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

recedite

I suppose it looked good on paper.

The Durutti Column

youknowwho wrote: »

I hope this isn't more rhetoric and posturing.

Are the liaison meetings open to the public or are there any meetings at which the public can attend?

No, they are not. But GUBOH has a rep on board, the local residents also do, and Greystones Chamber have been showing concern, both at the lack of progress and at the impact it is having on the local economy.

:eek:

I don't think Fortune's approach is posturing. He has been ploughing a lonely furrow in respect of Sispar and WCC's failings long before GUBOH was formed, and was lashed for it in public by their shills on the Town Council (no names, don't want to be banned/snipped/whatever, but I'm sure you know who I mean). If only the rest of them would give him strong support, he could make some progress with WCC and Sispar — but most of them don't.

F3

According to Derek Mitchell, on greystones guide, that the change of fencing by Sispar was also for insurance reasons. I'm not sure what this means, but perhaps DM could explain? Is this change to appease the HLC members, or did they have do it for insurance reasons? either way, they will probably use this "advancement" as an excuse that they are continuing to improve the harbour at their own cost and buy some more time to "kick the can down the road

Blanchflower

These ugly fences and the abandoned building site behind them are an insult to the people of Greystones.

The following is relevant to the mess the harbour is in:

• The building work started in early 2008 (just as the recession started)
• The plans were for it to be completed in 4 years (ie early 2012)
• Since work started the worst recession known to mankind has hit and property prices have fallen by around 70% from 2007 "bubble" levels so far.
• The financial projections (prepared in the bubble era) upon which AIB provided banking facilities to Sispar are now totally unrealistic.
• Based on the Sispar promotional video it looks like it is now at a stage of completion of around 18 months (ie only 38% of completion)
• Sispar would therefore look to be in breach of the PPP contract arising from their failure to proceed with the necessary speed and indeed arising from the fact that they have now ran out of money.
• Sispar, like most other property development companies, is effectively bankrupt with no real hope of repaying their borrowings in its own right. The liabilities of Sispar are far in excess of any objective assessment of the current market value of its "assets".
• NAMA do not appear to be of a mind to provide any funding to Sispar.
• Indeed NAMA may now call on Sisks and Park to repay the borrowings of Sispar which they have guaranteed.
• However Sisks and Park are still solvent for the moment.
• Wicklow County Council has a performance bond of €10 million from Sisks and Park.

Therefore.............



Before its too late WCC should call on the performance bond of €10 million and use this to remediate the site.....otherwise we will be looking at the mess on the harbour for many many many years to come.

F3

Blanchflower wrote: »

These ugly fences and the abandoned building site behind them are an insult to the people of Greystones.

The following is relevant to the mess the harbour is in:

• The building work started in early 2008 (just as the recession started)
• The plans were for it to be completed in 4 years (ie early 2012)
• Since work started the worst recession known to mankind has hit and property prices have fallen by around 70% from 2007 "bubble" levels so far.
• The financial projections (prepared in the bubble era) upon which AIB provided banking facilities to Sispar are now totally unrealistic.
• Based on the Sispar promotional video it looks like it is now at a stage of completion of around 18 months (ie only 38% of completion)
• Sispar would therefore look to be in breach of the PPP contract arising from their failure to proceed with the necessary speed and indeed arising from the fact that they have now ran out of money.
• Sispar, like most other property development companies, is effectively bankrupt with no real hope of repaying their borrowings in its own right. The liabilities of Sispar are far in excess of any objective assessment of the current market value of its "assets".
• NAMA do not appear to be of a mind to provide any funding to Sispar.
• Indeed NAMA may now call on Sisks and Park to repay the borrowings of Sispar which they have guaranteed.
• However Sisks and Park are still solvent for the moment.
• Wicklow County Council has a performance bond of €10 million from Sisks and Park.

Therefore.............



Before its too late WCC should call on the performance bond of €10 million and use this to remediate the site.....otherwise we will be looking at the mess on the harbour for many many many years to come.

On the money, blanch! that seems to be the entire case in a nutshell well researched. Do you know who actually owns the site? (of reclaimed Land) WCC or Sispar? This will become important when Sispar liquidates.

pixbyjohn

North Beach area, Greystones 24/02/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Cheeky Chops

It is heartbreaking how awful that looks. :(:(:(

Thanks as always PJ for the visuals.

recedite

F3 wrote: »

Do you know who actually owns the site? (of reclaimed Land) WCC or Sispar? This will become important when Sispar liquidates.

I'd be surprised if Sispar (or their bank) does not own it. Wasn't that the basis for the deal; they would rebuild the harbour with a marina, in return for the right to reclaim land and build loads of apartments on it.

Alan_P

recedite wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Sispar (or their bank) does not own it. Wasn't that the basis for the deal; they would rebuild the harbour with a marina, in return for the right to reclaim land and build loads of apartments on it.

A similar question came up before in this thread : the actual contract seems to be a state secret,and I have no special knowledge, but I have read the Bord Pleanála documents and I'll repost the same quote I posted previously :-

From the oral hearing transcript,
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/EF2016.htm

quote from S. Quirke, Senor Executive Officer in the Wicklow Planning Department :-
"The marina will be run on a concession agreement. It will not be in private ownership, it will remain in public ownership. The harbour will always remain in public ownership. The park will always remain in public ownership. The only areas transferred into private ownership are private houses. "

It's not totally clear, but if the only thing to be transferred into private ownership was houses which haven't been built, then presumably at the moment Sispar own nothing.

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

The only areas transferred into private ownership are private houses.

I would interpret this to mean the reclaimed land site, with or without built houses.

Blanchflower

recedite wrote: »

I would interpret this to mean the reclaimed land site, with or without built houses.

Because the have not built anything they have not fulfilled their part of the PPP contract so whatever rights to ownership they were supposed to get under the PPP contract would not be theirs.

Sispar as a stand alone legal entity is insolvent with no financing in place and under any normal PPP contact they would be in breach of that contract.

F3

Blanchflower wrote: »

Because the have not built anything they have not fulfilled their part of the PPP contract so whatever rights to ownership they were supposed to get under the PPP contract would not be theirs.

Sispar as a stand alone legal entity is insolvent with no financing in place and under any normal PPP contact they would be in breach of that contract.

I'm not sure thats correct. Public Contracts contain "power" and "duty" clauses that are allocated to each party. Sispar may have a duty to proceed with the works but WCC may have the power to allow Sispar stop the works without penalty. The question is why would WCC exercise this power??

Fiachra2

Good point F3

The only reason they wouldn't exercise this power would be if they placed the interests of Sispar above the interests of the community (whom they are supposed to represent and who pays their salary). The next part of this campaign will, I suspect, focus on this very issue.

recedite

Blanchflower wrote: »

Because the have not built anything they have not fulfilled their part of the PPP contract so whatever rights to ownership they were supposed to get under the PPP contract would not be theirs.

But what they got was the right to reclaim land from the sea, which right has already been exercised. It would be different if the council was due to sign over a publicly owned derelict site, for example, in return for building the harbour. Then they could just refuse to sign it over.

F3 wrote: »

WCC may have the power to allow Sispar stop the works without penalty. The question is why would WCC exercise this power??

Well, if the council trigger the bond and force Sispar out of existence, Nama may hold onto the site, keep it locked up for the next decade, and then sell it to a foreign investor. Nobody will have responsibility for finishing the harbour/marina/park.

If Sispar remain in existence, and reactivate in 10 years time to resume building the houses and apartments, perhaps they will also resume work on the public projects.

F3

@recedite

This assumes that Sispars owns the land, my gut tells me WCC owns the land. However, i think we'd all like the answer once and for all to that question. Consider this, if WCC have entered into a contract with Sispar for a 'share' of the profit then how can they remain totally independent??? i.e. with the tax payer / greystones community interest to the fore?? That would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas!! If they finally admit that this project is doomed, then heads must surely roll. Only when they admit it's doomed will they move forward to terminate Sispars Conract and call in the bond(s). The bonds might be another problem, phase 1 as far as i can see is not complete, therefore there should be 2x€5m bonds should be available to properly address the dreadful mess that has been left. I recall that Phase 1 included the community buildings and it would appear that WCC has subsequently redefined what phase 1 is and our local represpetatives have not raised this as a problem for the community. This is where a serious question of independence comes right to the fore.

Who is actually looking after the community's interest?

Who is independent? Who is standing to gain? Who stands to lose?

Jimjay

F3,
Do you know how the bond is held? Sorry if this is a stupid question.
I mean if say it is in wcc bank account and that account is overdrawn then where will the 10million come from? Or if sispars bank said they will provide the 10million as part of the finance deal and now that's got tits up, what then.
So basically does the 10million exist and is it sat in a secure account that could only be drawn down on when this contract is broken?

recedite

F3 wrote: »

This assumes that Sispars owns the land, my gut tells me WCC owns the land.

I suspect nobody really knows who owns it in the current situation, because the current situation was not planned for, and there isn't much precedent for land reclamation in this country. We are talking about land with no previous owner or title attached to it. But I'm sure there are teams of barristers out there who would love to see any residual value sucked out of the project in a protracted legal battle over ownership of the site.

recedite

The important thing for the people of Greystones now is to make sure the obligation to finish the community works remains attached to the reclaimed land site, no matter who owns it. If the two get separated, you can forget about the public works ever being completed.

The best option for Sispar is to put up a good strong palisade fence around their part, and then go into hibernation for the next 10 years, at least. Oh wait....

Fiachra2

recedite wrote: »

The important thing for the people of Greystones now is to make sure the obligation to finish the community works remains attached to the reclaimed land site, no matter who owns it. If the two get separated, you can forget about the public works ever being completed.

The best option for Sispar is to put up a good strong palisade fence around their part, and then go into hibernation for the next 10 years, at least. Oh wait....

I would say you can safely forget about the "community works". If anything ever gets built there it will be a matter of trying to salvage some of the very significant losses that sispar/NaMA have incurred. In those circumstances they will, I'm sure, argue that having built the harbour they cannot incur further costs.

Sispar have already put a fence around their part. Thats what needs to be removed! (Unless something is to be built there)

ciaran67

God, i miss the old town.

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

F3,
Do you know how the bond is held? Sorry if this is a stupid question.
I mean if say it is in wcc bank account and that account is overdrawn then where will the 10million come from? Or if sispars bank said they will provide the 10million as part of the finance deal and now that's got tits up, what then.
So basically does the 10million exist and is it sat in a secure account that could only be drawn down on when this contract is broken?

Normally bonds are simply 3rd party 'promises to pay the bearer' when the bond is called upon. Think of them as insurance policies but for cash payouts when certain circumstances arise. The most costly are 'on demand bonds' where the party requiring the bond may simply 'panic' and the bondsman pays out without question. There will always be an enquiry into why the bond was called in and indeed if it has been validly called in.

The price of a bond and more importantly the Availability of bonds are proportional to the size and experience of the company seeking the bond. Contractors are required to provide bonds on most large projects. CompAnies normally have a maximum bonding capability and will not be able to enter into new contracts if their bonding on existing projects are still live or capable of being called. The capability of providing bonding is akin to a currency and 'on demand bonds' are now only issued (almost) on a cash deposit basis. I.e. you want a bond for 5m, you put 5m on deposit !!

Blanchflower

F3 wrote: »

Normally bonds are simply 3rd party 'promises to pay the bearer' when the bond is called upon. Think of them as insurance policies but for cash payouts when certain circumstances arise. The most costly are 'on demand bonds' where the party requiring the bond may simply 'panic' and the bondsman pays out without question. There will always be an enquiry into why the bond was called in and indeed if it has been validly called in.

The price of a bond and more importantly the Availability of bonds are proportional to the size and experience of the company seeking the bond. Contractors are required to provide bonds on most large projects. CompAnies normally have a maximum bonding capability and will not be able to enter into new contracts if their bonding on existing projects are still live or capable of being called. The capability of providing bonding is akin to a currency and 'on demand bonds' are now only issued (almost) on a cash deposit basis. I.e. you want a bond for 5m, you put 5m on deposit !!

So the €10 million is a contingent liability for Sisks and Park and is part of their bank funding facilities.

It is strange that WCC have not yet called in the bond due to non performance. If they allowed Sispar stop the works without penalty very serious questions will need to be answered.

Jimjay

Thank you for your reply.
I think I understand in the most part but I still don't get where that money is.
Is it possible that a demand can be put on the bond and the 3rd party cannot pay. What if the 3rd party goes bankcrupt?

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

Thank you for your reply.
I think I understand in the most part but I still don't get where that money is.
Is it possible that a demand can be put on the bond and the 3rd party cannot pay. What if the 3rd party goes bankcrupt?

Performance Bonding companies are not necessarily banks, when a bond is given on an constrction project, its usually cashed backed By a specialist bonding company. They charge highly for this, but it means that the money is guaranteed to be there. In this case, the 10million I'm sure is available from the 3rd party bonding company.

Because of this fact, contractors have limited bonding capability, they need to release old bonds to secure new bonds. And this may curtail their ability to tender work in times of plenty.

F3

It is strange that WCC have not yet called in the bond due to non performance. If they allowed Sispar stop the works without penalty very serious questions will need to be answered.[/QUOTE]

This indeed is strange Blanch. All government contracts have an independent certifier administrating the contract. In ordeR for Sispar to be allowed stop works there must be something going on. WCC are allowing them to stop..

My first thoughts go with the presence of a 'market change' clause in the contract. If one exists, then if the average price of property falls continually for a period of 12 months, then the contractor is allowed to change the make up of his development. Eg 34 more houses, and Mecical centre for example.

WCC say 'no problem' of course you can whatever you like to make the scheme work, and we will give you planning without question. This arrogance was stopped in its tracks by an board pleannala. WCC may have the power to grant a market change to the development but they do not have the power to grant such planning permissions without Environmental study being carried out. They learnt the hard way and were forced to do so by an bord P.

By the way, they still do not have planning permission for the change despite what a few local councillors say. Ring up on BP if you don't believe me.

The second thought I have, lies with this nAMA nonsense. It has been used by sispar and wcc to blind the town and the town Councilors.

The contract is between WCC and Sispar, not wcc and Aib the original lenders to Sispar at 1.7%. Sicon are guaranteeing the loans from Aib ( Nama) and are seemingly continuing to service the loans. If they weren't then Nama would have called in the parent company guarentee. ( that is guaranteed).

Sispar are seeking Nama to continue funding at the low Aib rate. You can imagine Nama will not / cannot. NamA seem not to have given 100% "no" to Sispar to continue funding. More like , we'll fund 1% you (sispar) fund 99%. It my as well be no, but it still is not a definite no. The people of greystones are told that nama might still fund it. ( how stupid do they think we are????)

Why would the local authority Not put an end to this?

I think you should go straight to the dail with this, it stinks to high heaven.

Jimjay

At least There will be some development at the harbour, apparantly.

From greystonesguide.ie
After a very fruitful meeting with Brian Hayes TD Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Cllr Ciarán Hayden is delighted with the news the long overdue Coast Guard building is to go ahead next year. The building will house the 32 volunteers of the local unit and their equipment. It will be located on the South breakwater in Greystones Harbour. The contract will go to tender in two months and construction should commence in early 2013. The building will contain a boathouse, a lecture room, toilets and changing facilities. Adequate reserved parking will also be provided.

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

At least There will be some development at the harbour, apparantly.

From greystonesguide.ie
After a very fruitful meeting with Brian Hayes TD Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Cllr Ciarán Hayden is delighted with the news the long overdue Coast Guard building is to go ahead next year. The building will house the 32 volunteers of the local unit and their equipment. It will be located on the South breakwater in Greystones Harbour. The contract will go to tender in two months and construction should commence in early 2013. The building will contain a boathouse, a lecture room, toilets and changing facilities. Adequate reserved parking will also be provided.

This is good news, the budget had been ring fenced for this building quite some time but there was some difficulty in bringing a 3rd party contractor onto Sispars Site, it would appear that the OPW do not see this now as a problem.

Fiachra2

Media release from GUBOH


GUBOH wants ‘Plan B’ for harbour by end of February
The Give Us Back Our Harbour group (GUBOH) supports the call by Mayor of Greystones Tom Fortune for a “Plan B” for the stalled Greystones harbour development. “The summer is only a few months away” said GUBOH spokesman, Fiachra Etchingham. “Unless urgent action is taken this will be the fifth successive summer that Greystones harbour has been a building site.”

Last autumn, under pressure from the public, the business community and public representatives the harbour was partially opened up. This is progress but it is not satisfactory for the long term.

“Since January last year we have heard repeated suggestions about Nama funding further development but all of these have come to nought,” Etchingham claimed. “Given Nama’s brief it seems very unlikely that support will come from this quarter and the lengthy delay confirms that view. It is unreasonable to expect the community of Greystones to wait any longer”.

Etchingham pointed out that there were completion bonds and other provisions in place to protect the public interest in a situation where a project was left partially completed. He expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to resort to these provisions.

“However,” said Etchingham, “we are now approaching a critical moment regarding the harbour. There will be a meeting of the Harbour Liaison Committee in late February. It is critical that Sispar and Wicklow County Council bring to that meeting an alternative proposal setting out what they will do with the harbour area if, by the time of that meeting, there has been no response from NAMA.

“That proposal must include removal of the remaining unsightly hoardings and waste building materials, and landscaping the derelict areas. It must also involve full access to the whole harbour for boat owners and the general public.”

Etchingham recalled that at a meeting GUBOH held with Sispar in June 2011, the company gave an undertaking to “grass out” the entire site if construction of the proposed Medical Centre did not proceed by december 2011 at the latest. “We took this undertaking in good faith,” said Etchingham, “and we now expect Sispar to honour its undertaking to us and to the people of Greystones.”

Jimjay

The new story on greystones guide from a local councillor about "plan b" is interesting. He states there should be no deadline set for works at the harbour. If this is the official view then it is very worrying. He also states sispar have an agreement to build the health care centre along with full planning permission?! (didn't realise this) but we should wait as long as it takes for them to raise funding to build it.

I don't care if the deadline is 3 weeks or 12 months, as long as we have a viable plan and a guaranteed deadline date that would great.

legrand

Cllr. Ciarán Hayden statement reads...[extract] "The HSE, the medical partners and Sispar have an agreement in place to build a state of the art healthcare facility at Greystones Harbour. The project has full planning permission and it also enjoys the support of the wider community in Greystones."

He does not explicitly state the medical centre has received planning permission as far as I read it - rather he refers to the 'project'. I'm not sure if that is meant to mean the medical centre has been approved - could be mistaken but I believe this is still with OBP still (due to changes in original approved plan).

Open to correction.