KRM shopping centre...WHEN will the decision be made?????

wellbutty

This week, Waterford Today reported the following:

The long awaited decision on the KRM City centre development is expected this week. A spokesperson for An Bord Pleanala said it was expected that the decision would be handed down either Thursday or Friday next.
The multi million euro development is under appeal by six appellants to An Bord Pleanala against a decision granting permission by Waterford City Council.

Does anyone know when this planning circus will end????????? Has anything been announced today?

Sully

I heard nothing about it.. not appearing on the Munster Express either. Probably will get delayed again. Shame really, the development has potential. Though my understanding is that KRM have no intention of giving up!

EDIT: Link to application - http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/224299.htm
Main website only shows data week ending 16th of May 2008.

wellbutty

Yeah it certainly has much-needed potential...its painful to go to places like Kilkenny and Wexford and see what real development is.

So many other projects in the pipeline.....North Quays, Outer Ring Road/Airport Roundabout, Tesco revamps in Poleberry/Lisduggan, new Tesco near Ballybeg, Tower Hotel upgrade, Stanley site, Ard Ri replacement............the list goes on and on, if only we could see diggers on sites...

Sully

Funnily enough I think I agree with Bredan Mcann on one thing. IIRC, Marks & Spencers recently pulled out of talks to locate in Waterford. They wanted to go on the ORR but Brendan wanted them in the town center. In the end they gave up and have plans to build in Clonmel.

I think that if all development goes out into the ORR the city wall fall on its knees. Such developments like this need to be located within the city center to drive more people into the town itself.

I had a look at the Ard Ri replacement and I think what they want to build is horrendous. Its like a space shuttle. I hope it gets turned down. I believe Lisduggan got permission? Not sure about Polberry and the Ballybeg Application was only recent filed (not a bad location for a Tesco, should do well there but I fear trouble due to the locality having a few bad eggs).

Have the Tower asked for an extension yet?

Roen

I heard on WLR that it had been delayed.....again.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Funnily enough I think I agree with Bredan Mcann on one thing. IIRC, Marks & Spencers recently pulled out of talks to locate in Waterford. They wanted to go on the ORR but Brendan wanted them in the town center. In the end they gave up and have plans to build in Clonmel.

I think that if all development goes out into the ORR the city wall fall on its knees. Such developments like this need to be located within the city center to drive more people into the town itself.

I had a look at the Ard Ri replacement and I think what they want to build is horrendous. Its like a space shuttle. I hope it gets turned down. I believe Lisduggan got permission? Not sure about Polberry and the Ballybeg Application was only recent filed (not a bad location for a Tesco, should do well there but I fear trouble due to the locality having a few bad eggs).

Have the Tower asked for an extension yet?

....and yet he says that the KRM development belongs on the ORR. you just cannot win with him. His main goal is to stifle Waterford's development to the betterment of Galway his native City

ex_infantry man

Bards wrote: »

....and yet he says that the KRM development belongs on the ORR. you just cannot win with him. His main goal is to stifle Waterford's development to the betterment of Galway his native City

hence this is why galways now the third city in ireland and expanding more rapidly than any other city in ireland

Freddie59

Bards wrote: »

....and yet he says that the KRM development belongs on the ORR. you just cannot win with him. His main goal is to stifle Waterford's development to the betterment of Galway his native City

That's the long and the short of it Bards. A living contradiction. And then you have people sympathising with him.:rolleyes: What hope is there for this City? Who the hell does this guy think he is dictating where a business should locate?

Freddie59

Sully wrote: »

Funnily enough I think I agree with Bredan Mcann on one thing. IIRC, Marks & Spencers recently pulled out of talks to locate in Waterford. They wanted to go on the ORR but Brendan wanted them in the town center. In the end they gave up and have plans to build in Clonmel.

And your point is?

Sully wrote: »

I think that if all development goes out into the ORR the city wall fall on its knees. Such developments like this need to be located within the city center to drive more people into the town itself.

Newsflash. The City centre is already on its knees, courtesy of the activities of this man.

Sully wrote: »

I had a look at the Ard Ri replacement and I think what they want to build is horrendous. Its like a space shuttle. I hope it gets turned down.?

Yes, let's let that wonder of architecture the Ard Ri Hotel just decay and become another eyesore. Like the De La Salle Centre; the site in the Waterside, et al. Great idea.

Sully wrote: »

I believe Lisduggan got permission?.?

McCann objected to this also. And he lives in Viewmount. FFS!

Sully wrote: »

Not sure about Polberry and the Ballybeg Application was only recent filed (not a bad location for a Tesco, should do well there but I fear trouble due to the locality having a few bad eggs).

Would you elaborate on that please? In a thread about travellers the other day debate was stifled because of similar comments. What makes this so different?

Sully

Freddie59 wrote: »

And your point is?

And yours is?

Newsflash. The City centre is already on its knees, courtesy of the activities of this man.

Are you serious?!?! Thanks Freddie for that newsflash, I dont know where id be without you! My god! :rolleyes:

Yes, let's let that wonder of architecture the Ard Ri Hotel just decay and become another eyesore. Like the De La Salle Centre; the site in the Waterside, et al. Great idea.

So you dont care how ugly or poor a development is, once there is something there? My god, I thought you had some sense when it came to planning discussion! And you say I have a lack of passion for Waterford!

McCann objected to this also. And he lives in Viewmount. FFS!

Yes, we know he objects to most things. My point is, IIRC, it got permission. Whats the hold up?

Would you elaborate on that please? In a thread about travellers the other day debate was stifled because of similar comments. What makes this so different?

Sure thing. Anything for you Fred

I don't know what the situation with Polberry is, as in, did it get permission. I wondered about the new Tesco location, as in, is it to big for the area. Would it do much business? Would they get hassle because they are in between the Travellers (some of the travellers have been known to cause trouble in Templers Hall) and Ballybeg (a location where there has been a good bit of trouble over the years). May I make it clear to anyone who wants to start picking through the above comment: I am in no way saying that a minority or majority cause trouble in either locations. There HAVE been reports of trouble in both locations in the past and my concern is would this have an affect if Tesco opened up between it.

Oh and, the other thread got closed because people were suggesting the use of flame throwers to exterminate travellers. They were using inappropriate remarks to describe travellers and it was basically a "Have a go at the travellers" topic. Hence, it was closed. This thread has sweet **** all to do with travellers so stop making it out like it does.

Freddie59

Sully wrote: »

And yours is?



Are you serious?!?! Thanks Freddie for that newsflash, I dont know where id be without you! My god! :rolleyes:



So you dont care how ugly or poor a development is, once there is something there? My god, I thought you had some sense when it came to planning discussion! And you say I have a lack of passion for Waterford!



Yes, we know he objects to most things. My point is, IIRC, it got permission. Whats the hold up?



Sure thing. Anything for you Fred

I don't know what the situation with Polberry is, as in, did it get permission. I wondered about the new Tesco location, as in, is it to big for the area. Would it do much business? Would they get hassle because they are in between the Travellers (some of the travellers have been known to cause trouble in Templers Hall) and Ballybeg (a location where there has been a good bit of trouble over the years). May I make it clear to anyone who wants to start picking through the above comment: I am in no way saying that a minority or majority cause trouble in either locations. There HAVE been reports of trouble in both locations in the past and my concern is would this have an affect if Tesco opened up between it.

Oh and, the other thread got closed because people were suggesting the use of flame throwers to exterminate travellers. They were using inappropriate remarks to describe travellers and it was basically a "Have a go at the travellers" topic. Hence, it was closed. This thread has sweet **** all to do with travellers so stop making it out like it does.

Sully, sarcasm doesn't really do it for you.;) What is needed in Waterford in passion for this City of ours. And I have it in abundance. Others should try it sometime. As opposed to leaning towards the activities of the loonies in the Green Party.

I ask again:

What's your point from that the previous post?

Are you prepared to stand idly by and see the Ard Ri dismantled brick by brick and vandalised in the vain hope of waiting for a 'Tasteful' development coming along? Take a look around you. There's a serious lack of investment at the minute.

ANd BTW - you singled out Ballybeg. It was uncalled for. Other areas of the City have similar problems.

Sully

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sully, sarcasm doesn't really do it for you.;) What is needed in Waterford in passion for this City of ours. And I have it in abundance. Others should try it sometime. As opposed to leaning towards the activities of the loonies in the Green Party.

Thanks for the tip Freddie, it doesn't really suit you either Its humorous though. Anyway, I have passion for Waterford. However, I don't think that every single development is good, and I think that some need to be revised if not scrapped. We cant just say yes to every development just so we can have a city full of great things. We should have a city that looks fantastic from all angles and that has everything we could hope for and better.

I ask again:

What's your point from that the previous post?

I was referring to planning in Waterford while we were on that topic. I do believe Marks & Spencers should come, and this is where it boils down to passion. I don't believe for one second that it should be located out in the ORR. The last thing we need to do is drag everything away from the city just because we "want" the shop. With every application for planning we need to consider ALL factors involved.

Are you prepared to stand idly by and see the Ard Ri dismantled brick by brick and vandalised in the vain hope of waiting for a 'Tasteful' development coming along? Take a look around you. There's a serious lack of investment at the minute.

Yes actually I would. I have passion for my city and I don't want to see a horrendous development that will destroy the landscape for many years to come to take the place of an already horrendous building that is present. This development will be seen from a large amount of the city and if we accept this type of ugly development then our city will be horrible. I know there is a lack of investment, but we shouldn't have to accept every single development request that comes along just for the sake of it.

ANd BTW - you singled out Ballybeg. It was uncalled for. Other areas of the City have similar problems.

Well yes. Tesco is being developed beside Ballybeg. Not beside Lismore Park, Ardkeen Village, or anyother estate in Waterford. Why would I refer to them? I'm not discussing where "bad eggs" are located. I am saying that the development in question is being located by a general rough area in Waterford between the halting site and Ballybeg. I wonder would it be a bad spot? Its just a question. I'm fully aware that both the halting site and ballybeg has many good citizens who would make use of it, im just concerned that those who are not will damage it.

ec18

Sully, It was actually the corperation not Brendan McCann that wanted Marks and Spencer in the city centre.

Theres a funny thing about taste and architectural design in thats it's very subjective ... i.e. everyone has their own opinions on what looks good. I haven't seen the proposed plan so I can't comment...but it sounds very McCann- ish of you to say that it shouldn't go ahead because you dont like it:P

Sully

ec18 wrote: »

Sully, It was actually the corperation not Brendan McCann that wanted Marks and Spencer in the city centre.

I was of the understanding that Brendan wanted it in the city centre and Marks & Spencers wanted it outside?

Theres a funny thing about taste and architectural design in thats it's very subjective ... i.e. everyone has their own opinions on what looks good. I haven't seen the proposed plan so I can't comment...but it sounds very McCann- ish of you to say that it shouldn't go ahead because you dont like it:P

Good point. Its very like the old plastic tanks for petrol you used to have at the back of your house. Expect its taller, and read. I didn't see much windows from the picture. It just looked like a tall cylinder of metal in red. When I saw it, it was on April Fools so I thought it was a joke

Bards

What Brendan McCant said was that the First City Development(which M&S was being the Anchor Tenant) belonged in the City centre, and yet we have a similar develoment being held up by the very same person, who said it belonged on the ORR - go figure.

ec18

didn't the corperation also have an objectio to allowing M&S on the ORR?

Sully

Bards wrote: »

What Brendan McCant said was that the First City Development(which M&S was being the Anchor Tenant) belonged in the City centre, and yet we have a similar develoment being held up by the very same person, who said it belonged on the ORR - go figure.

Aye I don't think KRM should be in the ORR at all.. these type of development should be within the centre of the city so its easy to get between the different external shops. Also, I dont see how these external shops can object to the likes of KRM stating it would be bad for businesses - if anything it would drag more people back into the town centre rather then away from it and hence increasing potential customers. Its not like there going to all inside in the KRM shopping centre where there will be several army shops (and so what if there is, a bit of competition never hurt anyone!)

Sully

ec18 wrote: »

didn't the corperation also have an objectio to allowing M&S on the ORR?

Possibly, I am not to sure on that one.

BBM77

Sully wrote: »

Funnily enough I think I agree with Bredan Mcann on one thing. IIRC, Marks & Spencers recently pulled out of talks to locate in Waterford. They wanted to go on the ORR but Brendan wanted them in the town center. In the end they gave up and have plans to build in Clonmel.

Not having a go Sully, so don’t take this as a dig. But I hate when McCann is referred to as some kind of authority on planning / development; he is far from that. In most of his objections he shows a total lack of understanding in relation to planning / development in the real world. I am not going to start listing them because I would be here all day.

Sully

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

Not having a go Sully, so don’t take this as a dig. But I hate when McCann is referred to as some kind of authority on planning / development; he is far from that. In most of his objections he shows a total lack of understanding in relation to planning / development in the real world. I am not going to start listing them because I would be here all day.

Oh dont get me wrong. This is the first time I agreed with an objection of his! I dont for one second think he is an important figure (well he is technically, as he holds up all the planning) but I do agree with him on the M&S Development.

mike65

Slightly OT - shouldn't someone tell google about the Ard Ri

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=waterford+city+Ard+ri&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Mike.

Sully

Twould be more the individual websites rather then Google.. have to laugh that these tourist sites are not up to date!

wellbutty

Agree totally that the Ard Ri proposal is horrendous.

M&S in the city centre.......yeah it should be in there but we have an oversupply of small premises that no multinational store is interested in these days...and it's killing us. Unless the KRM proposal gets approved (or the Broad Street Centre is somehow converted to 2 big stores, or Jenkins Lane is built on etc), we're going to be limited by this in the future

Freddie59

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

Not having a go Sully, so don’t take this as a dig. But I hate when McCann is referred to as some kind of authority on planning / development; he is far from that. In most of his objections he shows a total lack of understanding in relation to planning / development in the real world. I am not going to start listing them because I would be here all day.

Well said Ballybrickenman. There appear to be two schools of thought on this individual and on the planning process within Waterford City:

1. There are those who see how dangerous this man's activities are in relation to this City's development and expansion. Indeed its very future. These people - myself included - are passionate about this City and how it must be protected (even if it means changing the law) from self-appointed 'guardians':rolleyes: of the planning process.

2. Then the other side. Those who try to rationalise - nay, even defend - this ludicrous carry-on. Hopefully the former are in the ascendancy. If not there's no hope for Waterford.

ongarboy

slightly off topic but did Pizza Hut ever open at Railway Square in Waterford? From Waterford News & Star article over a year ago, it won a battle against Brendan McCann to open there. Haven't been down in Waterford in a while so haven't seen any of the latest developments but enjoy hearing about them on these threads. See article from April 07 below

"PLANS to provide a ‘Pizza Hut’ restaurant and take-away in the new Railway Square development in the city, have got the final go-ahead.


An appeal against planning permission by Green Party member Brendan McCann has been dismissed by An Bord Plean·la who’ve given the ‘thumbs up’ to the development.

The fast-food premises, which will seat over 100 people, will be situated over two ground-floor units of the Railway Square complex at the corner of Manor Street and the Link Road.

It will be a restaurant primarily and the take-away element will be extra to this. A condition to permission is that the opening hours will be restricted to 11am-10pm on Sundays to Thursdays and from 11am-11pm all other days.

The restaurant was granted planning permission by the City Council, subject to 11 conditions, in November and because residents claimed they didn’t know about the plans early enough, Brendan McCann was the only person to lodge an objection.

He had issues with several aspects of the development. Firstly, he said the applicants had taken no steps to inform locals of their plan and had placed their notice of intention to apply for planning in a newspaper not widely read in Waterford.

The development, he maintained, would cause parking hassle for locals and the business was likely to generate noise, general disturbance and food smells.

He maintained the units in question were the “least suitable” within the Railway Square development while he was also concerned about the “increased availability of alcoholic drink to young people”.

Notably, he further pointed out that permission was granted only months previously for the restaurant with a condition that the take-away plan was disregarded and a new floor plan was devised. The Council, he said, had now over-turned their own condition only months after their first decision and no changes had been made to the floor plan.

Permission, he maintained, should be refused for the facility but if it was granted, conditions should stop the sale of food/alcohol for consumption off the premises. Only wine, he said, should be consumed in there and the opening hours should be reduced to 11am-6pm Sunday to Thursday and 11am to 8pm on other days.

RS Railway Square Ltd. had said their plan was that the take-away would account for only 5-10% of the business. They would only open from 11am-10pm Sunday to Thursday and from 11am-11pm on other days.

The premises, they said, would be aimed at families and youth people and would increase the level of natural surveillance in the area. The Miller’s Marsh car park, meanwhile, would provide sufficient parking.

In his report, An Bord Plean·la inspector Philip Dray dismissed many of the arguments raised by Brendan McCann. He said the developers had no obligation in terms of informing locals other than to place the notice in a newspaper which was done. Nor, meanwhile, were they under obligation to appeal a previous unsatis-factory planning decision or conditions.

The choice of units was a commercial matter for the developer, he said, and it didn’t matter that the Council had changed their view on the premises because each application was separate. Also sale of alcohol issues were a matter for the courts.

The inspector said if the plan was for the premises to operate as a takeaway first and foremost there would be a strong argument to refuse the application in terms of traffic generation and residential amenity. As it was the opening hours would not be excessive and by their nature, pizza enterprises did not generally give rise to obnoxious odours.
He recommended a grant of planning permission, subject to six conditions, which was agreed by the board. These included the opening hours as set out by the developer, the payment of a financial contribution to the City Council for public infrastructure and the submitting of a waste management plan for the site. "

Sully

Thats interesting as I heard he was sucesfull. I see Centra have fitted out shelves and seating in their new store but it has yet to open and to my supprise the floor hasnt been finished - it looks like just a concrete floor that is in all the empty units!

Psychedelic

‘Newgate Centre’ is hit by further delay

A ruling on whether the proposed €280m ‘Newgate Centre’ development in Waterford city should be allowed to go ahead is to be further delayed.

An Bord Pleanála would only say yesterday that “a decision isn’t imminent.” It’s understood that a letter will issue this morning informing the applicants that the already-protracted appeal process is to be extended.

A verdict has been postponed four times to date - most recently because of an incomplete environmental impact statement. The Munster Express understands that this latest hold-up, the reason for which isn’t yet known, could put back a ruling by 10 weeks or more.

The mixed-use development at Michael Street was applied for by KRM Construction Partnership almost a year ago - after an original scheme for the ‘Brewery’ site was presented, but refused by the planning authority.
Waterford City Council granted permission for the revised development but appeals were lodged by the Waterford Council of Trade Unions, Green Party member Brendan McCann, the Waterford Alliance for Sustainable Inner City Development, the Department of the Environment, the Patrick Street and Stephen Street Traders Group, and businessman Noel McDonagh.

Oral hearings were held by An Bord Pleanála last November. The “frustrated” developers say the project, comprising a 60-unit shopping complex, hotel and other elements, would create approximately 600 jobs during construction, and as many as 1,300 in the medium to long term.
Waterford Chamber CEO Monica Leech says Waterford is losing out on €20m in retail spending and can’t afford to lose this scheme, which now has a 2010 completion target.

However, objectors say it would impinge on nearby residents’ quality of life and damage the area’s architectural and archaeological fabric. The 5.1-acre site borders Michael Street, Stephen’s Street, New Street and Brown’s Lane.

Freddie59

Psychedelic wrote: »

‘Newgate Centre’ is hit by further delay

A ruling on whether the proposed €280m ‘Newgate Centre’ development in Waterford city should be allowed to go ahead is to be further delayed.

An Bord Pleanála would only say yesterday that “a decision isn’t imminent.” It’s understood that a letter will issue this morning informing the applicants that the already-protracted appeal process is to be extended.

A verdict has been postponed four times to date - most recently because of an incomplete environmental impact statement. The Munster Express understands that this latest hold-up, the reason for which isn’t yet known, could put back a ruling by 10 weeks or more.

The mixed-use development at Michael Street was applied for by KRM Construction Partnership almost a year ago - after an original scheme for the ‘Brewery’ site was presented, but refused by the planning authority.
Waterford City Council granted permission for the revised development but appeals were lodged by the Waterford Council of Trade Unions, Green Party member Brendan McCann, the Waterford Alliance for Sustainable Inner City Development, the Department of the Environment, the Patrick Street and Stephen Street Traders Group, and businessman Noel McDonagh.

Oral hearings were held by An Bord Pleanála last November. The “frustrated” developers say the project, comprising a 60-unit shopping complex, hotel and other elements, would create approximately 600 jobs during construction, and as many as 1,300 in the medium to long term.
Waterford Chamber CEO Monica Leech says Waterford is losing out on €20m in retail spending and can’t afford to lose this scheme, which now has a 2010 completion target.

However, objectors say it would impinge on nearby residents’ quality of life and damage the area’s architectural and archaeological fabric. The 5.1-acre site borders Michael Street, Stephen’s Street, New Street and Brown’s Lane.

FFS! This is bloody ridiculous.

Dum_Dum

Who are KRM anyway and what does K.R.M. stand for?

Bards

Dum_Dum wrote: »

Who are KRM anyway and what does K.R.M. stand for?

The K stands for Kickham. IIRC the same person has a controlling interest in the House of Donoghue (Drinks Dsitributor) and Datapac (Major player in the Irish IT sector) and original owners of the Brewery site in New Street. Since which they have bought up the whole block encompassing the siad development

they are based in Enniscorthy

JohnC.

Nice to see the Waterford Alliance for Sustainable Inner City Development want to continue with the current trend of derelict shops popping up all over the inner city.

Sully

You would think that KRM could do something about the delays tho.. is there nothing they can do to prevent it?

Roen

All that shower of Lisa Simpsons up in the WASICD have to do is delay things long enough for the economic downturn to work it's 'magic' and pretty much anyone with the means to invest in the city will have buggered off somewhere else.

fricatus

Roen wrote: »

All that shower of Lisa Simpsons up in the WASICD have to do is delay things long enough for the economic downturn to work it's 'magic' and pretty much anyone with the means to invest in the city will have buggered off somewhere else.

Please... don't insult Lisa Simpson. She may be sensitive, idealistic and care for the environment, but she's also intelligent and practical, something the WASICD are not.

jimmytheman

ABP - Newgate letter 1.jpg

ABP - Newgate letter 2.jpg

ABP - Newgate letter 3.jpg

read this --- its from bord planeala today -
makes for grim reading!!!!
sorry

KingLoser

hey jimmy,

are you sure this isn't a letter from pleanala to an appealant asking for more information and clarification on their appeal?

...or did i just read all that completely wrong?

Sully

Seems to be.. and they dont like the size of the hotel. I would trust the Boards decision or requests compared to the council tho.

jimmytheman

but when will the poor lads in KRM get a decision ---
if they pull out this town is ****ed!!!!
sorry for the language -
but it really annoys me -
this is a much needed city centre amienity

foot fall in city centre has fallen 38% compated with same time last year !

WE NEED LOTS OF NEW RETAIL IN CITY CENTRE
and we need it asap

BBM77

WLR were trying to sensationalize it on the news today but I think it is not too bad. There does not seem to be a reduction in the number of shops which is the most badly needed part of the development. Also An Bord Pleanala stated that the area is suitable for a shopping development. I think overall it is positive news. The further delays are frustrating alright but KRM seem to be determined to see the centre to the end so that is some reassurance.

Sully

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

WLR were trying to sensationalize it on the news today but I think it is not too bad. There does not seem to be a reduction in the number of shops which is the most badly needed part of the development. Also An Bord Pleanala stated that the area is suitable for a shopping development. I think overall it is positive news. The further delays are frustrating alright but KRM seem to be determined to see the centre to the end so that is some reassurance.

Slow news day then?

sunnyse

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

The further delays are frustrating alright but KRM seem to be determined to see the centre to the end so that is some reassurance.

I wouldn't think they have much choice at this stage, the interest repayments alone must be huge and add on professional fees on top then they've put a fortune into this. It wouldn't surprise me to see the site go up for sale once permission is eventually granted. from experience I know enthusiasm for projects like this can run out within a company if it's dragged out over years.

Freddie59

Roen wrote: »

All that shower of Lisa Simpsons up in the WASICD have to do is delay things long enough for the economic downturn to work it's 'magic' and pretty much anyone with the means to invest in the city will have buggered off somewhere else.

And lets not forget the Waterford Council of 'Trade Unions':rolleyes:. FFS it's straight out of Fr. Ted. And organisation claimning to represent union members objecting to something which will generate hundreds of jobs.

WTF?! I'm a union member for over 30 years and no-one asked for my opinion either verbally or in the shape of a democratic ballot. They certainly do not represent me or the majority of union members who are in favour of this development.

Then you have sitting councillors rowing in behind them. It's even an affront to Fr. Ted.:mad:

Bards

The last bit on Page 3. worries me - Quote "It should be noted that any response received may be circulated and may require a new public notice"

for this -'read' new oral hearing and expectant delays of upwards of 12 months or more.:mad::mad:

Bduffman

Is it just me or shouldn't some of these problems been forseen by the developers? I know they can't predict every possible objection but some of them (at least from the laymans point of view) seem obvious. Have these people not been involved in this kind of development before?

Freddie59

Bduffman wrote: »

Is it just me or shouldn't some of these problems been forseen by the developers? I know they can't predict every possible objection but some of them (at least from the laymans point of view) seem obvious. Have these people not been involved in this kind of development before?

You're probably right. But then you don't expect others to treat the planning process as some game of chess either.

BBM77

Bduffman wrote: »

Is it just me or shouldn't some of these problems been forseen by the developers? I know they can't predict every possible objection but some of them (at least from the laymans point of view) seem obvious. Have these people not been involved in this kind of development before?

Ah, no matter what KRM did their application would have been appealed by the people who appealed the city councils decision.

Roen

This from today's Property supplement in the Irish times

Green light for €280m Waterford centre

ELLA SHANAHAN

PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT: KRM CONSTRUCTION Partnership, developers of a proposed €280 million mixed-use commercial development in Waterford city centre, say their intention is to proceed with the development over the whole of the 5.2-acre site, in spite of a significant scaling down of their original proposal by An Bord Pleanála.

The developers say that, while disappointed with the setback, the most important point from their perspective is the acceptance that the city centre site they have assembled over several years is "suitable for the type of mixed development proposed".

But Brendan McCann, dubbed a "serial objector" because of his objections to, or observations on, a large number of developments in the Waterford city area, and one of a number of objectors to the KRM proposal, chalks this up as another success.

He says An Bord Pleanála "pretty well agrees with much of our comments on the development. It was over-scaled and inappropriate to the street scale."

An Bord Pleanála ruled that the overall height of most of the development should be reduced by 7.5 metres, around the height of a major retailing floor (about 12ft).

It said the proposed hotel should be completely redesigned and include a reduction in the overall height. It insists on the retention of buildings on both ends of the main shopping street, Michael Street, and a significant increase in the separation distance between the development and the residential properties on Alexander Street on the northern side of the development.

The residential component of the development - over 20 apartments - is to be retained.

Una Ryan of the Waterford Alliance for Sustainable Inner City Development, another objector, is happy with the board's ruling.

She points to the fact that Waterford's inner city still has a thriving residential community living in houses, rather than apartments, in quite a number of streets and across a range of housing abutting the proposed development.

John Andrews, senior planner with Waterford City Council, which rejected KRM's initial proposal, but worked closely with the developers on this second proposal, says his gut feeling is that the revisions requested do not affect the "commerciality" of the project.

He says the developers "when they saw the detail, I would say they were much more relaxed. This would have seemed to be an indication that the board are disposed to grant it."

KRM, through a spokesman, said prospective clients continued to be interested in the project.

They declined to name those clients but industry sources consider that Marks & Spencer and possibly Debenhams (who have a smaller than required shop in the former Roches Stores in City Square) may well be joint anchor tenants. Other British high street retailers, who do not yet have a presence in Waterford, could also be interested.

Research conducted by Behaviour & Attitudes, and provided by KRM, indicates, conservatively, retail leakage from Waterford of over €19.2 million per annum because of the absence of a major commercial centre in the city.

Cabaal

so its going ahead but just scalled back, we'll see in the current climate if it'll still be built

mike65

Hmm, Marks and Sparks in town on on the ORR?

The development will need a Blue Chip name.

Mike

trishw78

Excellent... Lets get this out to tender quickly 'cause I'm going to need a job in September.

Also I'd say that the working hours will be extremely tight. and don't you know that they'll be watched like hawks 1 minute over and all hell will break loose.

Sully

It hasnt got approval yet.. KRM are just promissing to stick with it.

Anywhome.. M&S already said they wont move into a city center premisses and they want to be in the ORR where there is plenty of parking.