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

Cheeky Chops

Bloody good job lads ... proud of you!

pixbyjohn

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

Bloody good job lads ... proud of you!

Wait and see what happens, the work has not been agreed yet. I am wishing all goes ahead but there are too many demands now and the waters are becoming muddied.

Cookie_Monster

when did the bond go from 10m to 5m?

Fiachra2

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Wait and see what happens, the work has not been agreed yet. I am wishing all goes ahead but there are too many demands now and the waters are becoming muddied.

The waters are not in the least bit muddied. There is a clear set of drawings that have been professionally costed and the community has clearly indicated that they support this plan. We may not achieve every single bit of it and there may be planning or logistical issues around some parts but the central components

• Remove all unnecessary fencing
• Landscape the whole building site
• Open up the north wall

Are all simple and achievable. The only dissenting voices are:

• Sisk who naturally don't want to spend the money
• The County management who don't think they should have to spend it either (explain that if you can!)
• Derek Mitchell who likes the plan... but doesn't..and wants a slightly different one...and thinks ours too expensive ...or not..maybe
  
  This is within our grasp if we keep pushing. The cost is not an issue. Sisk have the money and if they don't want to spend it then there is a bond.

Fiachra2

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when did the bond go from 10m to 5m?

€5M of the bond was for completion of the housing and that is still in existence. The other €5M was returned on "completion of the marine works" So believe it or not the harbour is actually "complete"!
Amazingly some of the objections to do with the works we are seeking have revolved around problems (eg safety railings etc) which one might expect to be in place if the works were actually "complete". The €5M gift by WCC to Sisk simply beggars belief.

BigGeorge

Exactly Fiachra, the bonding requirement was reduced from €10M to €5M on the completion of the scope of works clearly defined under 'marine works' . In reviewing what this specifically means, it would appear that WCC may not have been very thorough in forcing Sisk to 100% complete those works & perhaps cut them some slack - who knows why??, This latitide allowed the bonding to be retuduced. In this market financing a bond - which is essentially a letter of guarantee - from a bondsman - is quite expensive...for Sisk

so for example Sisk are supposed to be depositing 1000s of cubic metres of shingle on the north beach each year...& this has not been happening etc....there are many more examples. Again, why Sisk might have been cut slack by WCC on these contractual requirements is a mystery & is something we should be asking our public representative about - especially ones who supported or even signed the contract on our behalf

Tabnabs

Fiachra2 wrote: »

• Remove all unnecessary fencing
• Landscape the whole building site
• Open up the north wall

What is the feeling locally about when the residential and commercial elements are built? Was that not the original argument regarding scale and size etc.? Seeing as any landscaping would only be temporary before the next stage of heavy construction, is this just conceded as a fait accompli or is it for the next round?

loyatemu

Tabnabs wrote: »

What is the feeling locally about when the residential and commercial elements are built? Was that not the original argument regarding scale and size etc.? Seeing as any landscaping would only be temporary before the next stage of heavy construction, is this just conceded as a fait accompli or is it for the next round?

presumably this is one of the reasons Sispar don't want to open up and landscape the site. It'll make it a lot more difficult for them to go back in and start building in the future.

Cheeky Chops

Volunteers are needed to help drop leaflets on the Greystones Harbour Community Plan to households in the local area. Call into Stephen Donnelly's office for more info. There's the petition there too.

I'm not directly related to this at all (those that are should post more info and details) but I was in today volunteering and they are not getting enough helpers. It's a no brainer. We have to get off our arses and help!

Cheeky Chops

BTW did anyone find out who the "investors" are?

BigGeorge

There are a few different stories going around. However, the common theme is that they are foreign & will be looking to make changes to the development. I know what I'd change if I were them e.g. increase densities, lower public amenity specifications, cheapen finishes, not bother with beach shingle etc....to make it more profitable / better return on investment.

Of course, the important issue for us in Greystones is if our public representatives & Council have the steel to threaten ( as per the contract) to exercise their right to veto a 'change in control' within the PPP Co & therefore perhaps force them to tidy up this derelict wasteland as an interim measure.

Fiachra2

Tabnabs wrote: »

What is the feeling locally about when the residential and commercial elements are built? Was that not the original argument regarding scale and size etc.? Seeing as any landscaping would only be temporary before the next stage of heavy construction, is this just conceded as a fait accompli or is it for the next round?

I wouldn't image the feeling locally has changed at all. 80-90% of people were opposed to building apartment blocks on the seafront. I wouldn't imagine that has changed. However the development has planning permission so presumably something will be built there eventually.
It may not be what was originally proposed. Sisk are selling their interest and a new developer will probably have different plans. There is a body of evidence that would suggest that it is and will be very hard to sell apartments anywhere other than in cities (just like the rest of the world!) so we may get something different.

legrand

the last plan of high density townhouses and apartments was truly ghastly - all about maximizing the number of units (I get that in terms of commercial returns etc) but it looked godawful. You would find that that most units would be in the shade- the commercial side faced east - okay of a morning - but could you imagine window shopping on a breezy afternoon in the shade (maybe a nice squall thrown in too).

Like many developments in this country (old and new) - they turn their back on the sun making for a miserable setting.

Blanchflower

recedite wrote: »

Sean Quirke of WCC said the "market change clause" did exist, but declined to give any details of it.

So Sean Quirke finally admits that Wicklow County Council have amended the original PPP contract to include a market change clause. The addition of this clause to the PPP contract is of enormous value to Sispar (Sisks). Under whose authority was this huge benefit bestowed upon Sispar?

Maudi

Just out of curiosity i wonder what sorta claim would arise if one fell and got tangled or cut or if it was a kid got hurt on that green "safety"fencing..its not supposed to be there is it? I mean its not permanant is it?if its tempory fencing and someone gets injured on it whos responsible..?

recedite

Blanchflower wrote: »

So Sean Quirke finally admits that Wicklow County Council have amended the original PPP contract to include a market change clause.

He said it was not in the draft contract, but it was in the final contract. Whether that means "the original was amended " is not clear. I suppose it depends whether an actual contract was ever signed without the clause, that is whether a valid contract was signed intermediate between the draft and the final one. But it seems to have been slipped in at some stage anyway. These are slippery people we are dealing with.

Blanchflower

recedite wrote: »

He said it was not in the draft contract, but it was in the final contract. Whether that means "the original was amended " is not clear. I suppose it depends whether an actual contract was ever signed without the clause, that is whether a valid contract was signed intermediate between the draft and the final one. But it seems to have been slipped in at some stage anyway. These are slippery people we are dealing with.

Slipped in when the property market collapsed. This was a huge clandestine gift to Sispar at our expense by certain civil servants working in Wicklow County Council. The value to Sispar of the gift of this clause is well over €150 million considering the property market collapsed by over 60% from peak when the PPP contract was signed. Have these unaccountable civil servants in Wicklow County Council the authority to gift such enormous benefits to a private company? I am absolutely shocked and angry about this.

BigGeorge

It is not known at what stage this clause was inserted. It did certainly alter the risk on the project. It certainly could have been inserted as an 'agreed change' between the parties as any stage up to contract signature or any time since.

As the contracting authority, WCC had the authority, acting within Irish & EU procurement rules / guidelines / legislation , to negotiate the contract & any changes they felt were necessary subsequently.

Cerco

BigGeorge wrote: »

It is not known at what stage this clause was inserted. It did certainly alter the risk on the project. It certainly could have been inserted as an 'agreed change' between the parties as any stage up to contract signature or any time since.

As the contracting authority, WCC had the authority, acting within Irish & EU procurement rules / guidelines / legislation , to negotiate the contract & any changes they felt were necessary subsequently.

The more I read about this PPP the more I despair. The residents/ taxpayers of Greystones have been disadvantaged at every opportunity by our Council and many of our public representatives.

Of course they can renegotiate the contract but they have a responsibility to act in the common good.

Cheeky Chops

Could someone post the names of the councillors that voted to accept this destruction of our harbour?

Don't get caught in parish politics .... name and shame.

Blanchflower

BigGeorge wrote: »

It is not known at what stage this clause was inserted. It did certainly alter the risk on the project. It certainly could have been inserted as an 'agreed change' between the parties as any stage up to contract signature or any time since.

As the contracting authority, WCC had the authority, acting within Irish & EU procurement rules / guidelines / legislation , to negotiate the contract & any changes they felt were necessary subsequently.

The private sector usually assumes the demand/revenue risk during the life of a long-term project. This includes unexpectedly high or low demand compared to initial market assessments. Had the property bubble of the Celtic Tiger era not burst in 2008 Sispar stood to gain super profits from their high rise development on the foreshore at Greystones Harbour. The market risk was their main risk. The market risk is always the responsibility of the private sector entity in a Public Private Partnership. The private sector entity will normally add an inflation factor into its final bid, which “expires” after a certain time period to protect against changes in market conditions. It is highly unusual for a Public Body to permit the inclusion of such a clause in a Public Private Party contract to protect the private sector entity against their main risk.

The insertion of the market change clause into the PPP contract after the property crash has permitted Sispar to stall the project for as long as they like until market conditions change in their favour. In the meantime Greystones Harbour is being left as a wasteland by Sispar.

BigGeorge

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

Could someone post the names of the councillors that voted to accept this destruction of our harbour?

Don't get caught in parish politics .... name and shame.

The current state is that the development has planning permission, regardless of what we think of that.....its spilt milk. We are now in a contract administration stage, where WCC are the Contracting Authority. For whatever reason, WCC appear not the using the pressure / pain points they have available to them , via the contract.

It is likely that WCC / Sisk will seek to vary the planning permission as part of a new investor coming onboard - indeed it it likely that a modified planning permission will have to be in place before an investor actually invests. It will likely be 5-10 years before significant progress is made on the site.

Some people became - and some remain - entrenched in a position they adopted 5-10 years ago. So, the real question for me & others is not who voted for it years ago - thats history! The question is which councillors are willing to use their powers / votes / contacts to reject the status quo that had developed between Sisk / WCC & demand a better interim solution for the community.

fenris

I agree that we should look at who will actually work in our interest in the future, but it is also basic prudence to know who has actively worked against our interests in the past, it is largely irrelevant if their motivation was corruption or just simple gullibility and stupidity, the important thing is that those individuals have proven unworthy or public trust and should be denied the opportunity to act in a similar manner in the future.

Cheeky Chops

fenris wrote: »

I agree that we should look at who will actually work in our interest in the future, but it is also basic prudence to know who has actively worked against our interests in the past, it is largely irrelevant if their motivation was corruption or just simple gullibility and stupidity, the important thing is that those individuals have proven unworthy or public trust and should be denied the opportunity to act in a similar manner in the future.

I completely agree and find it bewildering how no one wants to name these people!

MyPerfectCousin

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

I completely agree and find it bewildering how no one wants to name these people!

I'm pretty sure they're named at length within this very thread.

Buenaventura Durruti

I see that GUBOH have posted a visual comparison of the Fortune/Donnelly plan and the Sisk proposal on their site and on Facebook:
http://greystonesharbour.org/post/62817226444/sisks-proposal-compared-to-the-community-plan
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.578352295565737&type=1

recedite wrote: »

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".

BigGeorge

Chalk & cheese!

Given that substantial progress on the site is 5-10 years away, not ' next spring' as promised by JP Sisk (again)...it is very hard to see how anyone could support the Sisk vision for their land bank in Greystones over the Community's vision for their harbour, north beach & cliff walk.

Tabnabs

A stark contrast indeed. Sisk own the land however and the only way the locals are going to get any leverage on their requests is through the elected officials putting pressure on WCC employees ("public servants").

Is that aerial photo recent, is the marina that empty still?

Buenaventura Durruti

Tabnabs wrote: »

A stark contrast indeed. Sisk own the land however and the only way the locals are going to get any leverage on their requests is through the elected officials putting pressure on WCC employees ("public servants").

Is that aerial photo recent, is the marina that empty still?

Correction, TN. Sisk do not own the land. It is public property, vested in WCC. Sisk only acquire it once the entire project is complete.

Pressure? Yes, that's one way, but the problem so far is that local elected reps won't exert the pressure on people like county manager Eddie Sheehy and director of services/project manager Sean Quirke.

So it's good to see that Stephen Donnelly has the bit in his teeth and has teamed up with Tom Forune to exert exactly that pressure.

But there are other ways, too.

The aerials are stills from a summer video shot from a microlight flying over the town. I will look up the date and post, with a link. It's actually a very nice vid, and shows how even that monstrosity can be softened with distance, even if only a little.

Buenaventura Durruti

The video is here on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/zkRTC1RVO88

The date was 1 May 2013.

(BTW, I tried to use the YouTube wrapper but it didn't work. Anybody know the excat steps to embed a YouTibe video here?)

**UPDATE** Succeeded — see post below.