BRENDAN McCANN DID IT AGAIN

phelo05

The serial objector brendan (the wanker) McCann has done it again folks he is now objecting to the proposed redevelopment to the McEniff Ard Ri hotel saying that the plans are a VISUAL DISASTER. jez is that man blind or what the place needs a good face lift it was built in the early eighties. i think someone should give him some advice like "YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS".

Trotter

phelo05 wrote:

The serial objector brendan (the wanker) McCann has done it again folks he is now objecting to the proposed redevelopment to the McEniff Ard Ri hotel saying that the plans are a VISUAL DISASTER. jez is that man blind or what the place needs a good face lift it was built in the early eighties. i think someone should give him some advice like "YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS".

I wonder has this fella got an agenda we're not aware of...

phelo05

Trotter wrote:

I wonder has this fella got an agenda we're not aware of...

I think so to.

angry_fox

phelo05 wrote:

The serial objector brendan (the wanker) McCann has done it again folks he is now objecting to the proposed redevelopment to the McEniff Ard Ri hotel saying that the plans are a VISUAL DISASTER. jez is that man blind or what the place needs a good face lift it was built in the early eighties. i think someone should give him some advice like "YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS".

The man should be politly asked to leave waterford as he is holding back the develpement of the city. Are all members of the green party like this? Do they want to bring ireland back to the stone age or the 1950's?

Rew

angry_fox wrote:

Are all members of the green party like this? Do they want to bring ireland back to the stone age or the 1950's?

yes

Rollo Tamasi

angry_fox wrote:

Do they want to bring ireland back to the stone age

I quite like the stone age, tbh. All those stones...magic! now the iron age, how boring is that! com'on like...

Marcopolo85

phelo05 wrote:

The serial objector brendan (the wanker) McCann has done it again folks he is now objecting to the proposed redevelopment to the McEniff Ard Ri hotel saying that the plans are a VISUAL DISASTER. jez is that man blind or what the place needs a good face lift it was built in the early eighties. i think someone should give him some advice like "YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS".

He must have little to do with his time. If this is his way of raising the 'profile' of the Green Party (and the 'members'!) it ain't working. It's similar to that idiotic 'Save Our Salmon' stunt him and some other eejit pulled on the Bridge a few months ago.

Practice what you preach Brendan! :rolleyes:

Cabaal

Marcopolo85 wrote:

it ain't working. It's similar to that idiotic 'Save Our Salmon' stunt him and some other eejit pulled on the Bridge a few months ago.

"Will somebody please think of the Salmon....er Children!!"

Sooner or Later

If I was in the Green Party I'd dump that guy pronto.

Talk about unelectable. One of the most hated politicians in Waterford.

phelo05

well he certainly won,t get my vote

decies

Sooner or Later wrote:

If I was in the Green Party I'd dump that guy pronto.

Talk about unelectable. One of the most hated politicians in Waterford.

Thats unfair what about those FF wasters

Marcopolo85

decies wrote:

Thats unfair what about those FF wasters

Yeah - but they don't pretend to be anything else. That McCann guy is atypical of a wannabe politician. He'll shout and roar and stir $hite from outside the Council Chambers, but if he got in he'd be no different to the rest and capitulate.

The Council comes and goes, faces change, but what do we still see perpetuated - a mayoral pact! Extremely undemocratic to say the least. It should be left up to the people of this City to elect a Mayor. Not a handful of people in a room striking secret, undemocratic deals. :mad:

AdMMM

Just dump that guy into the ****ing river... that way he can be forever with his beloved Salmon

jmcc

decies wrote:

Thats unfair what about those FF wasters

The ones that got booted out at the last local elections? Or the two remaining?

Regards...jmcc

yoursfaithfully

Well, is it a visual disaster ? Has anyone had a look at it ?

Mossy Monk

as it stands now?

yes, the inside looks retro too, but retro in a bad way

DéiseGirl

Mossy Monk wrote:

as it stands now?

yes, the inside looks retro too, but retro in a bad way

It's a revolting building both inside and outside.

And while I'm at it the train station is a disgrace as well. I've heard tell the new station manager is planning to do something about it, ie give it some sort of facelift. No doubt McCann would be outraged. :mad:

merlante

I'd like to say I'm surprised. The Ard Ri is a ****ing disgrace, yet we are not allowed to do anything about it. McCann sends everything to An Bord Planala in Dublin, where an arbitrary decision will be made after a suitably long delay. All I can say is that if we were living in hells kitchen in the 30's, I'd be down to the local don with freshly baked bread and a fatted lamb looking for a favour!

I wouldn't even classify the guy as a politician: even Trevor Sargent has distanced himself from him in the past, and last year the organisation in Waterford held a vote of no-confidence in him as green party spokesman for Waterford.

There seems to be two types of green party member: the practical and the sane environmentalists, and the raving nutcases like McCann!

angry_fox

D&#233 wrote: »

It's a revolting building both inside and outside.

And while I'm at it the train station is a disgrace as well. I've heard tell the new station manager is planning to do something about it, ie give it some sort of facelift. No doubt McCann would be outraged. :mad:

Kevin Finnagan is the new station manager and he is going do something about the state of the building, there is know way McCann can lodge a complaint against it, what could he be against? If he does, i think he should be at least tarred and feathered and thrown off the cliffs out in tramore.

merlante

angry_fox wrote:

Kevin Finnagan is the new station manager and he is going do something about the state of the building, there is know way McCann can lodge a complaint against it, what could he be against? If he does, i think he should be at least tarred and feathered and thrown off the cliffs out in tramore.

We're way beyond that stage with McCann. You can be damn sure he'll object to it!

Cabaal

The trainstation has been a disgrace for years and waterford should be ashamed of it, I can't understand why their leaving it the way it is for so long

DéiseGirl

angry_fox wrote:

Kevin Finnagan is the new station manager and he is going do something about the state of the building, there is know way McCann can lodge a complaint against it, what could he be against? If he does, i think he should be at least tarred and feathered and thrown off the cliffs out in tramore.

I'll provide the tar and feathers. Tramore will provide the cliffs

DéiseGirl

Cabaal wrote:

The trainstation has been a disgrace for years and waterford should be ashamed of it, I can't understand why their leaving it the way it is for so long

I've been on a good few of the train routes around the country in the last few years and omigod Waterford's station is by far the worst I've ever seen. Just goes to show how much care and attention has been given to the exterior when they're still using the "old" Irish Rail logo :rolleyes:

merlante

I'm sure they'd rebuild the thing to be half the size anyway!

DéiseGirl

merlante wrote:

I'm sure they'd rebuild the thing to be half the size anyway!

I heard it was going to be of Rubix Cube dimensions myself...

angry_fox

Send an email to info@greenparty.ie and see what the Green Party have to say about their man in Waterford.

No one in waterford will object to the the redevelopemt of the train station, cause it is an eye sore but if McCann does object...... God help him

mike65

I'd keep the signal box though! The rest is 70s bus station standard.

Mike.

angry_fox

mike65 wrote:

I'd keep the signal box though! The rest is 70s bus station standard.

Mike.

Should give the signal box a fresh lick of paint. Pity they knocked the old station in the 70s, was a beautiful red building back in its day.

yoursfaithfully

It is a pity that Mc Cann wasn't around when planning permission was given to knock the previous beautiful authentic railway station and to build the ugly 60's box that we have now. Same goes for the Tramore station. We need more Mc Cann's around with a bit of civic pride albeit from Galway.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

It is a pity that Mc Cann wasn't around when planning permission was given to knock the previous beautiful authentic railway station and to build the ugly 60's box that we have now. Same goes for the Tramore station. We need more Mc Cann's around with a bit of civic pride albeit from Galway.

Jesus, are you his brother or something?

I'd be the first person out protesting if something worthwhile was being knocked down - like the old victorian station - but the Metropole is hardly a landmark historical building of natural beauty, now is it?

During the railway square planning approval, he objected to 2/3 houses being knocked down along the square. These buildings were flooded/waterlogged, unrentable and about to fall down. Their owners cried tears of joy when the developers offered to buy them out. But then our Hero McCann came along and objected to their demolition on the grounds that they were historic buildings - they were just ****ty old houses!

I spoke to an architect who was involved in the project. They know their local history inside out from having to deal with McCann (one good outcome I suppose) and they had to demonstrate to McCann that railway square was outside of the old city walls and therefore nothing was going to be destroyed; they even demonstrated that excavations a decade ago revealed that the only things to be found outside of the old walls were exactly what you would expect: rubbish!

He still objected!

yoursfaithfully

Are you seriously suggesting that the frontages to be seen down Penrose Lane etc. (gates to car parks, ESB substations, kitchens in your face, bare walls, drab railings etc.) are preferable to frontages like that of the Metropole. If so you must be suffering from severe depression or you soon will be if you live down that way !

yoursfaithfully

Does your architect friend think it good practice to erect a seven storey apartment block adjacent to and dwarfing an historic castle at the entrance to the old city ?

yoursfaithfully

Send an email to info@greenparty.ie and tell them what a great job their man in Waterford is doing. Long may he cycle.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the frontages to be seen down Penrose Lane etc. (gates to car parks, ESB substations, kitchens in your face, bare walls, drab railings etc.) are preferable to frontages like that of the Metropole. If so you must be suffering from severe depression or you soon will be if you live down that way !

The correct question, with regard to the metropole application, is do I think that a nice new Mariot hotel frontage is preferable to frontages like that of the Metropole?

The answer is of course I do! The Metropole was/is in a disgraceful state, and the building was/is too small to be of any modern commercial use anyway.

As to the development of the bridge street/mary street/penrose lane area, I think it can only be seen as positive since the area was de-populated and was blighted by urban decay. It was a no go area of town. With these new developments, none of which infringe on our historical heritage, the area looks better and people are starting to live there again.

You can't honestly tell me that the developments in this area have been negative? It was like beirut!

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Does your architect friend think it good practice to erect a seven storey apartment block adjacent to and dwarfing an historic castle at the entrance to the old city ?

Waterford is blessed to have retained so much of its medieval heritage, a lot more than any other city in Ireland, with the possible exception of Derry. The reason they survived was because they fitted in with the plans of the georgians; if they had got in the way, like the city wall on the quay, or the old christ church cathedral, they were demolished without hesitation.

These days we have more respect for our historical buildings, but that does not mean that we must give them pride of place in our skyline until the end of time! Do you think that in a living 21st century city that all our medieval towers, built between the 12th and 15th centuries, will always be the tallest and most imposing buildings for miles around?

The point is that you couldn't build any large building anywhere in Waterford city centre without it overlooking an old medieval building. That is a fact. But nonetheless we must develop our city so that we can have jobs and services and everything that a city should have. We have to design our new buildings in such a way as to complement and highlight the older buildings in close vicinity. And yeah, we have to do it right.

One thing I do not accept is that we shouldn't build 7 storey buildings in Waterford. I think we should and I think we need them.

The railway square project pledged to highlight and emphasise the old tower beside it in the plans. The fact that it has gotten planning permission for a plan that was little changed after the McCann appeal, means that Bord Planala was happy with it, and of course Waterford city council is also happy with it. That's good enough for me!

The only thing that McCann may have achieved by objecting to the railway square project was reducing the size of the cinema from its original 11 screen size to a rumoured 8, since Bord Planala nearly always get you to take a bit of height and width off your building if it gets objected to. As an avid cinema goer I'd like to say, "thanks for that Brendan!" God forbid Waterford would have a decent cinema!

yoursfaithfully

Merlante,

Waterford is blessed to have retained so much of its medieval heritage,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

These days we have more respect for our historical buildings,

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

We have to design our new buildings in such a way as to complement and highlight the older buildings in close vicinity. And yeah, we have to do it right.

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

yoursfaithfully

Merlante

I think it can only be seen as positive since the area was de-populated and was blighted by urban decay. It was a no go area of town.

A case of anything will do ! - A new school of architecture ?

mike65

I never thought I'd have to warn two fans of [size=-1]architecture[/size] to be "careful now"
but please keep this civil (I can sense some tension in the air on this!).

Maybe a fresh thread would be a good idea if either of you fancies starting one, its a good subject for debate.

Mike.

yoursfaithfully

You could be right Mike. However it is difficult to watch a genuine guy like McCann being assualted without reply on this and other threads. I hardly know the guy but I know that we could do with more like him.

Aquos76

yoursfaithfully wrote:

a genuine guy like McCann

Are you for real. He is a pr**k who goes out of his way to object to everything and anything in the city centre.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Merlante,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

I don't know anything about the church under burger king or what buildings have pvc windows. But if you want examples of how much the city cares about its historical buildings you only have to look to the re-renovation of Reginald's Tower, the restoration of the granary, the recent works outside of the french church where Luke Wadding is now, the restoration of the organ in Christ Church cathedral (and other restorative work), etc. I'm not denying that there have been mistakes in the past though.

As for the Maritana Gate building, I think it's the finest example of modern architecture in the city, and a perfect example of how a tall building can be tastely placed between a civic park and the courthouse & grounds. And if not there, where else would you put it anyway?

What annoys me about Brendan McCann is not that he holds a different opinion to me, or even a different opinion to (I think) most people, but that he knowingly abuses the individual's right to lodge a planning appeal by objecting to more or less everything. Those of us who want to see (balanced) development remain the silent majority while McCann, who is totally unelected, forces each development to be delayed for 18 months, puts legitimate plans in peril and, I have been assured, has put developers off developing in Waterford, just by dint of his reputation alone.

I make no apologies for discussing him in an open forum, because he is a public figure, and uses his public position as spokesman for the green party in order to leverage media exposure to further his own personal goals. I say personal goals because last year the green party in Waterford held a vote of no-confidence in him (which admittedly he survived) and Trevor Sargent himself has apparently distanced himself from his activities. There is little recourse for those of us who eagerly want to see the city develop but to highlight our grievances on forums like these. We can't vote for him any less, and we can't vote against his objections!

Having said that I will try to be less personal in my comments, since I do not intend to offend anyone - even though the situation as it is drives me nuts.

angry_fox

Ask anyone in Waterford about Brendan McCann and they will say "He is the guy who objects to evertything". Thats all he seems to be known as, a person who gets in the way of things and to be honest no man should be known/remembered as that. If only he could get a bit of sense.

The Metropole should either be demolished or given some sort of face lift. Its a disgrace.

yoursfaithfully

As for the Maritana Gate building, I think it's the finest example of modern architecture in the city, and a perfect example of how a tall building can be tastely placed between a civic park and the courthouse & grounds.

Am I missing something ? I would have thought that the new Bank of Scotland had set the example for the type of architecture that would have fitted in with the existing apartment blocks, the Park, the Court House, South Parade, Waterpark and De La Salle College.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Am I missing something ? I would have thought that the new Bank of Scotland had set the example for the type of architecture that would have fitted in with the existing apartment blocks, the Park, the Court House, South Parade, Waterpark and De La Salle College.

It's personal opinion, I just think it looks well; gives the place a central park sort of feel if you're looking in the right direction.

I don't generally like the sort of generic modern architecture that you get in cities in Ireland though, but that's the way things are being built. Developers/architects are not going to go back to developing georgian/victorian buildings unfortunately, so we have to make the best out of what we have.

Just because architecture is gone to the dogs does not mean that we should simply stop building until the fashions turn. In any case, we're a long way off the standards of the 70's/80's which gave us the train station, the ESB building on the mall and the Ard Ri (although the Ard Ri used to look better). I'm sure you'll agree with me that these buildings are among the ugliest in the city at the moment. If McCann is objecting against the redevelopment of the Ard Ri, you can understand why people are raging. The building is so ugly!

Marcopolo85

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Merlante,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

Yours faithfully - you must be a big fan of Waterford City Council's Planning Department.....one of the biggest offenders by their mere lack of consistency.

I know of a family who were renovating their house in the Upper City area. Tiles, etc had to match perfectly (good idea). However, two years later a nearby house was allowed plaster over a beautiful stone frontage and replace the roof tiles with slate!! - Offence number one.

City Hall - a beautiful building to which the Planning Department allowed the front of an Airport terminal to be attached.....all for two toilets and a hallway!
Offence number two.

17/18 Lady Lane. Uproar caused by a small group of people to have two tumble-down houses 'preserved'. Subsequently (after 'saving' them) the equivalent of a bus shelter was attached to the side of them.
Offence number three.

The Good Sheperd Convent. Since handover to the educational authorities it has suffered the equivalent of structural rape. Flat felt-roofed dormers; chrome vent pipes - and the piéce de resistance - prefabricated bulidings fronting onto the street.....in the 21st Century! And all this in the name of education.
Offence number four.

And if I hear any more about bloody wooden windows! People replace wooden windows with PVC for several reasons:

* The wooden ones are rotten and falling out
* The PVC ones actually look more presentable.
* Theywant to cut down on paint jobs.

I could go on about places like Knockboy with visual monstrosities ruining the skyline and other 'decisions' taken, but would pose the question....where was Mr. McCann when all this was going on? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

yoursfaithfully

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

AdMMM

I don't think any of us on the forums have any objections (excuse the pun) to people who object to developments with a worthwhile reason. However Brendan McCann seems to be objecting to things with no worthwhile reason in order to build up his profile and thats why we ridicule him and would rather him being at the bottom of the river (thats my opinion btw).

It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

No matter what angle I look at it from, I just can't seem to see how you think McCann types are essential! I would hardly call him an astute observer, he merely looks over the Waterford Today everyweek for the Planning noticed, cuts out the page and sends it up to An Bord Pleanala. These McCann types are hindering the development of the City as they scare developers away, I feel that that is sufficent reason to ridicule them!

Marcopolo85

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

Thank you, but you may have missed my point. I don't class McCann as an astute observer, merely an eccentric serial objector. If he were to focus on much of the issues raised in my reply, then he might be better deployed.

But objecting to most things (just 'cause he can) constitutes, in my book, a grave abuse of the planning laws. He would be better employed keeping an eye on the ridiculous City Council decisions which I mentioned in my reply. :rolleyes:

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

We can all agree that citizens are obliged to prevent business, misguided councillors, or whoever, from damaging our heritage. That much is clear.

Obviously, we are not all going to agree on what constitutes "damaging our heritage" or what constitutes bad planning. But the way I see it, planning appeals can be broken down into three broad categories:
a) Bad plans that are objectively flawed and universally criticised.
b) Plans which some/many consider to be subjectively flawed.
c) Fundamentally sound plans which are overwhelmingly endorsed by the public.

We can all think of plans in the a) category that were allowed through in the past: destruction of the old train station (+ poor replacement), the plastering of reginalds tower (!), etc. We are morally obliged to object to these sorts of plans, because they are so bad.

In category b) I would put the Maritana Gate building and the Railway Sq. complex. I think they're fine and they're needed, but others would argue that they are too tall or aren't attractive. If people feel strongly about it, they should probably object, provided they look at the other side of the argument first.

In category c) I would put things like widening the airport road, renovating the Ard Ri and the proposed shopping complex on michael st (provided the specific plan is not flawed). Plans in this category provide badly (direly?) needed infrastructure/development, have a low impact on the environment/heritage or renovate/rejuvinate old, decrepid buildings. You would expect only occasional objections to such developments, and you certainly wouldn't expect the same individuals to object to a number of them.

(you can disagree with my specific examples, but I think the categories are more or less there)

Most of us, if we were inclined to object to developments, would object to most of a), some/a few of b) and maybe one c) in our lives. The problem with McCann is that he objects to everything across the board. That is what we are complaining about.

He is one of the anti-deveopment greens who objects to plans on philosophical grounds. This is an abuse of the planning laws, which are supposed to allow individuals to highlight a possibly injustice, and not to allow one, unelected man to dictate city development policy to our elected representitives and to the people of the city. McCann and his ilk will ruin this law, which is meant to empower the small man, because sooner or later these abuses will no longer be tolerated and the law will be changed. Then if I wanted to object to something, for the first time in my life, I'd probably have to get 20 signatures on a piece of paper and a grand in cash before I could do it.

This guy is not just "saving" reginald's tower, he's saving Waterford from hotels, shops, businesses and whatever else. The architects and city hall get him involved with many projects/plans/groups from the start to see if they can fullfill his requirements, but it simply doesn't make any difference. It's a desperate situation.

Aquos76

angry_fox wrote:

The Metropole should either be demolished or given some sort of face lift. Its a disgrace.

I take it you have not been down that way recently. It was demolished a couple of weeks ago. They have already began the new development of a new hotel on the site.

angry_fox

Leonard wrote:

I take it you have not been down that way recently. It was demolished a couple of weeks ago. They have already began the new development of a new hotel on the site.

No i havent . Must have a look tomorrow.

Think its fantastic how much Waterford has come along over the past few years. Anyone remember life pre-City Square? Waterford has become a fantastic place to live in and also for the tourists to visit, pity that some people are getting in the way of its development