Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]
Options
Comments
-
Theres a fantastic well of interest on the GUBOH facebook page and on Greystones open forum.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/greystones/
John O'Brien posted the following yesterday:
Dear friends, We need a robust community plan of what the town requires from Sisk to be done immediately at the Harbour. A plan that the Chamber of Commerce, the Tidy towns, local residents and the community at large all supports. I understand that JP Sisk attended the private meeting and has indicated three key points: (1) That Sisk now have investors [as opposed to financiers] (2) That remedial works are required (3) That the PCC is not going ahead. The Community must not allow a further period of procrastination on this PPP. Sisk and its investors should understand that we collectively will not tolerate any more empty promises and fudges. They have a contract to fulfil which they have not done, every commercial developer in the country has suffered as a result of the financial crash of the banks. But this is not a speculative commercial development and why do Sisk feel they deserve special treatment? This is a Public Private Partnership and significant breaches of "promises" have repeatedly occurred. The GUBOH committee have completely analysed the entire tender documents for this PPP having eventually succeeded in retrieving same [1000's of documents] under freedom of information requests [having had to finally copy the ombudsman before WCC released same] so we are 95% certain as to where those breaches to the concession agreement have occurred. If they wish to continue they they must realise that the Community of Greystones is united in one voice. GUBOH has a strong voice in this regard. The currency for which Sisk rely upon is time, but time comes with a price. Sisk will have to satisfy the entire community in the interim if construction is ever to recommence. A community plan of what is required should be put before Sisk when they eventually come to the table. Please put your ideas forward now. Regards John.
The response has been phenomenal, I think they should sort out the public slip, its impossible to use safely, especially when the waves are choppy in the harbour. Also, how can we have red & green lights at the mouth of the harbour indicating to international vessels safe refuge and not allow access to the north pier??? I'm sure there is a fundamental breach of an inherent duty of care safety etc.....0 -
Thats a very reasonable list of community requirements on the facebook page - from fence reduction to improved cliff walk access to a safe slipway - well done to all involved.0
-
Definitely agree. Sisk need to finish off the project. To fill in the dormant area and reseed it to provide a public park / green area would be the quickest and most accessible for all the residents of the area. The also need to address the costal erosion on the north beach and the reinstatement of the access path from The Grove. I'm convinced the erection of such a monstrous north pier has had an adverse knock-on affect on the amount of erosion occurring at the cliff face up there. As it is, the visual amenities in and around what was a lovely quaint traditional fishing/coastal village have really suffered.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 14600
The response has been phenomenal, I think they should sort out the public slip, its impossible to use safely, especially when the waves are choppy in the harbour. Also, how can we have red & green lights at the mouth of the harbour indicating to international vessels safe refuge and not allow access to the north pier??? I'm sure there is a fundamental breach of an inherent duty of care safety etc.....
What is the issue with the slip in bad weather and what's needed to rectify?
Traffic lights; green for harbour is clear to enter and red - the harbour is closed, type thing?0 -
One problem with the slip is that the person launching a boat is forced to follow the boat into the water in order to control it while other passengers and equipment are being loaded.
The proper procedure would be that the boat would be towed immediately after launching (by its rope held by the person walking along a wall) to some steps or a ladder.
