Huge hole discovered in Knocknacarra: Council looking into it

Iwannahurl

I refer of course to the allegedly unauthorised excavation of a huge site between Dunne's and Aviva in the "Galway West District Centre".

These major works -- requiring the use of a large amount of plant, including rock-breakers, excavators and dump trucks -- were carried out (noisily) in 2007.




A planning application was lodged in 2006, though I have no detailed knowledge of what actually happened to the application subsequently. I always presumed that if the works had gone ahead then permission had been granted.

If the excavation went ahead without "planning" permission, then one possible interpretation of the report is that it took the City Council five years to notice that a gigantic hole had been illegally created in a busy commercial and residential area:

The former owners of the Galway Gateway shopping centre on the Western Distributor Road have been warned they face jail and a fine of up to €12.7 million for carrying out major site excavation works without permission.

The site, which spans 52 acres in total and is also known as the Galway West District Centre, was seized by the National Asset Management Agency last weekend. However, the Council has vowed to continue pursuing the matter.

The excavation work on Phase 2 of the centre – alongside Dunnes Stores – was carried in 2007 and the site subsequently abandoned. At the moment, the site has filled with water and is fenced off.

The Galway City Tribune has learned that a warning letter was sent to the Moritz Group – which owned the centre and the land until its seizure – by the City Council, ordering that the land be restored to its original condition.

“The unauthorised excavation should be filled in immediately, the unauthorised security fencing removed and the lands reinstated to their condition prior to the unauthorised works being carried out,” the letter read.

It went on to explain that the Planning and Development Act provides for the City Council to recover any costs they incur in relation to enforcement proceedings – the deadline is the end of March.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23959-jail-threat-over-centre’s-illegal-site-excavation

IMO it's odd that the City Tribune doesn't know, or chooses not to reveal, the date of the Council's letter.

If the Council wrote to Moritz/Rumbold when the allegedly unauthorised works were being carried out, why is the deadline end March 2012?

On the other hand, if the Council's letter was sent more recently, as seems to be the case, why did it take them so long to notice a hole so large and so illegal?

Don Booker

Thought it was the hole Dunphy was on about last night on Gaybo.

Kristopherus

On Gaybo????:eek: You mean Turps surely:D

ladhrann

Iwannahurl wrote: »

On the other hand, if the Council's letter was sent more recently, as seems to be the case, why did it take them so long to notice a hole so large and so illegal?

Regarding the planning system in this country and county, it is a most dangerous assumption to make that either the Planning Office or the City/Council have any active part in policing planning matters. Unless an official complaint (which can be done via e-mail or in writing) is made by a member of the public or other party no action will be taken on any matter by the Council. If a complaint is made outside the 7 year time limit then the complaint will be ignored.

In many cases the onuse will be on the individual making the enquiry or complaint to prove that the action took place within the 7 year limit. I speak from a position of some experience in this regard.

In many cases if a complaint is made and an official makes an inspection (which they must do), unless every infringement is noted in your original complaint then [even if there are others] only what you place in your complaint will be pursued.

Iwannahurl

So I wonder who made the complaint in this case?

NAMA, perhaps?

John Kennedy, Planning Enforcement Officer with the Council, visited the site on foot of a complaint on Health & Safety grounds.

He reported: “My inspection found that the site was fenced off and a large hole had been excavated on the site covering most of the site area. This hole has filled with water so the depth cannot be measured.”

Now that NAMA has appointed a receiver to the "Galway West District Centre" do they need to tidy things up, physically and legally, in order to get it all sorted satisfactorily?

Or is it just a coincidence that a concerned citizen happened to make a complaint about H&S at the same time?

Iwannahurl

This might throw some light on the subject:

What is a fixed charge property receiver?
Fixed charge property receivers are appointed by financial institutions and other lenders who have secured their loans by a legal charge (mortgage) on a property. The powers of the receiver will be set out in the mortgage deed and to an extent in the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

How does a fixed charge receiver function?
The first consideration will be the stabilisation of the asset and following this, determining the most appropriate strategy going forward. Fixed charge receivers are property experts who can actively manage the asset, deal with any tenants, rent reviews, lettings, lease surrenders and outstanding problems, collect rents and service charges, arrange insurance cover and effect necessary maintenance programs. In many cases the function may just be to arrange an early sale of the property in order to repay as much of the loan as possible.

Why use a fixed charge receiver?
Unlike other insolvency procedures, the purpose of the receiver is to secure the best possible return for the lender, rather than any creditors as a whole.

I'm just guessing here, but I presume that if there is a huge unauthorised hole in the asset, then it will have to be dealt with asap in case it reduces the amount of the loan that can be recovered.

The Moritz Group itself is not in receivership, but do they have the resources to do what the Council is demanding?

ladhrann

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So I wonder who made the complaint in this case? Now that NAMA has appointed a receiver to the "Galway West District Centre" do they need to tidy things up, physically and legally, in order to get it all sorted satisfactorily?

Or is it just a coincidence that a concerned citizen happened to make a complaint about H&S at the same time?

I don't know if it makes any difference who made the complaint. In fact I made a complaint about unauthorised signage, hoarding and fencing there a couple of weeks ago. I'm glad someone did though. Its hard being the planning and development acts 2001 (amended) crusader all on my own

kabakuyu

Kristopherus wrote: »

On Gaybo????:eek: You mean Turps surely:D

Still Gaybo to us old guys.

milehip1

hmm..... I wonder does Joe McNamara have a solid alibi?;)

Sponge Bob

They should put a Tesco into that hole.

Doc Ruby

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They should put a Tesco into that hole.

Why, so they can advertise more christmas shelf stacking internships and do more Irish producers out of business?

There's more to the world than Dunnes and Tesco, sb.

Iwannahurl

IIRC there was once talk of a Tesco store being located on one of these sites. That was before Dunne's arrived in the "Galway West District Centre".

Very little of these fanciful proposals materialised even at the height of Celtic Casino hysteria, and IMO much of this area now has an ugly derelict look about it. Nothing but dilapidated hoardings on view now for several years, and I suspect it will only look worse over the next 5-10 years.

KevR

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They should put a Tesco into that hole.

Yeah, the Tesco Hypermarket that they are trying to get planning permission for in Westside won't be big enough what with Dunnes and Aldi only being 200 metres away.

Don Booker

kabakuyu wrote: »

Still Gaybo to us old guys.

Yep intentional. Shouldn't have been continued just to give Ken and Tubs a handy Friday night.

Mr Keek

Am I the only person when I saw the Title of the thread "Hugh hole Discovered in Knocknarra: Council Looking into it'

...and pictured some council workers in Hard Hats & Hi Vis gear, standing at the edge of the hole, munching on a Chicken Roll from Dunnes saying, "Jaysus Mick, its a fine hole"

Mrs OBumble

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There's more to the world than Dunnes and Tesco, sb.

Yup, that side of town could do with a Lidl or Aldi.

Sponge Bob

JustMary wrote: »

Yup, that side of town could do with a Lidl or Aldi.

Put them all in the hole.

Head The Wall

It looks like the council is just looking to cover it's ass in relation to this. Or maybe it's a scheme where they are trying to get money out of developers (maybe via NAMA) to keep the massive wages flowing to the county managers and those other useless councillors. Do they still have a 15m hole in the finances?

snubbleste

The Moritz Group and associated companies who developed this hole have been subsumed into Nama.
It may yet transpire that this hole is our hole.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-appoints-receiver-to-moritz-assets-2995777.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlV6jFjykyK6dHdKR0kwY2FkcEtQT19NQ2p6NkwwRkE&hl=en#gid=0

xflyer

Oh I dunno, they turn it into an Olympic sized swimming pool or landscape it and turn into duck pond where you can sail your model boat on the weekend.

soundbyte

snubbleste wrote: »

The Moritz Group and associated companies who developed this hole have been subsumed into Nama.
It may yet transpire that this hole is our hole.

Ya, got that on the previous page, thanks:

The former owners of the Galway Gateway shopping centre on the Western Distributor Road have been warned they face jail and a fine of up to €12.7 million for carrying out major site excavation works without permission.

The site, which spans 52 acres in total and is also known as the Galway West District Centre, was seized by the National Asset Management Agency last weekend. However, the Council has vowed to continue pursuing the matter.

Also, the Moritz Group was not 'subsumed' into Nama. Receivers were appointed over certain assets within the group. The Group is not in Nama. Yet

snubbleste

I missed that post by Iwannahurl.
Was browsing through namawinelake's latest production and noted Michael Whelan was in the latest update for developers being namafied.. I investigated further and saw the newspaper article.

Moritz Group, Maplewood Homes, Maplewood Developments, MW Homes, Seskin, Moritz Elliot, Moritz Commercial, Moritz Mivan, Victoria SRL, Lunar Sea Holdings (UK) Limited, Kristmannson Properties BFT, Digiweb, PH Ross, TJ O'Mahony, Commons Hardware, Paul McCann (Grant Thornton, receiver), Digiweb, Wickes DIY, St Enda's GAA Club
Galway Gateway (Knocknacarra, Galway), Newcastle (Dublin), sites purchased are all in major urban centres around Burcharest and regional cities (Romania), Ballycullen(Dublin), Hazelhatch Park(Celbridge, Co. Kildare), Hazelwood(Celbridge, Co Kildare), Herberton (Dublin), Newcastle Lyons(Newcastle, Co Dublin), The Paddocks(Adamstown, Co Dublin), 70 Gracechurch Street (London), Temple Road (family home, Dartry, Dublin 9)

GOODME

wow they should really pay for this, i hope it will be sorted soon or fish will find a new home on a man made pond/lake.

dubhthach

If you look at "Birdseye view" in Bing Maps you can see the excavators busy creating the "Big Dig"

http://binged.it/ACMTC2

Iwannahurl

dubhthach wrote: »

If you look at "Birdseye view" in Bing Maps you can see the excavators busy creating the "Big Dig"

http://binged.it/ACMTC2

Great pic, and well spotted.

My recollection is that there appeared to be a large amount of machinery working on the site at the time, including a constant stream of large trucks carrying the excavated material away.

Somebody with an educated eye for these things tells me that an excavation of this nature is effectively an unauthorised quarry on a massive scale, and that the stone removed could well have been sold at a considerable profit.

I can't remember exactly when the project stalled due to the collapse of the bubble, but it's possible that by then the quarrying part of the business had been successfully and profitably completed.

xflyer

Well to be fair, you don't have to dig down very far anywhere in Galway to get to solid rock. There are a number of abandoned sites around which look like quarries, Mervue, Ballybrit.

barryd09

Wasnt there plans to extend the shopping facilities in that area?
I remember reading in the sentinel a while back that argos and a few other stores were to be moving in up there?

bobbytables

During the 90s & the boom years, the "next phase" of many developments created much excitement. When they built Baily Point in Salthill there was supposed to be a nightclub & cinema. In the early 90s there was supposed to be a cinema in leisurland.

Then more recently in Knocknacarra, cinemas, nightclubs, airports, space stations, nuclear power plants along with contemporary cardboard living units were all promised, but instead we got a Dunnes & a duck pond.

If the ducks fly away the whole thing will be pointless!

Iwannahurl

When thou hast Dunne's, thou hast not done.

Some ducks would be nice, actually. All I've seen are common or garden seagulls.

dubhthach

I wouldn't mind but they did build the cinema in Bailey Point. Whole thing is caught in legal mess between bankruptcy and fact that the crowd originally suppose to operate it was replaced by another crowd. Resulting in another court case.

It's one reason the place is in such a state as it is. Of course I remember when it basically look like a Quarry.

Iwannahurl

Baily Point looks like it's falling apart.

Those buyers who got their deposits back and then stayed well clear were the lucky ones, IMO.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I refer of course to the allegedly unauthorised excavation of a huge site between Dunne's and Aviva in the "Galway West District Centre".

These major works -- requiring the use of a large amount of plant, including rock-breakers, excavators and dump trucks -- were carried out (noisily) in 2007.




A planning application was lodged in 2006, though I have no detailed knowledge of what actually happened to the application subsequently. I always presumed that if the works had gone ahead then permission had been granted.

If the excavation went ahead without "planning" permission, then one possible interpretation of the report is that it took the City Council five years to notice that a gigantic hole had been illegally created in a busy commercial and residential area:

The former owners of the Galway Gateway shopping centre on the Western Distributor Road have been warned they face jail and a fine of up to €12.7 million for carrying out major site excavation works without permission.

The site, which spans 52 acres in total and is also known as the Galway West District Centre, was seized by the National Asset Management Agency last weekend. However, the Council has vowed to continue pursuing the matter.

The excavation work on Phase 2 of the centre – alongside Dunnes Stores – was carried in 2007 and the site subsequently abandoned. At the moment, the site has filled with water and is fenced off.

The Galway City Tribune has learned that a warning letter was sent to the Moritz Group – which owned the centre and the land until its seizure – by the City Council, ordering that the land be restored to its original condition.

“The unauthorised excavation should be filled in immediately, the unauthorised security fencing removed and the lands reinstated to their condition prior to the unauthorised works being carried out,” the letter read.

It went on to explain that the Planning and Development Act provides for the City Council to recover any costs they incur in relation to enforcement proceedings – the deadline is the end of March.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23959-jail-threat-over-centre’s-illegal-site-excavation

IMO it's odd that the City Tribune doesn't know, or chooses not to reveal, the date of the Council's letter.

If the Council wrote to Moritz/Rumbold when the allegedly unauthorised works were being carried out, why is the deadline end March 2012?

On the other hand, if the Council's letter was sent more recently, as seems to be the case, why did it take them so long to notice a hole so large and so illegal?

New notices have recently been put up around this site.

"Planning" permission is being sought for retention of the illegal excavations.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Planning" permission is being sought for retention of the illegal excavations.

So that NAMA can sell it to Tesco!

Iwannahurl

Every little helps.

A thought occurs: maybe it should be designated a priority habitat to protect the swans who disport themselves there from time to time...

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Every little helps.
A thought occurs: maybe it should be designated a priority habitat to protect the swans who disport themselves there from time to time...

How??

Zzippy

Sponge Bob wrote: »

How??

I would imagine they fly there... :pac:

Sponge Bob

Zzippy wrote: »

I would imagine they fly there... :pac:

You would wouldn't you.

I meant how does he get a HOLE "designated" in Knocknacarra???

Iwannahurl

The names on the "planning" notice, iirc, are Michael Coyle and Simon Davidson of HWBC Allsop.

HWBC Allsop are NAMA-appointed receivers to companies in the Moritz group, which includes Rumbold Builders and Maplewood Developments, both of which were involved in the Galway West Business Park project.

Moritz took NAMA to court early in 2012 in an attempt to halt the process, but it seems the, er, hole in their finances was too great, and the receivers arrived like a pair of black swans in September.

thesandeman

Will be interesting to see how they word it in the Allsop catalogue.

gordongekko

thesandeman wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how they word it in the Allsop catalogue.

nama does not sell through allsop

Col200sx

Wonder is there anything going on with this, as today (and maybe before today too, not sure) there has been a huge digger in there.

Seems like it's clearing it up, not sure.

Anybody heard anything?

Iwannahurl

The receivers of the development company applied for retention of the excavations. My understanding is that retention permission was granted, but that the water must be drained for health and safety reasons. I believe the water must be kept pumped out, which may explain the presence of the machinery.

I had a quick look this morning, and the digger seems to be one of those rock-breaker jobbies. Not quite sure why that would be needed, but in any case all the water is gone now.

snubbleste

Why do they want to retain the hole
Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

gordongekko

snubbleste wrote: »

Why do they want to retain the hole
Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

why fill it in only to have to dig it out again if its ever developed.

flynnlives

gordongekko wrote: »

nama does not sell through allsop

how do you know?

the truth is nobody knows what exactly goes on in Nama

Iwannahurl

snubbleste wrote: »

Why do they want to retain the hole
Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

In theory unauthorised developments which do not get retention permission must be restored to their previous state before the unauthorised development began.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31564,en.pdf

AFAIK in this case the development became unauthorised because planning permission expired (after 5 years). I first thought the word "unauthorised" meant that the excavations were somehow carried out illegally, but this does not seem to be the case.

I suspect that there are unauthorised developments all over this benighted republic because of expired planning permission. Many of the development companies are in receivership as part of the NAMA process (as is this particular development) and the receivers are seeking to regularise the situation by applying for retention and carrying out remedial site works as required. I presume the hope is that at some future date there might be an economic case for resuming the planned development. TTBOMK there is no upper time limit on the granting of retention, so it's conceivable that Galway City Council will continue to give planning permission for this development indefinitely.

gordongekko

flynnlives wrote: »

how do you know?

the truth is nobody knows what exactly goes on in Nama

show me 1 nama property sold through allsops

beardybrewer

snubbleste wrote: »

Why do they want to retain the hole
Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

It would be nice to think because it was expensive to dog and they haven't given up on the potential of the area. A lot could change in the next 10 years.

emptybladder

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In theory unauthorised developments which do not get retention permission must be restored to their previous state before the unauthorised development began.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31564,en.pdf

AFAIK in this case the development became unauthorised because planning permission expired (after 5 years). I first thought the word "unauthorised" meant that the excavations were somehow carried out illegally, but this does not seem to be the case.

I suspect that there are unauthorised developments all over this benighted republic because of expired planning permission. Many of the development companies are in receivership as part of the NAMA process (as is this particular development) and the receivers are seeking to regularise the situation by applying for retention and carrying out remedial site works as required. I presume the hope is that at some future date there might be an economic case for resuming the planned development. TTBOMK there is no upper time limit on the granting of retention, so it's conceivable that Galway City Council will continue to give planning permission for this development indefinitely.

In this case, it was unauthorised development because they never submitted a Commencement Notice to begin work on the site. While they had PP, they excavated without formal approval and proof that pre-conditions (such as Health and Safety) were being met).
The retention of unauthorised works application and the application for an Extension of Duration are two entirely separate matters.

Iwannahurl

Thanks for correction.

I'm forgetting my own original post, and the relevant newspaper report: http://www.galwaynews.ie/23959-jail-threat-over-centre%E2%80%99s-illegal-site-excavation