southern cross bypass once every five years is a killer.

wicklowdub · 05-12-2006 2:14pm

FFS so our opinion and reservations count for nothing, plus not only do the developers not have to build the garda station etc, they can sell back the land to the council ??? - cant wait until the next local elections!!!

The children of greystones can walk to school ?

new arrival · 05-12-2006 2:55pm

As expected, today on the E2 rezoning for the Zapi lands behind Charlesland, George Jones proposed that the rezoning motion for the District Shopping Centre and 210 houses etc should stay in the plan and he was supported by Cllr Kathleen Kelleher. Only The Greens, 2 Labour and one Independent opposed.

A Section 47 agreement was entered into with the developers which will be activated if, and when, the retail and residential zoning is signed off. A great deal for the council. :rolleyes: While the developers agreed to reserve sites for a Garda Station, a Community Enterprise Centre and a Recycling Centre, they are not giving these sites to the council for nothing but rather the council will have to buy the sites off the developers. Cllr Jones and Cllr Mitchell talked about the great “community gain” for the people of Charlesland and ignored the objections of Paddy Hooper, the Senior Planner. So the housing and the shopping centre has now been agreed by the council.

Obviously the views of the combined residents of Charlesland which opposed the development meant nothing to Cllrs Jones, Mitchell or Kelleher.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone seen the actual plans?

Is there plans to build houses or commercial buildings right up to the wall at the creche? (or is it planned for the far side of the road?)

new arrival · 05-12-2006 2:57pm

[code][COLOR="Red"]As expected, today on the E2 rezoning for the Zapi lands behind Charlesland, George Jones proposed that the rezoning motion for the District Shopping Centre and 210 houses etc should stay in the plan and he was supported by Cllr Kathleen Kelleher. Only The Greens, 2 Labour and one Independent opposed.

A Section 47 agreement was entered into with the developers which will be activated if, and when, the retail and residential zoning is signed off. A great deal for the council. :rolleyes:  While the developers agreed to reserve sites for a Garda Station, a Community Enterprise Centre and a Recycling Centre, they are not giving these sites to [B]the council for nothing but rather the council will have to buy the sites off the developers. [/B]Cllr Jones and Cllr Mitchell talked about the great &#8220;community gain&#8221; for the people of Charlesland and ignored the objections of Paddy Hooper, the Senior Planner. [B]So the housing and the shopping centre has now been agreed by the council[/B]. 

Obviously the views of the combined residents of Charlesland which opposed the development meant nothing to Cllrs Jones, Mitchell or Kelleher.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]

[/code]

Has anyone seen the actual plans?

Are there plans to build houses or commercial buildings right up to the wall at the creche? (or is it planned for the far side of the road?)

Sparks115 · 05-12-2006 3:23pm

Roll on Election day!!!! I cant wait for these guys to knock on my door ...they havent listened to a word that anbyway has said......ear bashings galore.......Those Brown envelope trees must be pretty empty today....I wonder who will be having a very merry xmas this year...mmm let me think...me thinks the FF and FG Coucillers of Wicklow!!:p

tomflynn · 05-12-2006 4:22pm

Matt Dub - This is not the golf course lands. Golf course lands rezoning not on agenda during this LAP but it is now owned by developers and is now only a matter of timing.

My understanding is that the land rezoned to residential is the land between the dual carriageway and Charlesland estate. This area I gather is also to have the garda station and recycling centre with the primary school closest to Superquinn.

The new shopping centre is to be located on the far side of the dual carriageway, but not clear whether this is to be above or below Jackie Skellys? Any definitive answers to this??

As for the community gain, I would have to say its not the worst deal ever struck. Whether or not you agree with them, the councillors have been going on about these particular facilities for a number of years & in some cases decades and could claim to have fulfilled their mandate on delivering on these (no reference to harbour devt here) i.e. community centre, primary school in south Greystones, community centre (first mooted in 1995 ish and heavily fundraised by community group till 2002, now joint approach with co. co. swimming pool project)., Garda station and job creation etc.

But shopping centre is in the wrong place. Too far from the main street. Should be at park and ride.

As for accusations raised by Inch, easy option is to take out the man, please provide the evidence or call in to the tribunal otherwise that particular contribution is not helpful. Best advise is to vote for someone else or bravely put your name forward in the next local election. I have no doubt there are about 3,000 floating votes in Charlesland at the next election.

Fiachra2 · 05-12-2006 4:29pm

INCH wrote:

Roll on Election day!!!! I cant wait for these guys to knock on my door ...they havent listened to a word that anbyway has said

There is no need to wait till polling day. The leaders of both FF and FG are easily contacted by e-mail. Try and get as many people as possible to e-mail them requesting that they not bother sending anyone to canvass your areas as, thanks to the actions of their local councillors, you will not be voting for their candidates.

Fiachra2 · 05-12-2006 4:50pm

tomflynn wrote:

As for accusations raised by Inch, easy option is to take out the man, please provide the evidence or call in to the tribunal otherwise that particular contribution is not helpful. Best advise is to vote for someone else or bravely put your name forward in the next local election. I have no doubt there are about 3,000 floating votes in Charlesland at the next election.

I would only agree with that up to a point.

Firstly these councillors justify these rezonings on the grounds of "community gain" But the community didnt ask for them! In fact the "community" made submissions opposing them and met these councillors to express their oposition

Secondly if these proposals were part of some grand plan for the benefit of the town as you suggest, why werent they included in the original draft plan prepared by the professional planners? Why were they not put to the community as part of the consultation process? Indeed why did the planners vigourously oppose them when they were put forward as amendments?

So if these councillors are not acting on the wishes of the community, and not acting in accordance with the recomendations of the professional planners then on whose behalf are they acting?

I'm not saying that there are brown envelopes involved but surely an explanation is called for?

Votethemout · 05-12-2006 4:51pm

Sparks asks for location of shopping complex, I think it is south/west of Seabourne apartments and north/east of Jackie Skelly -- ie between the two on the southern siode of the carriageway.

May or may not be a good idea but its a helluva way to plan, run a county (or not).

Do most people know it was all agreed at the council meeting on Monday on foot of a deal (€ in millions) cooked up between George Jones, the county manager and the developer? Allegedly there will be funds for the (long delayed) public swimming pool (the one sited on Mill Road by the roundabout near the rugby club), a community centre of unknown (at least to me) dimensions and facilities, plus a library extension.

The only way to do anything about this sort of nonesense is to vote these people out. Countdown to June '07 starts here...

Hence the name...

loyatemu · 05-12-2006 4:57pm

more houses - well thats kind of inevitable since the road was opened, I'd rather have houses than warehouses.

the shopping centre I don't understand though. reports say it will be one third the size of Dundrum - thats still pretty big, too big to be supported by Greystones alone I would've thought. But who else would shop here when Dundrum and the new Bray town centre will be just up the road?

Look at the meridian point - its bang in the centre of the village and the 2 largest stores in it are closing (well ones moving). Maybe a Dunnes Stores or a full size superquinn would do alright in the new shopping centre, but what else would go in there, with so many vacant units already around the town.

And what is this councillor obsession with bloody washing machines! maybe they're feeling dirty...

Votethemout · 05-12-2006 5:01pm

Tom Flynn says its not the worst deal ever done.

That may be true bvut is it really the point?

Surely we are all cooking up problems if we allow/encourage these sort of deals/relationships between councillors, officials and developers. There are huge potential conflicts of interest here. The council and its official are supposed to act in the best interest of all members of the community; the councillors are suppored to represent their constituenct; developers are supposed to mak profit. Nothing wrong with all that but if you put all three together, cooking up deals o0utside public scrutiny and thm ram them through council meetings without real, thorough public examination... then I think you're heading for Tribunal-land.

There should be a a lot of clear blue water between those whose duty is to act on behalf of the whol community and those whose primary -- only -- onligation is to their own self-interest. This reminds me of what was goin on in the north-east of England in the 1960s -- anyone remember T Dan Smith, Pulson et al?????

tomflynn · 05-12-2006 5:04pm

[/QUOTE] Sparks asks for location of shopping complex, I think it is south/west of Seabourne apartments and north/east of Jackie Skelly -- ie between the two on the southern siode of the carriageway. [/QUOTE]

Thanks

[/QUOTE]
a community centre of unknown (at least to me) dimensions and facilities, plus a library extension [/QUOTE]

Went through planning process about a year ago for a swimming pool with a community centre consisting (from memory) of a basketball size hall (or 4 badminton courts), meeting rooms, creche, coffee shop, but revised a couple of months ago to facilitate provision of 2nd basketball size hall i.e doubling in size. Assume this due to addition funding available from Sean Dunne (Irish Times says €3m). Was advertised on e-tenders with closing date couple fo months ago. Waiting approval from the Dept of Sport. I have no doubt at all that will receive approval for works to commence and sod to be turned about a week before the next general election.....say around April.

Jonege · 05-12-2006 9:09pm

The usual Marcais outburtst
Are you a member of the Green Party , the vote yesterday is a real gain for Charleslands and Greystones and it is not any slap in the face!!
IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.
Will outline gains if required asa I did your committee

MuffinsDa · 06-12-2006 10:06am

Jonege wrote:

The usual Marcais outburtst
Are you a member of the Green Party , the vote yesterday is a real gain for Charleslands and Greystones and it is not any slap in the face!!
IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.
Will outline gains if required asa I did your committee

1. It will be very much obliged if you outline the gains clearly, concisely and without recourse to political mumbo-jumbo.

2. I dont have a particular opinion on this matter but it appears to me that majority of charlesland residents are clearly against it. do you believe in democracy? Or do you think you know better than residents what's their gain and whats their loss? How else could the residents make it known that they don't want this so-called gain? Obviously they are like minors and you know better than them what's good for them?
Bring on the Ayatollahs then!!!!

Jonege · 06-12-2006 10:25am

The history of how we got to the current stage started about 3 years ago when the Town Council invited represntatives of Zapi to explain their plans for the remaining 80 acres of land under their control in Charlesland. By this stage they had received a Bord Pleanala permission for 80 acres of offices/warehouses/commercial on this site. The councillors were also very unhappy about the way the first phase of Charlesland has come about. Bord Pleanala granting permission for close to 1500 housing units on lands zoned for 800 houses and no great gains for Greystones out of the development.
This time around we were not going to sit around and see more development with out any gain for the town.
The first opportunity to consider changes came about under the Local Area Plan process. The town councillors and county councillors sat down with Sean Dunne and Sean Mulryan co owners of the site and discussed a revised Masterplan for the 80 acres and the outline of this plan was put forward at the Council meeting in September and the County Manager was requested to enter into a Section 47 Agreement with the owners to ensure if changes were made to the zoning items promised would be honoured.
The main provision of the adjustment in zoning is as follows
Residential development of 168 family units incorporting a range of dwelling sizes and types with an average floor area up to 220sqm, in addition to 20% Part V Social and Affordable housing to be provided on site. (all these items will be subject to getting planning permission) This was to complete the residential element of Charlesland on the same basis as Eden Gate with the choice of 3,4,&5 bedroom houses.
Provide an Enterprise Centre of 8,000sqm, which shall include a start up facility of c.2800sqm which will be handed over to a Greystones CEB free of charge
A site of 3,000 sqm for a Re cycling Centre to be provided for €1 (one euro ) to Wicklow County Council along with €500,000 in cash if the Government give a capital grant (which they have given for Bray, Arklow, to kit out centre the €500,000 can be used for other community purposes
A district shopping of not more than 20,000sqm (this area was listed in the draft retail guidelines produced by the planners as suitable for district shopping) Why do Wickow people need to travel out of the County for suitable shopping? With the M50 and new Interchange being built on the n11 maybe there will be some reverse traffic!!
Alos on site there would be Retail warehousing, commercial offices, Car showrooms and Industrial Units
A 1 acre site reserved for a Garda Station with the price fixed at €1,000,000 an acre including vat(commercial land in Greystones would be costing in region of €3/€4 million. If the office of Public Works don't buy and build station within 4 years the Council buy the land for community purposes at the fixed price
A site of 2 hectares to be located on north side of GSAR adjacent to existing retail/community area (when the orginal proposal to build Superquin etc came before the council a few years ago Labour Councillors voted against it didnot want shops for 1500 houses!!) Same price for land and transfer if not built.

The proposed Enterprise Centre together with sites for Garda station, Primary School and Recycling Centre shall be provided in the first phase of development.
The owners also made donations to local projects without any conditions so if no shops goes on site the money stays with projects
In summary €3,000.000 will be provided to add to the €1m available to a new state of art Community Centre to be located beside Rugby Club along with Swimming Pool (Local Swimming pool committee receive €250,000 for their local contribution to the €10 m pool project. Both projects have gone out to tender and work should start on both in early 2007 adding more facilities to the current Golden Mile (GAA,Rugby,Tennis etc etc)
€250,000 to 20 acres Sports & Recreational site to finalise kit out.
€100,000 for new Exhibition Centre at the Local Library €2m has already been provided by Government and work will start new week.
Overall I feel a "Good deal" has been done for Greystones and Charlesland.
The proposals on Monday were supported by 18 Cllrs of FF/FG/Lab/Ind opposed by 4
I hope I have explained the proposals in plain language!!

Sparks · 06-12-2006 11:25am

Why do Wickow people need to travel out of the County for suitable shopping?

That's farsical. The only major shopping anyone in Wicklow would have to leave the county to do is for major purchases for appliances and such, and those are done so rarely that travel is a minor concern. And with DID off the southern cross, they don't even need to leave the county any longer.

A 1 acre site reserved for a Garda Station with the price fixed at €1,000,000 an acre

And why exactly is a Garda station going to cost a million euro, but a recycling centre will cost one euro, with a half-million being given to the council to kit it out?

Bertie · 06-12-2006 11:30am

[QUOTE=Votethemout

The only way to do anything about this sort of nonesense is to vote these people out. Countdown to June '07 starts here...

Hence the name...[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately you seemed confused with General and localelections the local elections are not until the summer of 09 so these councillors will sit for another 2 1/2 years.This development will be nearing completion by then and i'll bet the harbour will be under way anybody hear about planning being lodged for 150 houses in Blacklion near lidl

Jonege · 06-12-2006 11:36am

I don't where you shop but half of population of Wicklow can be found in Dundrum, Liffey Valley and Cornelscourt

The cost of size for re cyclying centre is being given free to the Council. Its normal procedure for Office of Public Works to pay for Garda Sites likewise The Dept of Education buy school sites!

Sparks · 06-12-2006 11:59am

Jonege wrote:

I don't where you shop but half of population of Wicklow can be found in Dundrum, Liffey Valley and Cornelscourt

That might be the half who work in Dublin and who can call into Cornelscourt on the way home. Which is what happens when half your towns are dormitory towns.

Of course, by dragging people along the M50 into Wicklow, you're acting against their interests by increasing traffic on the road they use, but let's ignore that for a moment and look instead at the financial crisis that Tesco, Supervalue and Lidl and Aldi must now be suffering given that half of Wicklow are leaving the county to avoid shopping with them.

Oh wait, they're not. What a surprise, since Tesco and Supervalue (and now Lidl) are right here in Greystones, there's two large centres in Bray, and you have another in Wicklow town itself.

On the shopping trends bit, by the way, I shop in the Tesco in Greystones for most food needs and things like cookware, etc. Occasionally the supervalue and the nature shop down by the DART station for smaller items Tesco wouldn't have, or for herbs/spices, where the nature shop is the best place to go; and in Woodies and DID on the southern cross for anything I'd need for DIY or small appliances. I've not had to leave Wicklow yet for anything bar the stuff like books that I'd buy on the web because no shop anywhere in the world can afford the same range as amazon for fundamental economic reasons.

The cost of size for re cyclying centre is being given free to the Council. Its normal procedure for Office of Public Works to pay for Garda Sites likewise The Dept of Education buy school sites!

And we all know how much money the DoE and DoJ have thrown around in capital spending over the last few years, don't we?

Oh wait, they've spent feck all. You have kids in portacabins with rats in some parts of this country, and Garda stations that the Gardai themselves refuse to work in because they're in such a bad state of disrepair. But somehow, the DoJ will find a million euro for a second station instead of saying "erra, the Greystones station can cover it"? And yes, that's a criticism of the DoJ - but if the DoJ aren't going to spend a million euro on a new station, isn't the pragmatic route of arranging a free site for them a better solution than hoping they'll have a change of heart and get such a load of cash in a budget that they can upgrade all their existing stations and pay for the Reserve and still have the cash for a new station in a small town in wicklow which is still seen as effectively a part of an existing town anyway?

And as for the DoE buying a new site and building a new primary school, the same argument applies, but writ large.

MuffinsDa · 06-12-2006 12:12pm

Jonege wrote:

The cost of size for re cyclying centre is being given free to the Council. Its normal procedure for Office of Public Works to pay for Garda Sites likewise The Dept of Education buy school sites!

Thanks for the explanation but I fail to see any major gain in what you said.
If it's NORMAL procedure and if they are BUYING it then what's the big gain?
what's the guarantee that they buy it anyway? What if they don't want it?
What is council going to do with that land then? How much land does council need for community centres? How much money are you going to spend on that?
Or is it that then that will also go back to developers and they'll put more houses up there eventually and give us another great deal?

With all due respect, your response defies any logic Mr Jones, and is not convincing at all.

tomflynn · 06-12-2006 12:18pm

Sparks wrote:

And we all know how much money the DoE and DoJ have thrown around in capital spending over the last few years, don't we?
Oh wait, they've spent feck all. You have kids in portacabins with rats in some parts of this country, and Garda stations that the Gardai themselves refuse to work in because they're in such a bad state of disrepair.

Thats why this is quite a good deal

[/QUOTE=Sparks]
But somehow, the DoJ will find a million euro for a second station instead of saying "erra, the Greystones station can cover it"? And yes, that's a criticism of the DoJ - but if the DoJ aren't going to spend a million euro on a new station, isn't the pragmatic route of arranging a free site for them a better solution than hoping they'll have a change of heart and get such a load of cash in a budget that they can upgrade all their existing stations and pay for the Reserve and still have the cash for a new station in a small town in wicklow which is still seen as effectively a part of an existing town anyway? And as for the DoE buying a new site and building a new primary school, the same argument applies, but writ large.
[/QUOTE]

If a Garda station at Charlesland comes to pass, I am sure the Dept of Justice will sell the ramshackle station by the La Touche Hotel. It is long passed its sell by date, inaccessible to anyone with disabilities and a miserable place. The station site with unobstructed views of the sea, even if only partially sold, is worth a fortune and would easily fund the purchase of a new site and construction of a new Garda barracks, located midway between Kilcoole and Greystones. Greystones station covers both.

As for school site, the various Churchs used to do it all for the state but now the Dept of Educ, while loaded with €€€, have failed to fully take on this duty and unless a site is put it in front their faces. And here the developer is obliged to sell at a subsidised price- even at which they will make a profit.

Mitch Connor · 06-12-2006 12:20pm

MuffinsDa wrote:

Thanks for the explanation but I fail to see any major gain in what you said.
If it's NORMAL procedure and if they are BUYING it then what's the big gain?
what's the guarantee that they buy it anyway? What if they don't want it?
What is council going to do with that land then? How much land does council need for community centres? How much money are you going to spend on that?
Or is it that then that will also go back to developers and they'll put more houses up there eventually and give us another great deal?

With all due respect, your response defies any logic Mr Jones, and is not convincing at all.

isn't the gain that it could be purchased for 1/3, 1/4 of the commercial value of the site

MuffinsDa · 06-12-2006 12:28pm

Tauren wrote:

isn't the gain that it could be purchased for 1/3, 1/4 of the commercial value of the site

No, not if they don't want it! They may not have any money to spend on it anyway! And then they say: oh nobody wants it lets build more homes. How many times we've been tricked like that?

It would be a gain if they build a school and handed it over to DoE (which was the rumours I initially heard but obviously the negotiation power of our councillors limits to this board and not real world

)

Fiachra2 · 06-12-2006 1:12pm

1.If all this was such a great deal why was it not in the original draft plan and why did the planners oppose it?

2. Just how good a deal is ZAPI getting? There was no chance of any industry being built, so the 80 acres -zoned for industry-was effectivly worthless. Now with all this planning permsiion it has assumed a massive value. Will theh community get to have a look at that figure to see if they-the community-are really getting a good deal vis-a vis what Zapi makes?

future_plans · 06-12-2006 1:28pm

On the face of it, it seems that this "deal" would be an enhancement to the area. The central issue on the thread now seems to be the transparency of the whole process. When such information is witheld along, with the dismissal of the town planners views and lack of public consultation, it is only natural that people feel that something is amiss here.

Also, even though there is an agreement for a school and Garda station, etc. There seems to be an inherent lack of commitment and the residents in the area then question the validity of these agreements and doubt that these promises will be kept.

The majority of people would have to see the turning of the first sod on the sites of the new school and Garda station before confidence in this agreement would be fulfilled. This will hardly happen before the general election because of the planning process.

Now that this land has been rezoned, I would expect the public to be properly consulted in the next phase. There is an unused showroom in the Fairways owned by Ballymore/Zapi. I would propose that all plans should go on show here in plenty of time for all local residents to take timeout and view.

Sparks · 06-12-2006 1:28pm

tomflynn wrote:

Thats why this is quite a good deal

What? The flaws in the plan are why it's a good deal? How badly do you misunderstand the situation that you could say that with a straight face?

If a Garda station at Charlesland comes to pass, I am sure the Dept of Justice will sell the ramshackle station by the La Touche Hotel. It is long passed its sell by date, inaccessible to anyone with disabilities and a miserable place. The station site with unobstructed views of the sea, even if only partially sold, is worth a fortune and would easily fund the purchase of a new site and construction of a new Garda barracks, located midway between Kilcoole and Greystones. Greystones station covers both.

So you're saying that if Charlesland gets a Garda station at all, then:

The DoJ will have to get into the business of selling off its property;
There will be some unplanned luxury housing in a prime location going begging;
Greystones will lose its station, located within rapid response time of the banks, credit union, major housing estates, the DART station and other areas where you'd need them fast if you need them at all;
Greystones and Charlesland will have no station at all in the interim while the Greystones station is decommissioned and sold off and the Charlesland station is built and commissioned.

That's not a great deal; it's not even a good deal. It's a farce.

As for school site, the various Churchs used to do it all for the state but now the Dept of Educ, while loaded with €€€, have failed to fully take on this duty and unless a site is put it in front their faces. And here the developer is obliged to sell at a subsidised price- even at which they will make a profit.

Hold up. You know the DoE won't take on the duty; but you think it's a great deal that you're requiring them to do so before we get a school? What is this, the "lets stick it to the man" club? What's your priority here, to show up the DoE or to look after our interests? And what serves our interests more - having the developer build a school and hand it to the DoE for €1 or having the developer make a serious profit by offering the land to the DoE for a large sum - which the DoE won't pay - and then selling the land for an even higher sum for housing when the DoE follow the inevitable route?

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.

Sparks · 06-12-2006 1:59pm

future_plans wrote:

On the face of it, it seems that this "deal" would be an enhancement to the area. The central issue on the thread now seems to be the transparency of the whole process.

Excuse me, but that's not the case. The central issue on the thread is that this deal does not seem to be an enhancement to anyone or anything but the developer's profit margins.

Also, even though there is an agreement for a school and Garda station

There is no such agreement. There is an agreement that land will be sold to the DoE or DoJ if and only if either body wishes to pursue that option. Which, given their capital spending in the past decade, seems highly unlikely to even outside observers. Any agreement for a school or garda station would not have anything to do with the council or the developer; it would have to do with the Departments involved. Have they issued any statement on this plan?

I would propose that all plans should go on show here in plenty of time for all local residents to take timeout and view.

That's a nice idea. Of course, it would have to effectively be on 24hr display because of the dormitory nature of Greystones and Charlesland; something that has not been taken into account up to this point it would seem. Where was the postal distribution of plans for this deal, for example?

future_plans · 06-12-2006 2:09pm

There is no such agreement. There is an agreement that land will be sold to the DoE or DoJ if and only if either body wishes to pursue that option. Which, given their capital spending in the past decade, seems highly unlikely to even outside observers. Any agreement for a school or garda station would not have anything to do with the council or the developer; it would have to do with the Departments involved. Have they issued any statement on this plan?

Agreed Sparks. Essentially that is what I meant. In my opinion, on paper the whole thing does not seem to be the worst deal for the area. The likelyhood of any of it happening apart from more housing and the shopping centre however is slim.

tomflynn · 06-12-2006 2:28pm

Sparks wrote:

What? The flaws in the plan are why it's a good deal? How badly do you misunderstand the situation that you could say that with a straight face?

So you're saying that if Charlesland gets a Garda station at all, then:
The DoJ will have to get into the business of selling off its property;

There will be some unplanned luxury housing in a prime location going begging;

Greystones will lose its station, located within rapid response time of the banks, credit union, major housing estates, the DART station and other areas where you'd need them fast if you need them at all;

Greystones and Charlesland will have no station at all in the interim while the Greystones station is decommissioned and sold off and the Charlesland station is built and commissioned.

That's not a great deal; it's not even a good deal. It's a farce.

Hold up. You know the DoE won't take on the duty; but you think it's a great deal that you're requiring them to do so before we get a school? What is this, the "lets stick it to the man" club? What's your priority here, to show up the DoE or to look after our interests? And what serves our interests more - having the developer build a school and hand it to the DoE for €1 or having the developer make a serious profit by offering the land to the DoE for a large sum - which the DoE won't pay - and then selling the land for an even higher sum for housing when the DoE follow the inevitable route?

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.

If everyone had a negative attitude towards such developments, nothing would be built. My previous post, which is my opinion and seems not to be consistent with yours, is one which I am entitled to. I agree with some of your suggestions and may not agree with all. I am not a counillor so I can't have planned this out. My interest is in the provision of facilities for my family and ALL local residents. You will probably find that many people will be quite satisfied with these facilities when they are complete.

In my opinion, which you will probably disagree with, the biggest issue is not 210 houses which is relatively minor, it is the location of a shopping centre a long way from the main street.