Its all very well for dinghy sailors in wet suits, but when you see fishermen/anglers launching a boat wearing waders it's not good; the chances of a person wearing waders drowning if they fall in are going to be much higher than with other footwear.0 -
Advertisement
-
The response & suggestions over on facebook has been incredible - crowdsourcing for ideas at its best!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/greystones/
I do sense the tide has turned....for all those who are fighting it though0 -
The community is united on what needs to be done now at the harbour. No more listening to grand plans of what will be. The pattern for the past 3 years from WCC and Sispar has been XXX is starting on September, then pushed back to April then September, then April, then September, then April and each time they expect the people of Greystones to believe them. No more, ever. No more crap, No more lies, and by the way no more credibility, that has long since gone. Sisk have sold out greystones to an investor. I'm sure they and their local PR team will spin it another way. Because they supposedly still have contract obligations to fulfill.......which come to think of it has not stopped them breaking those promises. WCC have no idea how to manage Sisk, the tail wags the dog all the time thus far. But then WCC are waiting for a pay day. Wake up WCC, [celtic tiger has gone, you are not a developer Eddie] if you had reduced or indeed eliminated your share of the profit on this development would have been finished long ago. Greedy, Greedy, Greedy, Greedy.0
-
The community is united on what needs to be done now at the harbour. No more listening to grand plans of what will be. The pattern for the past 3 years from WCC and Sispar has been XXX is starting on September, then pushed back to April then September, then April, then September, then April and each time they expect the people of Greystones to believe them. No more, ever. No more crap, No more lies, and by the way no more credibility, that has long since gone. Sisk have sold out greystones to an investor. I'm sure they and their local PR team will spin it another way. Because they supposedly still have contract obligations to fulfill.......which come to think of it has not stopped them breaking those promises. WCC have no idea how to manage Sisk, the tail wags the dog all the time thus far. But then WCC are waiting for a pay day. Wake up WCC, [celtic tiger has gone, you are not a developer Eddie] if you had reduced or indeed eliminated your share of the profit on this development would have been finished long ago. Greedy, Greedy, Greedy, Greedy.
F3 - who is this investor do you know? Is it a consortium of some description and are Sisk now out of the picture?0 -
Sisk are primarily an engineering firm, they were in charge of the harbour works. Park Developments (now bankrupt) were to be the builders of houses and apartments. The combination was named Sispar.
We can expect a new investor to take over the Park Developments stakeholding, which AFAIK is currently held by Nama. The investor could be a developer, maybe even a re-incarnation of the old one under a new company name. Or it could be some pension fund who will sit on the investment for 10 years, and then sell it on to a developer.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14600
Sisks are a lot more than an engineering firm, their portfolio is very impressive. Many of the guys who were working on the harbour are now on-site in Dun Laoghaire building the new library. Sisks are also known to have very deep pockets, I'd be very interested to see the source for this new "investor".0 -
Advertisement
-
Sisks are a lot more than an engineering firm, their portfolio is very impressive. Many of the guys who were working on the harbour are now on-site in Dun Laoghaire building the new library. Sisks are also known to have very deep pockets, I'd be very interested to see the source for this new "investor".
Sisks themselves told the town council that they were bringing in "investors" This is almost certainly a euphemism. As you say Sisk are an engineering firm. They now hold a speculative property investment that they don't want. The commercially logical thing to do is to sell that investment to a property speculator. So its not Park's share they are selling (They actually bought that from Nama) its their own investment ie the whole thing.0 -
What is really interesting from a PPP contract perspective, is that most PPP contracts have a 'change of control clause' where if the private company looks to sell their stake then the state / government, or WCC in this case, has the right to accept or reject that change in ownership. So, WCC would have to agree to the sale or new investors being introduced.
This is probably happened once already where WCC had to authorise Sisks taking over Parks share when they bought it from Nama. So...bottom line is theat WCC may have had a veto & choose not to use it. It is amazing that they did not use this opportunity to get Sisks to tidy up the site & make it look reasonable whilst Sisk sit on their landbank in Greystones for the next 5-10 years. But there we go.......0 -
Do Sisk own the site or is it jointly owned? Surely planning will have expired now for the comercial and residential elements0
-
-
Tuesday evening at 7.30pm the Greystones Town Council are holding their monthly meeting, at which Sisk representatives are addressing the town council on the next phase of the harbour saga.
The last Sisk meeting with the Town Council was held in August, and was for want of a better description, a 'secret meeting' where the public and the press were not permitted [as a prerequisite] and indeed there was a reluctance to write minutes despite the objections of our concerned public representatives. The community over the past week has made it crystal clear on what it is that they require as an interim measure whilst the developer and WCC make up their minds as to how long the community of Greystones will endure an appalling mess until construction recommences. We understand that Sisk now have new investors who intend seeking new planning permission to change [again] what is to be built. This meeting should be attended [open to the public] by all who wish to find out first hand what Sisk and WCC are intending to do with the harbour. As far as we are concerned the community has spoken, and we should not and will not be ignored any more. Please show your support by attending 7.30pm Town Council offices this Tuesday 24th September, [brown brick building at south beach car-park, simply walk through the automatic doors and turn right, town council meeting room and public gallery is the door at the end of the corridor, walk straight in, it is your constitutional right to do so], it should take no more than 25 minutes. Let us all hear what they have to say, let us all hear who supports the community or who intends to kick the can down the road for another year or two or three and ignore the entire community. Your voice has been heard, Let us see who listens on Tuesday.0 -
Tuesday evening at 7.30pm the Greystones Town Council are holding their monthly meeting, at which Sisk representatives are addressing the town council on the next phase of the harbour saga.
The last Sisk meeting with the Town Council was held in August, and was for want of a better description, a 'secret meeting' where the public and the press were not permitted [as a prerequisite] and indeed there was a reluctance to write minutes despite the objections of our concerned public representatives. The community over the past week has made it crystal clear on what it is that they require as an interim measure whilst the developer and WCC make up their minds as to how long the community of Greystones will endure an appalling mess until construction recommences. We understand that Sisk now have new investors who intend seeking new planning permission to change [again] what is to be built. This meeting should be attended [open to the public] by all who wish to find out first hand what Sisk and WCC are intending to do with the harbour. As far as we are concerned the community has spoken, and we should not and will not be ignored any more. Please show your support by attending 7.30pm Town Council offices this Tuesday 24th September, [brown brick building at south beach car-park, simply walk through the automatic doors and turn right, town council meeting room and public gallery is the door at the end of the corridor, walk straight in, it is your constitutional right to do so], it should take no more than 25 minutes. Let us all hear what they have to say, let us all hear who supports the community or who intends to kick the can down the road for another year or two or three and ignore the entire community. Your voice has been heard, Let us see who listens on Tuesday.
Thanks Fiachra. Very informative. Notwithstanding flood, fire or famine, I'll be there!0 -
To explain myself, the way things were one could (and we did) have a boat on the shore in the harbour. Plenty of others did.
We had no trailer. We didn't need one. We didn't have a vehicle with a tow bar. We didn't need to. We had no off site storage. We didn't need to. Worries re congestion on the slip. We didn't have these either.
Now unless you are wealthy and can afford a marina spot you do need all of the above.
So while the sea is still there (thanks the commander for clarification on that) things have changed significantly.
From where I'm sitting for the worse.
Hear hear! Totally agree with you!0 -
Theres a good few acres in that reclaimed land.and some slippery snake is looking at it with a view to making money out of it you can be sure...the medical center will never be built..id love to see the land given park status of some kind and given to the people of greystones..
I'm with you on that Maudi!!!!!0 -
Stephen Donnelly TD and Tom Fortune CC this morning launched the community proposal for remediating the harbour. Details of the plan are available on Stephens website as well as the GUBOH and Greystones Open Forum Facebook groups. Signatures of support are being collected at various locations round the town and can also be done online here:
http://stephendonnelly.nationbuilder.com/harbour_petition0 -
Here is a piece from Cllr Mitchell on the community harbour plan.
Aren't we lucky to be able to attract these "high spending" yachtsmen and so privileged that they visit our miserable slum. Its really most ungrateful that the wretched peasants that post on this forum are seeking improvements to something that their betters are "not concerned" about.
In 2007 the harbour was derelict whereas now it is the best leisure harbour in Wicklow and the 4th best Nationally, after Dun Laoghaire, Cork and Howth. It has given a great boost to tourism with lots of high spending yachting visitors who would never have come to the town but for the proper harbour. They greatly like Greystones and are not concerned that the site is unfinished.
The plan suggests €10m of extra expenditure but gives no idea where this might come from. The Deputy claims he is an economist and I can’t understand how an economist can totally ignore money. A Plan without money to implement it is only a Dream. The plan also needs planning permission and a foreshore licence which would lead to a 2 year delay.
The way to make this project move forward is to understand the costs and engineering issues and ask for appropriate items, which have planning permission, without adding extras. I have offered to explain them to Deputy Donnelly but he seems to prefer to Dream without facts.
I wrote to Sisk in July and asked for a number of items. So far, from this list, they have improved the site and fencing and I hope at Tuesday’s Town Council they will agree to open the North Breakwater, most of the large Public Square together with better landscaping, improving the Public Slip and providing for 3 local fishermen. This can be done economically this year and is the way forward in partnership.
I am opposed to turning the Club area into a picnic spot as the Sea Scouts, Anglers, Rowers, Divers and sailors need the clubhouses they have been promised. I asked Bord Pleanala to include a coastal protection condition but they refused to include this, probably because it is against national policy. It is a pity that Deputy Donnelly and Cllr Fortune did not support this then instead of waiting till it is too late.
0 -
Advertisement
-
here EastCoast Radio transcript here
http://eastcoast.fm/on-air/station-updates
Scroll audio to 24 mins..
Mr Mitchell.. one of the best lines is in reference to the time to complete - something along the lines of ..it took the Dart 21 years to get done, harbour will take about the same so we only have a 'couple of years left'.
As it this type of thinking is acceptable - and he's allegedly a community representative - it really beggars belief.0 -
-
130 members of the public showed up this evening down at the town council offices....must have felt like a bad dream for some of the councillors attending.
Tom Fortune captured the utter frustration & disgust in the community at the lack of progress, the state of the harbour & the unwillingness of WCC to force Sisk into action.0 -
130 members of the public showed up this evening down at the town council offices....must have felt like a bad dream for some of the councillors attending.
Tom Fortune captured the utter frustration & disgust in the community at the lack of progress, the state of the harbour & the unwillingness of WCC to force Sisk into action.
God..i walked the lovely cliff walk again today to greystones..i dont know whats going to happen re harbour development.theres to many good people that want to do whats right for the town but they are up against people who are soul less and lie and have told so many lies that they cant tell the truth..that monsterous harbour development didnt just drop out of space someone is responsible for the deplorable state of it and the terrible abandoned mess its left in..we are often asked to respect the "leave no trace" idea when visiting beauty spots in our countryside..well who left our coastline in this mess? They hide behind names like sisk and parks and wcc etc ..its not good enough..#rant over0 -
A big thank you to everyone who turned up last night. Do not underestimate for one minute the importance of your attendance. It sends a clear signal to Wicklow County Council that this is the single most important issue for the people of Greystones and you will not rest until it is sorted satisfactorily. You will probably have to do it again soon but the effort will be worth it! A big thank you to Tom Fortune for presenting the case so well and for making it clear to Sisk that if they want to sit on this site until such time as it suits them there will be a price to pay. Also a thank you to Stephen Stokes who allowed this important debate to continue despite being pressurised to cut it short. The efforts of these individuals along with Stephen Donnelly have put Wicklow County Council and the developers firmly on the back foot. They have got a clear signal that their efforts to date are not good enough. There is a €5M bond which is more than adequate to put the site right. So if the site is not to be used (which it clearly isn't) then there is both the plan and the financial resources to turn it into a community facility0
-
A big thank you to everyone who turned up last night. Do not underestimate for one minute the importance of your attendance. It sends a clear signal to Wicklow County Council that this is the single most important issue for the people of Greystones and you will not rest until it is sorted satisfactorily. You will probably have to do it again soon but the effort will be worth it! A big thank you to Tom Fortune for presenting the case so well and for making it clear to Sisk that if they want to sit on this site until such time as it suits them there will be a price to pay. Also a thank you to Stephen Stokes who allowed this important debate to continue despite being pressurised to cut it short. The efforts of these individuals along with Stephen Donnelly have put Wicklow County Council and the developers firmly on the back foot. They have got a clear signal that their efforts to date are not good enough. There is a €5M bond which is more than adequate to put the site right. So if the site is not to be used (which it clearly isn't) then there is both the plan and the financial resources to turn it into a community facility
Thanks for the update Fiacra.
I was unable to attend - assuming there will be a further meeting what are actions were agreed or was there mute silence from WCC/Sispar? For example did they respond to the proposed remediation plan?0 -
As always with these things it wasn't entirely clear but they said they would revert in two weeks with a response.
They are in a difficult position in that they came to the meeting with no real proposals and were presented with a comprehensive, professionally costed plan and they couldn't really advance any real reasons not to carry it out other than not wanting to spend the money. They appeared to be hoping to rely on the old chestnuts of "we will finish this development (sometime)" and "we are a solid firm and not some fly by night crowd who would feck off and leave Greystones in a mess" Tom Fortune rebutted this position by putting it to them forcefully that they had left the place in a mess and indeed it might be best for Greystones if they did leave at this stage allowing the community to use the bond to remediate the site.
In the face of that they had little option but to regroup. No doubt they will come back with some lesser proposal but any such proposal is unlikely to get a friendly reception from any Councillors except perhaps Kathleen Kelleher and Derek Mitchell although even the latter was showing sympathy for the community by the end of the evening.0 -
It looks like there is a positive movement to resolve some of the harbour issues, this is very good news. Great to see the politicians getting involved in a real way at last.0
-
JP Sisk and Brendan Sheehy (representing the developer) gave a presentation, showing their own interim proposal for the harbour, on a mapboard. The mapboard was directed toward the mayor's seat at the table, and then passed around the councillors, so it was hard for the public to see, but it appeared to show some elements in common with the Fortune/Donnelly backed community plan such as public access to north pier, moorings for the 3 trawlers at north pier, and a re-routing of cliff walk.
Clr. Jones complained that he was not an engineer and did not understand plans and maps on boards, so Sisk agreed to provide him with a written summary of the plan in bullet point form.
Clr. Fortune gave a comprehensive overview of the outstanding issues in the harbour and stated his support for the community plan. He mentioned that he had e-mailed the plan to Sisk/WCC and all the other councillors the previous day "out of manners" even though it it was not his function to keep them informed. He gave the opinion that the plan would cost approx €1.8M to implement, and some of the costs would occur eventually anyway as part of the original plan, such as a boardwalk along the marina to the north pier.
He also brought up the safety issue at The Grove/North Beach where the access has been eroded away.
He asked for clarification/sight of a "market change clause" in the contract (which maybe is being relied upon as an excuse for inaction?)
He mentioned the €5M bond and the possibility of calling it in.
The public gave him a round of applause.
Sean Quirke of WCC said the "market change clause" did exist, but declined to give any details of it.
In response to the community plan to landscape the building site area as an interim measure, PJ Sisk said there would be insurance issues in taking down the fence and allowing public access. Sheehy said there was very little topsoil available in the current economic climate, and anyway there was already " some class of meadow grass" growing there. He said he "did not envision getting involved in public toilets" because it was not in the original contract.
PJ Sisk said clubhouses would eventually be built in a phased sequence after sales of residential units had been achieved, but gave no indication of when the building might start.
Mayor Stokes tried to press the Sisk reps for info on the identity of the new investor, and on when building of residential units might start, but no straight answers were forthcoming.
Cllr Mitchell seemed well informed on all the issues. He repeated his assertion that the community plan would cost around €10M to implement, and crossed swords with Clr. Fortune on that issue. He was also concerned that the boat clubs would lose some of their space to the public picnic area. He gave the opinion that a foreshore license and planning permission would have to be applied for. He repeated his opinion that the harbour was already a great facility and had attracted wealthy yacht owners etc..
The other councillors appeared not to have looked at the community plan in advance, and they passed it around among themselves during the meeting.
Clrs. Moloney and Kelleher complained that the e-mail from Clr.Fortune detailing the plan had only arrived at midnight the previous day and they did not have time to look at it.
Clr. Jones said he didnt get it at all because he "rarely looks at" his official wicklow co.co. e-mail address; he said he uses a private one instead (it was an extraordinary admission by a public representative) None of them seemed to think it was their own business to keep themselves informed on the issue.
Clr. O'Sullivan said he was not great at interpreting plans either, as his background was in economics, but he asked who would be paying for the maintenance of the proposed public areas, Sisk or WCC?
Clr. McLoughlin had a look at the large crowd present and proposed moving the existing new carpark area a bit to the left, and establishing a brand new public plaza directly in front of the harbour. She said all public lighting there should be done to a much higher standard.
Sheehy of Sisk replied that the existing lamps at the harbour cost €1200 each. She said "That is cheap".0 -
Advertisement
-
JP Sisk and Brendan Sheehy (representing the developer) gave a presentation, showing their own interim proposal for the harbour, on a mapboard. The mapboard was directed toward the mayor's seat at the table, and then passed around the councillors, so it was hard for th public to see, but it appeared to show some elements in common with the Fortune/Donnelly backed community plan such as public access to north pier, moorings for the 3 trawlers at north pier, and a re-routing of cliff walk.
Clr. Jones complained that he was not an engineer and did not understand plans and maps on boards, so Sisk agreed to provide him with a written summary of the plan in bullet point form.
Clr. Fortune gave a comprehensive overview of the outstanding issues in the harbour and stated his support for the community plan. He mentioned that he had e-mailed the plan to Sisk/WCC and all the other councillors the previous day "out of manners" even though it it was not his function to keep them informed. He gave the opinion that the plan would cost approx €1.8M to implement, and some of the costs would occur eventually anyway as part of the original plan, such as a boardwalk along the marina to the north pier.
He also brought up the safety issue at The Grove/North Beach where the access has been eroded away.
He asked for clarification/sight of a "market change clause" in the contract (which maybe is being relied upon as an excuse for inaction?)
He mentioned the €5M bond and the possibility of calling it in.
The public gave him a round of applause.
Sean Quirke of WCC said the "market change clause" did exist, but declined to give any details of it.
In response to the community plan to landscape the building site area as an interim measure, PJ Sisk said there would be insurance issues in taking down the fence and allowing public access. Sheehy said there was very little topsoil available in the current economic climate, and anyway there was already " some class of meadow grass" growing there. He said he "did not envision getting involved in public toilets" because it was not in the original contract.
PJ Sisk said clubhouses would eventually be built in a phased sequence after sales of residential units had been achieved, but gave no indication of when the building might start.
Mayor Stokes tried to press the Sisk reps for info on the identity of the new investor, and on when building of residential units might start, but no straight answers were forthcoming.
Cllr Mitchell seemed well informed on all the issues. He repeated his assertion that the community plan would cost around €10M to implement, and crossed swords with Clr. Fortune on that issue. He was also concerned that the boat clubs would lose some of their space to the public picnic area. He gave the opinion that a foreshore license and planning permission would have to be applied for. He repeated his opinion that the harbour was already a great facility and had attracted wealthy yacht owners etc..
The other councillors appeared not to have looked at the community plan in advance, and they passed it around among themselves during the meeting.
Clrs. Moloney and Kelleher complained that the e-mail from Clr.Fortune detailing the plan had only arrived at midnight the previous day and they did not have time to look at it.
Clr. Jones said he didnt get it at all because he "rarely looks at" his official wicklow co.co. e-mail address; he said he uses a private one instead (it was an extraordinary admission by a public representative) None of them seemed to think it was their own business to keep themselves informed on the issue.
Clr. O'Sullivan said he was not great at interpreting plans either, as his background was in economics, but he asked who would be paying for the maintenance of the proposed public areas, Sisk or WCC?
Clr. McLoughlin had a look at the large crowd present and proposed moving the existing new carpark area a bit to the left, and establishing a brand new public plaza directly in front of the harbour. She said all public lighting there should be done to a much higher standard.
Sheehy of Sisk replied that the existing lamps at the harbour cost €1200 each. She said "That is cheap".
Sheehy says he would decline on the toilets as they wernt in the "original "plans..im sure the six years of unfinished unusable oversized atroicious harbour wasnt in the original plan either0
And he is accusing Donnelly of being in Dreamland?
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement