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
Boundary Extension for City?
Comments
-
Squidvicious wrote: »I'm in favour of an amalgamation, preferably with Wexford and South Tipp added in too. That's not on the agenda, however. Let's face it, nothing like that's going to happen in Ireland.
It's like saying I won't vote for the party I like best because they won't win. It's a fundamentally flawed logic!
If we don't look for an amalgamation then we sure as hell won't get it.0 -
Why this boundary extension was not done in 1977 or 1987 I cannot fathom. Was it ever sought back then? I mean Galway city hugely extended its boundaries in the late 1980s and to this day, despite massive growth since, the entire built up area of the city lies within its boundaries.
ALL Irish cities should have adequate boundaries that reflect the built up area of the city. Some would argue that the functional region of cities (the commuting hinterlands) should be included too. It means urban governance is co-ordinated and targeted and delivered in a strategic, coherent way. Having multiple competing authorities governing a city is a recipe for disaster.
But I agree that Waterford needs more than a boundary extension to successfully compete. Adequate infrastructural resources are required such as a third river bridge, clarity on the role and status of the regional hospital and full university status for WIT, with a dedicated innovation centre that can develop synergies with hi tech/bio pharma companies.
The boundary extension is only a start. Waterford needs investment. It is a very small city and needs to grow significantly if it is to develop the critical mass to be a real regional centre.0 -
JupiterKid wrote: »Why this boundary extension was not done in 1977 or 1987 I cannot fathom. Was it ever sought back then? I mean Galway city hugely extended its boundaries in the late 1980s and to this day, despite massive growth since, the entire built up area of the city lies within its boundaries.
ALL Irish cities should have adequate boundaries that reflect the built up area of the city. Some would argue that the functional region of cities (the commuting hinterlands) should be included too. It means urban governance is co-ordinated and targeted and delivered in a strategic, coherent way. Having multiple competing authorities governing a city is a recipe for disaster.
But I agree that Waterford needs more than a boundary extension to successfully compete. Adequate infrastructural resources are required such as a third river bridge, clarity on the role and status of the regional hospital and full university status for WIT, with a dedicated innovation centre that can develop synergies with hi tech/bio pharma companies.
The boundary extension is only a start. Waterford needs investment. It is a very small city and needs to grow significantly if it is to develop the critical mass to be a real regional centre.
As I've said before, I think that Waterford has real issues in this regard, extension or not. It remains to be seen how the County/City merger will work out but, at the very least, there's a risk that there will be competition for investment between West and East in Co. Waterford and this tension is underlined by the fact that Dungarvan and Waterford City are joint "capitals" of the county.
As regards its status as regional centre, Waterford is different to the likes of Galway, Cork and Limerick in so far as those cities have no real completion for status as regional centres and have significantly larger county populations also than Co.Waterford. Waterford is the largest city in the South-East and geographically quite central so it is the logical choice to be the regional centre. However, it's not as far ahead of its local "rivals" Wexford or Kilkenny in population terms as the likes of Cork or Galway are and Co. Waterford itself is not much bigger population wise than Co.Kilkenny and is smaller than Co. Wexford. These factors have tended to weaken its status as regional centre.
To my mind, the only solution is proper cooperation throughout the South-East which we haven't been good at in the past. Which is unfortunate because everyone in the South-East loses out to a greater or lesser extent. Co-operation would necessitate some sharing of investment which might not be popular, though.0 -
JupiterKid wrote: »Why this boundary extension was not done in 1977 or 1987 I cannot fathom. Was it ever sought back then? I mean Galway city hugely extended its boundaries in the late 1980s and to this day, despite massive growth since, the entire built up area of the city lies within its boundaries.
ALL Irish cities should have adequate boundaries that reflect the built up area of the city. Some would argue that the functional region of cities (the commuting hinterlands) should be included too. It means urban governance is co-ordinated and targeted and delivered in a strategic, coherent way. Having multiple competing authorities governing a city is a recipe for disaster.