Should you have been resident in Greystones during 1980s/1990s (which you may or may not have been) it was obvious that many facilities were not provided. In terms of the community facilities the fact remains that government regularly fails to provide community facilities when and where they are needed. Usually they are provided after groups, often created by active people like you, start seeking them. In this case the provision of facilities appears to have been given a head start.

Incidentally Greystones Garda station will, if relocated, be in the centre of the Garda district which also serves Kilcoole, Delgany etc. It is not only a Greystones station.

Sparks · 06-12-2006 3:38pm

tomflynn wrote:

If everyone had a negative attitude towards such developments, nothing would be built.

Indeed. Good thing then that there's only a negative attitude towards the bad plans.

You will probably find that many people will be quite satisfied with these facilities when they are complete.

I strongly suspect that instead what I'll find is what I see now - that most people feel they had no voice in the process and that they're just focussing instead on their needs and only their needs and they're putting up with the developments rather than being involved in the process; because that's the only logical thing they can see to do when they're given the very clear message by the council that their input is Not Desired, Thank You Very Much.

Should you have been resident in Greystones during 1980s/1990s (which you may or may not have been)

I was, from '86 onwards.

it was obvious that many facilities were not provided.

Actually, it was never a problem because even then Greystones was a dormitory town. So long as there was any form of transport to Dublin and cheap housing, people could live here. (Which is why the plan mentioned earlier of building on the park-n-ride car park struck me as the most assinine, brain-dead notion I'd heard of in recent years).

In terms of the community facilities the fact remains that government regularly fails to provide community facilities when and where they are needed.

Which is precisely why the above plan is a bad one - because it depends on the government spending money providing those facilities which they have consistently failed to demonstrate any interest in providing before now.

What I fail to see is why the deal regarding the recycling centre was not pressed for for the Garda Station and School as well.

In this case the provision of facilities appears to have been given a head start.

Appearances can be deceptive; in this case they certainly are.

Incidentally Greystones Garda station will, if relocated, be in the centre of the Garda district which also serves Kilcoole, Delgany etc. It is not only a Greystones station.

Which will make no odds to any resident of Greystones who currently enjoys the facility of having the station within a short distance. If having it here is a bad arrangement for the rest of the district, the solution is to build more stations, not take ours away. And this plan won't help because it will either take ours away or not give one to the rest of the district.

tomflynn · 06-12-2006 3:53pm

Sparks wrote:

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.
.
.
.
.
(Which is why the plan mentioned earlier of building on the park-n-ride car park struck me as the most assinine, brain-dead notion I'd heard of in recent years).
.
.
Which is precisely why the above plan is a bad one - because it depends on the government spending money providing those facilities which they have consistently failed to demonstrate any interest in providing before now.
.
.
Which will make no odds to any resident of Greystones who currently enjoys the facility of having the station within a short distance. .

You appear to have absolutely nothing positive to say, perhaps you should take up residence in your own desert oasis where you control the surrounding desert, drive where you want when you want and contribute nothing localy except consider yourself.

Sparks · 06-12-2006 4:05pm

You appear to have absolutely nothing positive to say

Sometimes Tom, there really isn't anything positive you can say.
And right now, with the degree of effort that the council put into involving the locals in the development process, you might as well be in a desert oasis...

By the way, nice example of playing the man and not the ball.

tomflynn · 06-12-2006 4:16pm

Sparks wrote:

Sometimes Tom, there really isn't anything positive you can say.
And right now, with the degree of effort that the council put into involving the locals in the development process, you might as well be in a desert oasis...

By the way, nice example of playing the man and not the ball.

Apologies. I'm not saying you're a bad person. Desert comparison more by way of a metaphorical example, thought it was quite good. By the way.....I am not entirely happy with the transparency of the whote process but trying to fine the positive (i think there is some). Unfortunately the existing planning process is the one we find ourselves within. We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act.....by 2056.

Sparks · 06-12-2006 4:51pm

We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act

No, but there's no law against sending out information to those who are affected by it...

tomflynn · 06-12-2006 6:00pm

Sparks wrote:

No, but there's no law against sending out information to those who are affected by it...

Agree, that would be a very positive thing to do

Wineman · 06-12-2006 10:57pm

Marcais wrote:

Obviously the views of the combined residents of Charlesland which opposed the development meant nothing to Cllrs Jones, Mitchell or Kelleher.

Wouldnt you say it was a tad pretentious for you to speak on behalf of the 3000+ residents of the Charlesland estate, you most certainly do not speak for me. In fact your rants are becoming tiresome, arent you the same person who tried to sell the Greystones harbour on Ebay and was mentioned in the Wicklow Times as living in Charlesland?

Marcais · 06-12-2006 11:59pm

Jonege wrote:

The usual Marcais outburtst
Are you a member of the Green Party , the vote yesterday is a real gain for Charleslands and Greystones and it is not any slap in the face!!
IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.
Will outline gains if required asa I did your committee

Jonege, you really need to address your paranoia, you use the same method of attack on individuals who objected to the Marina branding them as left wing Socialist agitators. Not all who have concerns about the unrestricted overdevelopment in their local communities are socialists and not everybody who disagrees with you thinks you have "horns" as you suggest in your introductory post.

I am not a member of any political party, I am a resident who, like many of my neighbours, is very concerned about this unsustainable development which is surplus to requirement and totally opposed by the town planners. And, as you are also well aware, opposed by Charlesland Residents Committee who, as you also know, considered all of the so called benefits to Charlesland carefully and jointly before reaching agreement.

I obviously do not claim that my views represent all of Charlesland but, unlike the proponents of this developmnet and of the Marina I and my neighbours did actually ask people their opinions and as you know there were several submissions against these proposals. You and your fellow councillors chose not to mention these objections in any of your press releases and summarily dismissed our concerns. This came as no surprise as we stated back in June that if you could discount the views of 6,000 objections to the Marina proposal, we should not expect our views to be considered on this issue.

In another one of your personal attacks on a member of the Harbour Residents Association, you accused him of having a conflict of interest in that he owns a shop in Greystones (which sells specialty Italian foods etc.) and that was the reason he objected to the proposals for a shopping center in Charlesland. A ridiculous suggestion in so many ways but typical of the all too common "shoot the messenger" approach. Reds under the bed and Greens in the seams.

I also have to mention (seeing as you incorrectly state without clarification that "FF/FG/Lab/Ind supported this") that an Independent and Tom Fortune of Labour did not support this. (Oh, and I'm not a member of the Labour Party).

MuffinsDa · 07-12-2006 9:12am

Jonege wrote:

IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.

Based on what Marcais said, LAB and IND did NOT vote in favour of this (at least some of them).

Seeing that in your position you could hardly have said the above by mistake, could you please explain why did you LIE to the community deliberately? Is that part of your care for How can we trust any other word you say when it is so easy for you to lie and twist the truth?

Fiachra2 · 07-12-2006 9:16am

tomflynn wrote:

). Unfortunately the existing planning process is the one we find ourselves within. We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act.....by 2056.

Tho whole point though tom is that the Planning Process was not adhered to. The law may not have been broken but the councillors drove a coach and horses through the spirit of the law.

The process should be to produce a draft plan, listen to the communities views on it, modify accordingly and then finalise. What happend here was that a draft plan was produced, then radically revised and comments from the community ignored. I think we can all agree that this should not be allowed happen. Specifically we can agree that the planning process should not include private negotiations between developers and councillors thrashing out their views of the future of Greystones.

future_plans · 07-12-2006 10:45am

If the facilities are delivered as the councillor says, then I would be in favour of this. I am assuming that the process (rezoning) will not be reversed? My family needs a school within walking distance. Personally, the garda station makes no difference to me. I think, providing there are a number of high profile anchor tenants, the shopping centre would be a success. Although, I would certainly think this would have a major impact on existing businesses - Meridian Point for definite. The number of houses (210) is fairly irrelevant in the grander scheme.

My main concern is the lack of transparency and how all this was apparently agreed upon by developers and councillors without little consultation. This is the 2006 - 2012 Local Area Plan, but how many more developer driven ammendments can we expect before 2012? How long before the golf club (according to the plan objective "to preserve and enhance private open space". This provate open space is owned by developers and it certainly is not in their interest to preserve that...

Sparks · 07-12-2006 11:07am

If the facilities are delivered as the councillor says

Thing is, from what I can see, the councillor isn't saying the facilities will be delivered; he's saying that they're going to offer the DoE and DoJ the opportunity to purchase the sites on which to build the facilities. There's no mention of what the DoE or DoJ are saying about this.

Ossie · 07-12-2006 1:22pm

There is a damming letter in the Irish Times today (7/12/06) from an eye witness to the shenanigans which occurred at the council meeting last Monday.

It appears that by pushing through unsustainable development and ignoring the views of the people the councillors are even in breach of the code of conduct for councillors as let out in legislation.

This is a scandalous abuse of the power given to the councillors by the people.

More Houses to be Built.

Comments