Gatling wrote: » They Unite are claiming it wasn't them ,it was someone else who applied for the exemption
FTA69 wrote: » As someone who works for Unite, if the union knowingly did that then they're a disgrace for doing so. However, the fact that Unite may or may not have tried to shake a planning application doesn't mean Ogle was a part of it or had any knowledge of it. Unite is a union of 1.5m members with tens of thousands of staff, officers and organisers aren't at all privy to what happens regarding unions assets and buildings etc.
jameorahiely wrote: » The shaggy defence Wasn't me
mariaalice wrote: » The exemption application was made by a company called 'Unite the Union Trustee Company', which like the union itself, is based in London. I support unions but have a strong dislike of this sort of thing what about having values
Gatling wrote: » If it was done intentionally would their be blacklash from members and employees like yourself
FTA69 wrote: » Right, I was curious about this so sent a buddy of mine a message to see what the craic was; he's an active lay member of Unite based in Dublin. By the way I'm only putting forward my own thinking and what was said to me, I'm not providing some official inside track commentary - I don't know what f*ck is going on half the time with Unite in my own office never mind Ireland. Couple of things, Apollo House was targeted specifically as a political action to raise awareness of homelessness and also importantly to shine a light on the NAMA fiasco about how publicly paid for buildings are allowed to be left rot. In other words, Apollo House would have happened regardless. Now, on to Unite. The building in question was an 8 room Georgian building; Unite were going to turn it into four flats. The social housing quota for development is 10%; as you may guess it's impossible to allocate 10% of 4 flats to social housing, that's the reason why they were exempt. Apparently you have to state this exemption on the planning as a matter of course or it gets rejected. I was under the illusion they were throwing up a block of flats like. Pure non story as I suspected.
jameorahiely wrote: » 12 apartments 10% would be 1.This is the same building? 15 merrion square. Where have the ither 8 apartments disappeared to? PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The proposals shall consist of the internal reconfiguration and change of use of the basement, ground and upper floor areas of the existing Georgian protected structure into apartments and new build apartment accommodation to the rear of the site, facing onto Denzille Lane. Works to the existing protected structure are to facilitate a material change of use from offices to residential use, and will provide 6 no. apartments. The new build accommodation will provide a further 6 no. apartments with associated car parking at ground level. A landscaped amenity garden area is to be located between the existing and new build accommodation.
FTA69 wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0116/845263-merrion-square-development/ RTÉ is saying it's four flats?
jameorahiely wrote: » RTE says "three three-bed and one one-bed apartments" Still 2 missing!?!
FTA69 wrote: » Yeah 3 3-beds and 1 one-bed is four flats mate.
jameorahiely wrote: » Oops yes, you're correct. Don't know what I was multiplying. 4 apartments, yet the planning says 12, strange
FTA69 wrote: As someone who works for Unite, if the union knowingly did that then they're a disgrace for doing so. However, the fact that Unite may or may not have tried to shake a planning application doesn't mean Ogle was a part of it or had any knowledge of it. Unite is a union of 1.5m members with tens of thousands of staff, officers and organisers aren't at all privy to what happens regarding unions assets and buildings etc.
FTA69 wrote: Now, on to Unite. The building in question was an 8 room Georgian building; Unite were going to turn it into four flats. The social housing quota for development is 10%; as you may guess it's impossible to allocate 10% of 4 flats to social housing, that's the reason why they were exempt. Apparently you have to state this exemption on the planning as a matter of course or it gets rejected.
Bria Witty Streetlight wrote: » Nothing involving Mr. Ogle would surprise me.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Perhaps Ogle should spend more time on his union activities if he isn't aware I'm sure Unite and the members are very happy with Brendan to be honest. Similarly Ogle is an officer, people like himself have nothing to do with things like asset management, administration etc. It's a massive organisation headquartered in London, the above sort of thing has nothing to do with people in his position. The building was lying empty for three years yet Ogle didn't think that it can be used for social housing or for the homeless. Grand Nimbyism. 1) Merrion Square has Nothing to do with Ogle. 2) It's not up to Unite, Glen Hansard, Man on the Moon or whoever to house the homeless - it's up to the government to make that provision. Through NAMA, we in effect paid for and took ownership over huge amounts of property that was going to waste and sold back to the developers for a pittance after we bailed them out. That's what Apollo House was drawing attention to. 3) The Unite office didn't meet the criterion for social housing at all, it's a tiny development of four flats thus the RTÉ 'story' was a load of contrived messing and that's obvious to anyone who looks at this case. You're only labouring this non point because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Brendan Ogle.
Perhaps Ogle should spend more time on his union activities if he isn't aware
The building was lying empty for three years yet Ogle didn't think that it can be used for social housing or for the homeless. Grand Nimbyism.
FTA69 wrote: » jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I'm sure Unite and the members are very happy with Brendan to be honest. Similarly Ogle is an officer, people like himself have nothing to do with things like asset management, administration etc. It's a massive organisation headquartered in London, the above sort of thing has nothing to do with people in his position. 1) Merrion Square has Nothing to do with Ogle. 2) It's not up to Unite, Glen Hansard, Man on the Moon or whoever to house the homeless - it's up to the government to make that provision. Through NAMA, we in effect paid for and took ownership over huge amounts of property that was going to waste and sold back to the developers for a pittance after we bailed them out. That's what Apollo House was drawing attention to. 3) The Unite office didn't meet the criterion for social housing at all, it's a tiny development of four flats thus the RTÉ 'story' was a load of contrived messing and that's obvious to anyone who looks at this case. You're only labouring this non point because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Brendan Ogle. Why does he think his building should be excempt from the social housing rules?
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I'm sure Unite and the members are very happy with Brendan to be honest. Similarly Ogle is an officer, people like himself have nothing to do with things like asset management, administration etc. It's a massive organisation headquartered in London, the above sort of thing has nothing to do with people in his position. 1) Merrion Square has Nothing to do with Ogle. 2) It's not up to Unite, Glen Hansard, Man on the Moon or whoever to house the homeless - it's up to the government to make that provision. Through NAMA, we in effect paid for and took ownership over huge amounts of property that was going to waste and sold back to the developers for a pittance after we bailed them out. That's what Apollo House was drawing attention to. 3) The Unite office didn't meet the criterion for social housing at all, it's a tiny development of four flats thus the RTÉ 'story' was a load of contrived messing and that's obvious to anyone who looks at this case. You're only labouring this non point because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Brendan Ogle.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » FTA69 wrote: » Why does he think his building should be excempt from the social housing rules? Jesus this is like pulling teeth. Previous levels of social housing obligation was 20%; alleged Labour politician Alan Kelly cut this to 10%. Unite's former property is being made into four flats. It is impossible to deliver 0.4% of a flat for social housing; even under the old rules they'd have been exempt. In other words, the rules don't apply to developments less than ten as it would be impossible to deliver. As Brian has astutely pointed out, this is a non-story and hatchet job and don't hold your breath for RTÉ to clarify the messing and/or grill the government about their failure to build any social housing when we so desperately need it.
FTA69 wrote: » Why does he think his building should be excempt from the social housing rules?
FTA69 wrote: » I honestly haven't a clue like, you may well be right as well. But all I know is RTÉ broke this "story" about evil Unite screwing the council out of social housing and then they themselves go on to say the latest planning application is to 1) keep the Georgian part as a single house and 2) turn the rest into four flats. Which would make 5 homes in total which is way off the social housing criterion. Stink of sh*te off it, funny enough the story only comes out now too.
VinLieger wrote: » Theres nothing stinking about it, the fact is they had an empty building they could have used indefinitely but instead chose to go for a building that was nothing but a PR stunt that had to fail and the people would always have been evicted from
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
