Quays Project Pix

mike65

Have these been posted before? I don't recall seeing them previously.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10004




close up

Ard Ri Site

Fajitas!

They're missing the hovercars and "no 4 storey" placards...

Asmodean

Seen this ages ago. Nothing decent is ever going to be done with the quays unfortunately. Too much humming and hawing and the preservtion of bull**** brigade constantly interfering. *sigh* No wonder no-one ever takes us seriously.

Cabaal

Fajitas! wrote: »

They're missing the hovercars and "no 4 storey" placards...

I believe one of those shops sells the Grays Sports Almanac

merlante

Asmodean wrote: »

Seen this ages ago. Nothing decent is ever going to be done with the quays unfortunately. Too much humming and hawing and the preservtion of bull**** brigade constantly interfering. *sigh* No wonder no-one ever takes us seriously.

Too much loser talk as well.

Asmodean

Could you define loser talk Merlante? Just curious

merlante

Asmodean wrote: »

Could you define loser talk Merlante? Just curious

Negative failure talk, like "we're going to fail in the future, because we're a failure now and because nothing and nobody has ever out of this woe-begotten town. Don't plan anything because nothing will ever happen." That sort of thing. :P

ziedth

Fajitas! wrote: »

They're missing the hovercars and "no 4 storey" placards...

Just relased new Pic of development.





(Apologies for the crewdness of pic just don't have as much free time today )

gobo99

ziedth

If someone with graphic design experience wants to take over on the BTTF picture I'm hapy to hand it over to them. Not looking at anyone in particular :cool:

Asmodean

Again a bit early for photoshopping but you get the point!

Sully

Kilkenny County Council have rejected the application.

Waterford City Council are still awaiting a further infromation request which expires in a few days.

Fajitas!

Ffs.

And Jury's is turning in to just another eyesore on the side of the river.

merlante

Sully wrote: »

Kilkenny County Council have rejected the application.

Hilarious. I wonder what reason they gave? It's a Waterford city issue plain and simple. I suppose it has something to do with the turf war over the greater Ferrybank area, what with that failed shopping centre they got built against Waterford City Council's objections.

Bards

merlante wrote: »

Hilarious. I wonder what reason they gave? It's a Waterford city issue plain and simple. I suppose it has something to do with the turf war over the greater Ferrybank area, what with that failed shopping centre they got built against Waterford City Council's objections.

...and you remember the reason McCan't gave for not objecting to the shopping centre . A: Kilkenny was too far to go to lodge an objection; same reason he gave for not objecting to the Butlerston retail park, in that Dungarvan was too far away

Yet he finds the time to go to Kilkenny and lodge an objection against the Ard Ri??????

the more and more he does and doesn't do, the more and more I am inclined to think he wants to stop Waterford from developing at all costs, and will block anytihng which is positive and not block anything which takes away from the City

Sully

merlante wrote: »

Hilarious. I wonder what reason they gave? It's a Waterford city issue plain and simple. I suppose it has something to do with the turf war over the greater Ferrybank area, what with that failed shopping centre they got built against Waterford City Council's objections.

They appealed it from what I can gather.

http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/PlanningDetails.aspx?FileNo=08822

The application is threefold in nature. [b[Two of the sites are in the Waterford city area of jurisdiction and the third (so demarcated as a result of the county boundary) falls within County Kilkenny. [/b] The development, although straddling the county boundary, has to be viewed in its larger context.

I laughed..

The overall proposal seems extremely ambitious considering the size of Waterford City. Particularly on the Kilkenny side the proposal as stands seems to neglect development standards in order to maximise densities.

Bitter much?

Reasons & Considerations for Decision on Planning Ref. P08/822.


1. The proposed development includes for housing provision in an area designated in the Ferrybank- Belview Local Area Plan 2009 as “Passive Open Space”, where the objective is to provide for passive open space, green links and biodiversity conservation and wherein housing provision is not allowed. The proposed development would therefore contravene materially a development objective indicated in the Ferrybank-Belview Local Area Plan for the area and the development is considered contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

2. The proposed development does not meet the development standards as required and set out in the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008 and the Ferrybank - Belview Local Area Plan 2009. Also, the proposed development, by reason of limited spacing between certain blocks of buildings and vast differences in elevations between adjacent buildings, will lead to overlooking which will seriously injure the residential amenities of residents of the development. The shortfall in design standards together with the potential impact of the residential amenities will seriously detract from the quality of life provided by the development and will be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

Sully

Bards: He may have made the objection on the Waterford side, rather then the Kilkenny side.

EDIT: The Kilkenny site doesnt show who objects but the Waterford site does. He did object in Waterford along with..

Brendan McCann 169 Viewmount 04/07/2008 07/07/2008
Iarnrod Eireann Divisional Engineers Office 10/07/2008 10/07/2008
DOEHLG Development Applications Unit 14/07/2008 15/07/2008
George and Antoinette Kavangh C/O John Stewart & Assoc. Architects 14/07/2008 15/07/2008
Miriam Cass & Mary Higgins Rocklands 21/07/2008 22/07/2008
An Taisce - The National Trust for Irela Tailor's Hall 31/07/2008 31/07/2008
Port of Waterford Company C/O Colin Buchanan 8 Windsor Place 18/07/2008 21/07/2008
Health Service Executive HSE South 05/08/2008 05/08/2008
Dennis Murphy 7 Belmont Road 21/07/2008 22/07/2008
Trees for Life c/o Jody Power, Chairman 21/07/2008 22/07/2008

mike65

Trees for Life?

Sully

Also they have appealed it. The decession might be due around August.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/233383.htm

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Bards: He may have made the objection on the Waterford side, rather then the Kilkenny side.

EDIT: The Kilkenny site doesnt show who objects but the Waterford site does. He did object in Waterford along with..

according to Waterford News & Star he did

http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story/?trs=mhauojojsn&cat=news

"Submissions were received by Kilkenny County Council from Brenadan McCann, George and Antoinette Kavanagh and Paul McTernan.
"

gscully

mike65 wrote: »

Trees for Life?

Yep...not just for Christmas!

mike65

Indeed! I'm surprised the Mom and Apple Pie party weren't on that list.

Fajitas!

Why the hell did the Health Board... Ah f*ck it... I give up.

merlante

Sully wrote: »

They appealed it from what I can gather.

http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/PlanningDetails.aspx?FileNo=08822

I laughed..

Bitter much?

Just had a flick through. Lots of talk about it not obeying the Ferrybank/Belview local area plan, and it not being a city centre site (it would be very nearly be city centre if it was built of course) and lots of whinging about height and scale and use on that basis. It really looks like a childish smackdown of Waterford, which is what strikes me from the subtext.

Trying to make a site partially in Waterford city, and part of Waterford city's natural, contiguous expansion north side of the river, sound like a nuclear power plan is being built in a pristine rural paradise, miles from civilisation, is misrepresenting the facts to say the least.

Sully

Agreed. Id trust the Board to make the right decession but I do wonder is the scale of the development and its apperance appropriate for the area?

KingLoser

It's appearence is certainly not appropriate for the era...

fricatus

merlante wrote: »

...and it not being a city centre site.

Hah????

What are they talking about? The Ard Rí is in the city centre. It's no more than 600m from the Clock Tower as the crow flies (as close as Railway Square or Canada St). It's right behind the railway station, and it's visible from the entire length of the Quay.

It may be administratively in Co Kilkenny, but that's about as relevant as being administratively part of Mars. Can they not just agree to let Waterford City Council be the lead authority on this decision? This approach works in the case of road schemes, where the local authority with the "biggest bit" leads the scheme, even though it may be partly in other council areas.

KingLoser

In fairness, a development of this size will effect nearby residents a lot.

And if they turn to Waterford CityCo, they'll be told where to shove it. As much as they shouldn't have the power to make the final decision, KK CoCo do need to have a say in it.

Bards

KingLoser wrote: »

In fairness, a development of this size will effect nearby residents a lot.

And if they turn to Waterford CityCo, they'll be told where to shove it. As much as they shouldn't have the power to make the final decision, KK CoCo do need to have a say in it.

...just like the new neighbourhood shopping centre for ferrybank that Waterford City Council didn't have a say in, even though it affects the City more so than the county and is bigger than City Square, Lisduggan & the hyper put together.

sooner the administrative boundary is re-drawn the better

KingLoser

Bards wrote: »

...just like the new neighbourhood shopping centre for ferrybank that Waterford City Council didn't have a say in, even though it affects the City more so than the county and is bigger than City Square, Lisduggan & the hyper put together.

sooner the administrative boundary is re-drawn the better

Two wrongs don't make a something.

I can agree with redrawing the admin boundary though, just looking at the North/South balance shows how desperately badly that's needed.

jonnyfingers

KingLoser wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a something.

I can agree with redrawing the admin boundary though, just looking at the North/South balance shows how desperately badly that's needed.

In the good old days we could just invade the place and call it our own. Of course that's not acceptable in these times. Instead I propose a meeting between Waterford City Council and Kilkenny County Council where a best-of-three game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" decides all with the winner deciding where the boundary goes.

Assuming we win we should definitely build exactly what's in the picture in the first post and name it after something from "Back to the Future".

Paddy@CIRL

If it goes ahead, I don't envy the poor B*stards that have to dig out that hill !

Fajitas!

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

If it goes ahead, I don't envy the poor B*stards that have to dig out that hill !

Robots, Paddy, robots.

Robots and flying cars.

mike65

We should not be denied our silver and brushed aluminium future!

Fajitas!

mike65 wrote: »

brushed aluminium future!

Pronounced A-Loo-minum. Because we all talk like Americans in the future.

mike65

I've dropped in the Bilberry site project

Elle Victorine

Would be nice to see that side of the river developed but I do love the view of the mills despite the hazards....would make a nice lookin museum/gallery if it was ever called for. The Ard Ri could do with being knocked however.


The first image posted is absolutely disgusting.

Green Hornet

Elle Victorine wrote: »

Would be nice to see that side of the river developed but I do love the view of the mills despite the hazards....would make a nice lookin museum/gallery if it was ever called for. The Ard Ri could do with being knocked however.


The first image posted is absolutely disgusting.

I think the mills are a real eyesore as they are at the moment. Looks terrible when coming into the town from the Wexford side. It would be great if they would do something like you suggest.

The Bilberry development seems to have stalled as well. Hopefully something will be done there too.

RobitTV

he planned redevelopment of the Ard Ri site in Ferrybank in Waterford City has been refused permission
by Waterford City Council.

Planning permission had been sought by TRM developments for a 400 million complex which which the company says would have created 500 jobs in the construiction phase.

The City Quay project includes plans for a new hotel and 40,000 square feet of residential, retail and commercial space on the former Ard Ri site which is currently lying in a semi-derelict state overlooking the city.

The application for the site was made in June last year, with further information submitted in May.

In refusing permission, the city council planning department said the development would be a gross
overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework.

The report also said the development would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity, and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area and would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the City Development Plan.

The City Council also said it was not satisfied that the development would not have an inhibiting effect on the redevelopment potential of the North Quays.

The decision may be appealed to An Bord Pleanala, with TRM Developments labelling the refusal a "bolt from the blue" in the Irish Examiner :mad::mad:

mike65

Typical, the north quays deverlopment is all moribund and yet they are trying to protect it?

Professey Chin

RobitTV wrote: »

In refusing permission, the city council planning department said the development would be a gross
overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework.

Looking at the development id agree with this

The report also said the development would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity, and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area and would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the City Development Plan.

I would like to know what these are specifically though

mike65

Indeed esp as the development is on the North quays and the shadows cast will therefore be over county Kilkenny not the city. Or is it simply a question of "well it can be seen from across the river, so its a problem"

here is the direct reason from the waterfordcity.ie site

Reasons
1. Having regard to the provisions of the Waterford City Development Plan and to the Waterford North Quays Urban Design Framework it is considered that due to its scale, volume building height and layout the proposed development would represent a gross overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework; would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area; would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the Waterford City Development Plan; and as such would materially contravene provisions of the Waterford City Development Plan and the Waterford North Quays Urban Design Framework. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The Planning Authority are not satisfied that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the quantum and mix of development proposed would not have an inhibiting effect on the redevelopment potential of the North Quays, whose redevelopment is an objective of the National Development Plan, the South East Regional Planning Guidelines and the Waterford City Development Plan.

Waynecarr

May as well all up stakes and leave at this stage. Has the feeling of someone just running a car\city into the ground at this stage.....the mentality seems to be its all buggered so why try and fix it anyway.

ziedth

words fail me, am i only only one who thinks that at this moment the most important thing is to get people back to work and spending money helping other businesses. The mind boggles.

Professey Chin

Ok ive read those reasons about 15 times now. WTF do they actually mean

Sully

I have yet to read up on this but as I have always said;
1) You cant just accept a large development for the sake of cleaning up an area,
2) As above, just because you want to create jobs.

It is important that whatever changes we make within our city and county are done with a proper mindset ensuring the development is approrpaite for the area. Sure it might remove an eye sort but you may be adding another eye sore and problem which will have another negative effect. It needs to be done right and fair - not just for the sake of it.

robtri

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Ok ive read those reasons about 15 times now. WTF do they actually mean

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

Professey Chin

robtri wrote: »

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

On this point,does that mean its partly a case of "since we cant get our asses in gear nobody else is allowed"

gscully

Well, I think we can all agree that the planned development was horrid to look at. By all means, redevelop that area, but not with that monstrosity!

That said, I imagine corks are popping and champagne is being poured into recycleable paper cups in the McCann household :rolleyes:

ziedth

Sully wrote: »

I have yet to read up on this but as I have always said;
1) You cant just accept a large development for the sake of cleaning up an area,
2) As above, just because you want to create jobs.

It is important that whatever changes we make within our city and county are done with a proper mindset ensuring the development is approrpaite for the area. Sure it might remove an eye sort but you may be adding another eye sore and problem which will have another negative effect. It needs to be done right and fair - not just for the sake of it.

As much as I see your point and agree with it too a point surely an "Eye Sore" doesn't really matter, Granted I haven't seen a pic of the development anyone got one? I'm just talking as someone who knows allot of people out of work (myself included) and we are all having to look for work outside of waterford (myself included).

robtri wrote: »

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

TBF this is a fairly good reason to block the development IMO.

Cabaal

ziedth wrote: »

As much as I see your point and agree with it too a point surely an "Eye Sore" doesn't really matter, Granted I haven't seen a pic of the development anyone got one? I'm just talking as someone who knows allot of people out of work (myself included) and we are all having to look for work outside of waterford (myself included).

Eye sore does matter though, while I get where your coming from making awful mistakes that will affect generations to come is not ok just to create jobs in any town or city.

Its extremely shortsighted to do so, I for one am also happy this did not go ahead it is not in anyway in keeping with the rest of waterford