While I agree with your points, in general, it is worth looking at the development of Galway since the 1980's. The boundary extension no doubt facilitated the large growth the city has experienced. But, truth be told, the growth of Galway has not been very well planned in spite of the fact that the city has been under one authority. It is a bit of a mess of a city now, car dependent and choking on traffic and further growth is going to be difficult without colossal spending on infrastructure. This would not have been the case if a bit of thought had gone in to planning the place in the last 30 years. So, what I am saying is, is that while it is important that a city have just one local authority, this does not mean that very unsustainable development won't happen.0 -
While I agree with your points, in general, it is worth looking at the development of Galway since the 1980's. The boundary extension no doubt facilitated the large growth the city has experienced. But, truth be told, the growth of Galway has not been very well planned in spite of the fact that the city has been under one authority. It is a bit of a mess of a city now, car dependent and choking on traffic and further growth is going to be difficult without colossal spending on infrastructure. This would not have been the case if a bit of thought had gone in to planning the place in the last 30 years. So, what I am saying is, is that while it is important that a city have just one local authority, this does not mean that very unsustainable development won't happen.
Which might add a little bit of weight to my belief that the extension will make little difference one way or another. I do accept that a reasonable riposte to that would be that a unitary authority might give a much better potential for good planning and that it would be up to the Council in question to grab the opportunity.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think one could conclude that it wouldn't make a difference. The extension in Galway did enable the growth after all. But it's worth pointing out that it was very unsustainable, poorly planned growth, which in the long run does more damage to a city. If I was living on the Ferrybank side of the Suir I would be looking for assurances that the same mistakes that were made in Galway would not be made in Waterford.0
-
"If I was living on the Ferrybank side of the Suir I would be looking for assurances that the same mistakes that were made in Galway would not be made in Waterford".
Waterford Council should be holding town hall meetings to both explain what the benefits would be to Ferrybank residents and how it ties in for the development of the city as a whole. They can't just assume that the advantages are self-evident, they have to show they have some sort of plan!
Also, the Council need to listen to the residents concerns and address them. Too often in Limerick, the City/County Council have used these town hall meetings as a form of window dressing (if they held them at all) and plough ahead with their original intentions.0 -
Exile on Grafton St. wrote: »"If I was living on the Ferrybank side of the Suir I would be looking for assurances that the same mistakes that were made in Galway would not be made in Waterford".
Waterford Council should be holding town hall meetings to both explain what the benefits would be to Ferrybank residents and how it ties in for the development of the city as a whole. They can't just assume that the advantages are self-evident, they have to show they have some sort of plan!
Also, the Council need to listen to the residents concerns and address them. Too often in Limerick, the City/County Council have used these town hall meetings as a form of window dressing (if they held them at all) and plough ahead with their original intentions.
I agree with this 100%. To listen to some posters(not in the last couple of pages admittedly), you would think that KKCC were operating some sort of mini-Aleppo in Ferrybank while Waterford was a type of Switzerland. If there is an extension, I would hope that WCC would do exactly what you are suggesting and come up with a coherent plan. However, my point or fear all along has been that the extension will make little difference either way. Very valid points have been made by Zulu, Johnboy and Jupiter Kid, but if they're to be proven right, it is essential that WCC develops a coherent plan and also gets the funds to make good on that plan. A person's views on the extension may simply depend partly on whether they're an optimist or a pessimist! I'm clearly the latter;). With a coherent plan, WCC might even convince me! I would suspect, though, that WCC would be wary of public meetings as there is a high level of opposition from many quarters.0 -
Some interesting observations. The case for a boundary extension has been made by the Local Government Committee, and is based on what I would consider to be a rational assessment of governance needs in the Waterford region. Those opposing the boundary extension have not really engaged very well with these issues, and have instead tended to rely on whataboutery and silly childish quips rooted in localism and parochial tendencies. Some of this has been disheartening, but not surprising; this has happened before.
It has been suggested here that if Waterford has in fact got a plan for the city region, then it should present it publicly so that the concerned commentators can be persuaded. Sorry, but this is nonsense; the fact of the matter is that Waterford has no jurisdiction over this region - because of the boundary being located where it is. It does not have the capacity in legal or technical terms to make a plan for the region. Even though Kilkenny County Council is the authority responsible for much of this area, it has not shown that it has any plan or vision for the area that recognises its urban credentials- beyond a Local Area Plan that has no functional relationship with the city to which it adjoins.
Some have suggested that the way forward for the city region is cooperation! I am sorry but the horse has bolted on that one. The local authorities involved have demonstrated clearly that cooperation is simply not a realistic option, and that the relationship is based on competition rather than cooperation. Waterford was the only city not to have an agreed Retail Strategy - guess why not? By the way, this notion that Kilkenny County Council's decision to permit Ferrybank shopping Centre (Exhibit A in the case for a boundary extension) was not a decisive and irresponsible act is delusional. It was not simply an attempt to provide for the shopping needs of a suburban area of a few thousand people - it is a Regional scale District centre (37,000 square metres in scale)- aimed at a very large regional catchment. This was done in the full knowledge of its potential impact on the city centre; I cannot see how that can be interpreted as benign - it was predatory as an economic intervention - and in my mind a deliberate and cynical attempt to sabotage Waterford's regeneration aspirations. Why would Waterford City Council, the then New Ross and Carrick on Suir Town Councils, as well as Wexford and Waterford chambers' of Commerce have objected?
For information, as I understand it, An Bord Pleanala did not adjudicate on the permitted development in Ferrybank - Kilkenny County Council decided that one all on their own; the appeal appears to have been withdrawn and there are no reports of file for this decision. They did make a refusal on an earlier application on the same site. In it the Inspector noted the following;
"I conclude that the proposed development is grossly excessive, in scale and extent of floorspace, to serve the local needs of the developing northern suburbs of Waterford City. In addition, I conclude that the convenience content of the development is excessive, and would have a detrimental impact on the town centres of New Ross and Carrick-on-Suir, and that the comparison content of the proposed development, because of its excessive scale and nature, would be likely to impact adversely on the vibrancy and vitality of Waterford city centre, in contravention of the provisions of the Environs Development Plan and of the principles and purpose of the Retail Planning Guidelines. I also consider that the urban design and form of the proposed development is inappropriate and unacceptable and fails to integrate successfully with its surrounding environment. I conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority, which sought to rectify the excessive retail floorspace and convenience and comparison content of the development through the use of conditions, was inappropriate and unworkable, and probably ultra vires its powers. On this basis, it should not be supported by the Board."
Pretty clear conclusions about how seriously Kilkenny County Council took their responsibilities and the extent to which they were a responsible party in this case. BTW, ultra vires means 'not legal'.0 -
Some interesting observations. The case for a boundary extension has been made by the Local Government Committee, and is based on what I would consider to be a rational assessment of governance needs in the Waterford region. Those opposing the boundary extension have not really engaged very well with these issues, and have instead tended to rely on whataboutery and silly childish quips rooted in localism and parochial tendencies. Some of this has been disheartening, but not surprising; this has happened before.
It has been suggested here that if Waterford has in fact got a plan for the city region, then it should present it publicly so that the concerned commentators can be persuaded. Sorry, but this is nonsense; the fact of the matter is that Waterford has no jurisdiction over this region - because of the boundary being located where it is. It does not have the capacity in legal or technical terms to make a plan for the region. Even though Kilkenny County Council is the authority responsible for much of this area, it has not shown that it has any plan or vision for the area that recognises its urban credentials- beyond a Local Area Plan that has no functional relationship with the city to which it adjoins.
Some have suggested that the way forward for the city region is cooperation! I am sorry but the horse has bolted on that one. The local authorities involved have demonstrated clearly that cooperation is simply not a realistic option, and that the relationship is based on competition rather than cooperation. Waterford was the only city not to have an agreed Retail Strategy - guess why not? By the way, this notion that Kilkenny County Council's decision to permit Ferrybank shopping Centre (Exhibit A in the case for a boundary extension) was not a decisive and irresponsible act is delusional. It was not simply an attempt to provide for the shopping needs of a suburban area of a few thousand people - it is a Regional scale District centre (37,000 square metres in scale)- aimed at a very large regional catchment. This was done in the full knowledge of its potential impact on the city centre; I cannot see how that can be interpreted as benign - it was predatory as an economic intervention - and in my mind a deliberate and cynical attempt to sabotage Waterford's regeneration aspirations. Why would Waterford City Council, the then New Ross and Carrick on Suir Town Councils, as well as Wexford and Waterford chambers' of Commerce have objected?
For information, as I understand it, An Bord Pleanala did not adjudicate on the permitted development in Ferrybank - Kilkenny County Council decided that one all on their own; the appeal appears to have been withdrawn and there are no reports of file for this decision. They did make a refusal on an earlier application on the same site. In it the Inspector noted the following;
"I conclude that the proposed development is grossly excessive, in scale and extent of floorspace, to serve the local needs of the developing northern suburbs of Waterford City. In addition, I conclude that the convenience content of the development is excessive, and would have a detrimental impact on the town centres of New Ross and Carrick-on-Suir, and that the comparison content of the proposed development, because of its excessive scale and nature, would be likely to impact adversely on the vibrancy and vitality of Waterford city centre, in contravention of the provisions of the Environs Development Plan and of the principles and purpose of the Retail Planning Guidelines. I also consider that the urban design and form of the proposed development is inappropriate and unacceptable and fails to integrate successfully with its surrounding environment. I conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority, which sought to rectify the excessive retail floorspace and convenience and comparison content of the development through the use of conditions, was inappropriate and unworkable, and probably ultra vires its powers. On this basis, it should not be supported by the Board."
Pretty clear conclusions about how seriously Kilkenny County Council took their responsibilities and the extent to which they were a responsible party in this case. BTW, ultra vires means 'not legal'.
I'm not sure if the reference to those against the extension not arguing their case well is aimed at me? For the record, I have acknowledged that there really is no good argument against the extension. The point that I have made is to query whether it will make a huge difference or at least, whether expectations are unrealistic as regards the benefits. The likes of Johnboy and Zulutango have drawn attention to the potential advantages. I accept that properly funded and properly planned, it could be a real benefit to the region. Done badly and without proper funding, we may well find ourselves asking what all the fuss was about.
I don't think that it's unreasonable that WCC should give us some indication of a vision for the relevant area. After all, they have lobbied for the extension so surely they have some idea as to how it might develop in the future? Would it really hurt to publicise to some degree what these plans are? After all, if the extension application fails, it will be down to political pressure. Surely some "marketing" from WCC could reduce the opposition? They may have no jurisdiction over the area but they have applied for the extension so it's not as though they're prohibited from expressing a view as to how they might seek to develop the area.
On the shopping centre issue, I stand corrected as regards An Bord Pleanala/Ferrybank shopping Centre. It beggars belief that WCC didn't bring the matter to the Bord. I still believe that it was disregard for Waterford as opposed to any deliberate desire to sabotage Waterford that was behind the decision to grant permission in that case, as well as the inability to resist the lure of development charges. One huge issue with that shopping centre is traffic, apart from all the other issues. Traffic is fraught enough in Ferrybank as it stands. I do not know where the traffic will go if it ever becomes operational.0 -
Advertisement
-
You may have an answer tomorrow.Squidvicious wrote: »I don't think that it's unreasonable that WCC should give us some indication of a vision for the relevant area. After all, they have lobbied for the extension so surely they have some idea as to how it might develop in the future? Would it really hurt to publicise to some degree what these plans are? After all, if the extension application fails, it will be down to political pressure. Surely some "marketing" from WCC could reduce the opposition? They may have no jurisdiction over the area but they have applied for the extension so it's not as though they're prohibited or anything.
On the shopping centre issue, I stand corrected as regards An Bord Pleanala/Ferrybank shopping Centre. It beggars belief that WCC didn't bring the matter to the Bord. I still believe that it was disregard for Waterford as opposed to any deliberate desire to sabotage Waterford that was behind the decision to grant permission in that case, as well as the inability to resist the lure of development charges.0 -
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »There IS something in the wind ..... but what .......
KKCC to drop their opposition 😜?0 -
Squidvicious wrote:I don't think that it's unreasonable that WCC should give us some indication of a vision for the relevant area. After all, they have lobbied for the extension so surely they have some idea as to how it might develop in the future? Would it really hurt to publicise to some degree what these plans are? After all, if the extension application fails, it will be down to political pressure. Surely some "marketing" from WCC could reduce the opposition? They may have no jurisdiction over the area but they have applied for the extension so it's not as though they're prohibited from expressing a view as to how they might seek to develop the area.
I think you're absolutely correct here. It is quite ridiculous that Waterford insists it needs the extension but doesn't make a detailed case for it.0 -
No, I was not referring to your posts in my comments on those opposing the boundary extension. As far as I am aware, Waterford City Council would have made a number of formal submissions to the boundary review process - which would/should have contained a very comprehensive case in favour of the new governing unit that would emerge. This would have included detailed consideration of the merits of the socio-economic, environmental and planning merits of such an outcome. However, I am not convinced that this type of policy argument would really alter the views of those who espouse childish arguments about lebensraum, Nazis etc; these are irrational and baseless positions that are unlikely to be swayed by evidence, best practice and rational considerations. Furthermore, no document/vision will guarantee that the boundary extension will deliver better outcomes - that I am afraid is not how reform is delivered in public policy terms; this is not natural science; we are not measuring the predicted effects of a drug. However, the Local Government Committee have adjudicated on the basis of available evidence, international best practice, planning, environmental and social considerations - having heard the various viewpoints expressed in the process. They have judged that it is in the best interests of the region, and its citizens, to alter the boundary. I think this is the correct way to advance policy reform. I don't think that a massive PR campaign by WCC to try to win over the objectors is a fair request and it is not practical or worthwhile. They are a local government body, who are tasked with administering an area on behalf of its citizens.Squidvicious wrote: »Some interesting observations. The case for a boundary extension has been made by the Local Government Committee, and is based on what I would consider to be a rational assessment of governance needs in the Waterford region. Those opposing the boundary extension have not really engaged very well with these issues, and have instead tended to rely on whataboutery and silly childish quips rooted in localism and parochial tendencies. Some of this has been disheartening, but not surprising; this has happened before.
It has been suggested here that if Waterford has in fact got a plan for the city region, then it should present it publicly so that the concerned commentators can be persuaded. Sorry, but this is nonsense; the fact of the matter is that Waterford has no jurisdiction over this region - because of the boundary being located where it is. It does not have the capacity in legal or technical terms to make a plan for the region. Even though Kilkenny County Council is the authority responsible for much of this area, it has not shown that it has any plan or vision for the area that recognises its urban credentials- beyond a Local Area Plan that has no functional relationship with the city to which it adjoins.
Some have suggested that the way forward for the city region is cooperation! I am sorry but the horse has bolted on that one. The local authorities involved have demonstrated clearly that cooperation is simply not a realistic option, and that the relationship is based on competition rather than cooperation. Waterford was the only city not to have an agreed Retail Strategy - guess why not? By the way, this notion that Kilkenny County Council's decision to permit Ferrybank shopping Centre (Exhibit A in the case for a boundary extension) was not a decisive and irresponsible act is delusional. It was not simply an attempt to provide for the shopping needs of a suburban area of a few thousand people - it is a Regional scale District centre (37,000 square metres in scale)- aimed at a very large regional catchment. This was done in the full knowledge of its potential impact on the city centre; I cannot see how that can be interpreted as benign - it was predatory as an economic intervention - and in my mind a deliberate and cynical attempt to sabotage Waterford's regeneration aspirations. Why would Waterford City Council, the then New Ross and Carrick on Suir Town Councils, as well as Wexford and Waterford chambers' of Commerce have objected?
For information, as I understand it, An Bord Pleanala did not adjudicate on the permitted development in Ferrybank - Kilkenny County Council decided that one all on their own; the appeal appears to have been withdrawn and there are no reports of file for this decision. They did make a refusal on an earlier application on the same site. In it the Inspector noted the following;
"I conclude that the proposed development is grossly excessive, in scale and extent of floorspace, to serve the local needs of the developing northern suburbs of Waterford City. In addition, I conclude that the convenience content of the development is excessive, and would have a detrimental impact on the town centres of New Ross and Carrick-on-Suir, and that the comparison content of the proposed development, because of its excessive scale and nature, would be likely to impact adversely on the vibrancy and vitality of Waterford city centre, in contravention of the provisions of the Environs Development Plan and of the principles and purpose of the Retail Planning Guidelines. I also consider that the urban design and form of the proposed development is inappropriate and unacceptable and fails to integrate successfully with its surrounding environment. I conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority, which sought to rectify the excessive retail floorspace and convenience and comparison content of the development through the use of conditions, was inappropriate and unworkable, and probably ultra vires its powers. On this basis, it should not be supported by the Board."
Pretty clear conclusions about how seriously Kilkenny County Council took their responsibilities and the extent to which they were a responsible party in this case. BTW, ultra vires means 'not legal'.
I'm not sure if the reference to those against the extension not arguing their case well is aimed at me? For the record, I have acknowledged that there really is no good argument against the extension. The point that I have made is to query whether it will make a huge difference or at least, whether expectations are unrealistic as regards the benefits. The likes of Johnboy and Zulutango have drawn attention to the potential advantages. I accept that properly funded and properly planned, it could be a real benefit to the region. Done badly and without proper funding, we may well find ourselves asking what all the fuss was about.
I don't think that it's unreasonable that WCC should give us some indication of a vision for the relevant area. After all, they have lobbied for the extension so surely they have some idea as to how it might develop in the future? Would it really hurt to publicise to some degree what these plans are? After all, if the extension application fails, it will be down to political pressure. Surely some "marketing" from WCC could reduce the opposition? They may have no jurisdiction over the area but they have applied for the extension so it's not as though they're prohibited from expressing a view as to how they might seek to develop the area.
On the shopping centre issue, I stand corrected as regards An Bord Pleanala/Ferrybank shopping Centre. It beggars belief that WCC didn't bring the matter to the Bord. I still believe that it was disregard for Waterford as opposed to any deliberate desire to sabotage Waterford that was behind the decision to grant permission in that case, as well as the inability to resist the lure of development charges. One huge issue with that shopping centre is traffic, apart from all the other issues. Traffic is fraught enough in Ferrybank as it stands. I do not know where the traffic will go if it ever becomes operational.
In the absence of a compelling rational case against the boundary extension, combined with evidence that the existing boundary arrangement is detrimental to the proper governance of the city and region, my view is that the boundary should be adjusted. The government may wish to enter into a PR mode to advance and communicate its decision - however, at some stage, the responsibility falls to government again - to make public policy, to effect reform and to have the courage to lead.0 -
No, I was not referring to your posts in my comments on those opposing the boundary extension. As far as I am aware, Waterford City Council would have made a number of formal submissions to the boundary review process - which would/should have contained a very comprehensive case in favour of the new governing unit that would emerge. This would have included detailed consideration of the merits of the socio-economic, environmental and planning merits of such an outcome. However, I am not convinced that this type of policy argument would really alter the views of those who espouse childish arguments about lebensraum, Nazis etc; these are irrational and baseless positions that are unlikely to be swayed by evidence, best practice and rational considerations. Furthermore, no document/vision will guarantee that the boundary extension will deliver better outcomes - that I am afraid is not how reform is delivered in public policy terms; this is not natural science; we are not measuring the predicted effects of a drug. However, the Local Government Committee have adjudicated on the basis of available evidence, international best practice, planning, environmental and social considerations - having heard the various viewpoints expressed in the process. They have judged that it is in the best interests of the region, and its citizens, to alter the boundary. I think this is the correct way to advance policy reform. I don't think that a massive PR campaign by WCC to try to win over the objectors is a fair request and it is not practical or worthwhile. They are a local government body, who are tasked with administering an area on behalf of its citizens.
In the absence of a compelling rational case against the boundary extension, combined with evidence that the existing boundary arrangement is detrimental to the proper governance of the city and region, my view is that the boundary should be adjusted. The government may wish to enter into a PR mode to advance and communicate its decision - however, at some stage, the responsibility falls to government again - to make public policy, to effect reform and to have the courage to lead.
For my part, although for personal reasons I dislike the extension, I have to accept that there isn't any compelling argument against it from a neutral's point of view. I must confess that I had assumed that An Bord Pleanala had okayed the shopping centre. It was bad planning no doubt. As it hasn't opened(and probably never will) its likely ill effects on Waterford have never been felt. I tend to the view that it was irresponsible of KKCC to grant it as opposed to a deliberate act of sabotage. Either way,while it's not mentioned as a reason for supporting the extension in the report, it was probably on the minds of the committee in reaching its decision.
I would still say that some people may be hoping for too much as regards what it may do for Waterford. It may simply mean a bit more housing development on that side of the river than would otherwise have been the case and no more than that. One would hope that the shopping centre decision was a one-off and that if the extension doesn't go ahead, we will simply see more housing in Ferrybank and no more inappropriate development of that kind. Indeed, the current KKCC development plan for the area isn't all that bad. We have no certainty that WCC will devise a plan that's any better than the current KKCC one. However, the extension does give greater potential for better development for the Waterford city and surrounding region as a whole. I accept that point that it makes sense for one authority to control one urban area, even if that's not practised everywhere. Accordingly, the committee made the decision that any neutral was likely to take. Let's hope WCC makes the most of the opportunity and that they get the funding to do so, which I think will be key.0 -
Interesting rumblings from Leinster House0
-
-
C'mon, give us some more info, i can't even google that vague referenceIrishlad2014 wrote: »Interesting rumblings from Leinster House0 -
Irishlad2014 wrote: »Interesting rumblings from Leinster House
Let's face it, you know no one, have no contacts that are reliable etc etc.how many times, have we seen 'reliable source' referenced here and turns out to be cr@p.anything you heard positive or negative is as you say rumblings, chatter,BS in all likelihood.0 -
Advertisement
-
OK fair enoughMax Powers wrote: »Irishlad2014 wrote: »Interesting rumblings from Leinster House
Let's face it, you know no one, have no contacts that are reliable etc etc.how many times, have we seen 'reliable source' referenced here and turns out to be cr@p.anything you heard positive or negative is as you say rumblings, chatter,BS in all likelihood.0 -
He's right. Either say something or don't say anything. Ridiculous comment earlier without going into more detail.Irishlad2014 wrote: »
OK fair enoughMax Powers wrote: »Irishlad2014 wrote: »Interesting rumblings from Leinster House
Let's face it, you know no one, have no contacts that are reliable etc etc.how many times, have we seen 'reliable source' referenced here and turns out to be cr@p.anything you heard positive or negative is as you say rumblings, chatter,BS in all likelihood.0 -
Irishlad2014 wrote: »Interesting rumblings from Leinster House
Seems like the only rumblings are from your ar$e.0 -
This argument summed up
http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/deaths/241363/deaths-in-kilkenny-march-23-2017.html scroll down to 'The late Bernard M Byrne'0 -
According to the News and Star Reporter Darren Skelton, Simon Coveny has announced at a meeting in Glenmore tonight that he will not be implementing any of the recommendations set out in WD-KK Boundary Review Report.
If true what a lost opportunity this is, and I wonder is this Coveneys way of gaining support within FG for his leadership bid, while also looking at the next General Election in what is a predominantly FF Constituency ?
http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/home/243309/breaking-kilkenny-will-remain-kilkenny-says-minister-coveney-as-boundary-change-ruled-out.html0 -
According to the News and Star Reporter Darren Skelton, Simon Coveny has announced at a meeting in Glenmore tonight that he will not be implementing any of the recommendations set out in WD-KK Boundary Review Report.
If true what a lost opportunity this is, and I wonder is this Coveneys way of gaining support within FG for his leadership bid?
http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/home/243309/breaking-kilkenny-will-remain-kilkenny-says-minister-coveney-as-boundary-change-ruled-out.html
This is dangerous. Kilkenny CC will not want Michael Street or the North Quays development going ahead. Now that they will have control of the area, they may try extra hard to drive shops into Ferrybank shopping centre which could jeopardise these projects.0 -
This is dangerous. Kilkenny CC will not want Michael Street or the North Quays development going ahead. Now that they will have control of the area, they may try extra hard to drive shops into Ferrybank shopping centre which could jeopardise these projects.
They have no contrail of N Quays and M Street has already received planning.0 -
-
This is dangerous. Kilkenny CC will not want Michael Street or the North Quays development going ahead. Now that they will have control of the area, they may try extra hard to drive shops into Ferrybank shopping centre which could jeopardise these projects.
They have no contrail of N Quays and M Street has already received planning.
Yes i know that but "has planning" isn't "built and open"! If they get shops to open in FB then what risk will a developer take in building another shopping centre when there's already one full out the road.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement