Boundary Extension for City?

gw80 · 20-03-2017 11:48pm

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.

You may have an answer tomorrow.

Johnboy1951 · 20-03-2017 11:58pm

gw80 wrote: »

You may have an answer tomorrow.

There IS something in the wind ..... but what .......

Squidvicious · 21-03-2017 12:03am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There IS something in the wind ..... but what .......

KKCC to drop their opposition ðŸ˜œ?

zulutango · 21-03-2017 12:04am

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.

mire · 21-03-2017 12:19pm

Squidvicious wrote: »

mire 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.

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.

Squidvicious · 21-03-2017 8:51pm

mire wrote: »

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.

Irishlad2014 · 22-03-2017 11:28am

Interesting rumblings from Leinster House

Johnboy1951 · 22-03-2017 11:34am

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

Interesting rumblings from Leinster House

???

gw80 · 22-03-2017 11:50am

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

Interesting rumblings from Leinster House

C'mon, give us some more info, i can't even google that vague reference

Max Powers · 22-03-2017 12:09pm

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.

Irishlad2014 · 22-03-2017 12:27pm

Max 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.

OK fair enough

Deiseen · 22-03-2017 12:28pm

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

Max 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.

OK fair enough

He's right. Either say something or don't say anything. Ridiculous comment earlier without going into more detail.

Dum_Dum · 22-03-2017 7:34pm

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

Interesting rumblings from Leinster House

Seems like the only rumblings are from your ar$e.

Harry Palmr · 23-03-2017 11:33am

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'

Jambo · 03-04-2017 7:50pm

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.html

Deiseen · 03-04-2017 8:12pm

Jambo wrote: »

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.

Jamie2k9 · 03-04-2017 8:17pm

Deiseen wrote: »

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.

IanVW · 03-04-2017 8:19pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They have no contrail of N Quays and M Street has already received planning.

And both are in Waterford

Deiseen · 03-04-2017 8:20pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

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.

Jamie2k9 · 03-04-2017 8:21pm

Deiseen wrote: »

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.

Well they haven't been able to get a shop yet, I think we are safe!

robtri · 03-04-2017 8:42pm

http://www.beat102103.com/news/progress-last-ferrybank-shopping-centre-planning-permission-sought-developments/

only spotted this today

Max Powers · 03-04-2017 8:51pm

Pathetic...all common sense said this should be done....Pathetic from coveney and politics again.

Professey Chin · 03-04-2017 8:59pm

Politician in cowards way out shocker.

Teebor15 · 03-04-2017 9:00pm

I thought this Fine Gael Government did not go against Independant advice like for example the 2nd Cath Lab. Its a pity Harris wasnt more like Coveney or Coveney more like Harris! Only when it suits them by the looks of it.

Coveney couldnt give a bollox about Waterford or Kilkenny. He just needed to appease the local KK Fine Gaelers and buy votes for his leadership bid. He has the Waterford FGs in his pocket promising us he will drive on development of the city.

Max Powers · 03-04-2017 9:19pm

minister@housing.gov.ie

simon.coveney@oir.ie

gw80 · 03-04-2017 10:15pm

He said, he expects Waterford city to expand into the area and that Kilkenny and Waterford councils to come up with new and imaginative ideas on how to do that,
How is that supposed to work, if there is any driving development being done it is mostly going to be from Waterford, but why would Waterford drive development for Kilkenny to take rates,
And why would Kilkenny drive development in the south of its county when they are more concerned with developing the city,
So if someone wants to set up business in south Kilkenny they will have to deal with two councils? Why would you bother.
This will stifle development in the area if anything,

Aquos76 · 03-04-2017 10:38pm

Coveney is going to live on Claire Byrne Live shortly, what are the odds on him using the Waterford studios for his interview, the irony, hours after shafting Waterford, he then crosses over the bridge to use RTE's studios here.

road_high · 03-04-2017 11:21pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

Coveney is going to live on Claire Byrne Live shortly, what are the odds on him using the Waterford studios for his interview, the irony, hours after shafting Waterford, he then crosses over the bridge to use RTE's studios here.

"Shafted" Christ get a bloody grip...poor babies didn't get what they wanted eh? Always the victims...oh and no doubt those RTÉ studios "over the bridge" have been paid for by the exchequer (from which Waterford is a net recipient), they're not for the sole use of Waterford its politicians and propaganda so where is the irony?

road_high · 03-04-2017 11:24pm

Max Powers wrote: »

minister@housing.gov.ie

simon.coveney@oir.ie

Cheers, must drop him a line to congratulate him on this decision to drop this mad cap "proposal" to the dustbin where it belongs. Thanks for putting up the email addresses, very useful ðŸ‘Œ

road_high · 03-04-2017 11:27pm

Teebor15 wrote: »

I thought this Fine Gael Government did not go against Independant advice like for example the 2nd Cath Lab. Its a pity Harris wasnt more like Coveney or Coveney more like Harris! Only when it suits them by the looks of it.

Coveney couldnt give a bollox about Waterford or Kilkenny. He just needed to appease the local KK Fine Gaelers and buy votes for his leadership bid. He has the Waterford FGs in his pocket promising us he will drive on development of the city.

From a political standpoint it makes sense...Waterford is far left bordering Marxist in its politics (evident here daily). For FG to sacrifice a sure seat in Carlow Kilkenny to appease that element made no sense for them whatsoever.

Aquos76 · 03-04-2017 11:32pm

When FG realised that they would lose votes over this they backed away from it, I live inside the Kilkenny boundary albeit 50 yards inside, and I am one of the 5000 people who this would have impacted on, unlike those from Waterford or Kilkenny. Kilkenny co council don't give a toss about Ferrybank and never have, maybe now they might start but i wont be holding my breath. The proposed works on the N Quays will certainly soften the blow for Waterford as 100% of the rates from this development will benefit Waterford whereas that shopping centre up the road will continue to remain empty.

Stopitwillya · 03-04-2017 11:42pm

Aquos76 wrote: »

When FG realised that they would lose votes over this they backed away from it, I live inside the Kilkenny boundary albeit 50 yards inside, and I am one of the 5000 people who this would have impacted on, unlike those from Waterford or Kilkenny. Kilkenny co council don't give a toss about Ferrybank and never have, maybe now they might start but i wont be holding my breath. The proposed works on the N Quays will certainly soften the blow for Waterford as 100% of the rates from this development will benefit Waterford whereas that shopping centre up the road will continue to remain empty.

Here is someone who makes sense. The likes of myself who is a Waterford man but on the far side of the county and the like of road high who is obviously a Kilkenny man, but not from the affected areas shouldn't really have a say in this. The people living in the area that would be affected by this boundary change should have being given a vote. Keep the boundary as it is or change to the boundary recomended in the report. Only fair way to solve this.

Sosurface · 04-04-2017 6:53am

Dont forget to run out and vote FG again next time lads. Paudie and John are entitleled to a job. And they're great for Waterford.

Jambo · 04-04-2017 7:36am

gw80 wrote: »

He said, he expects Waterford city to expand into the area and that Kilkenny and Waterford councils to come up with new and imaginative ideas on how to do that,
How is that supposed to work, if there is any driving development being done it is mostly going to be from Waterford, but why would Waterford drive development for Kilkenny to take rates,
And why would Kilkenny drive development in the south of its county when they are more concerned with developing the city,
So if someone wants to set up business in south Kilkenny they will have to deal with two councils? Why would you bother.
This will stifle development in the area if anything,

Just look at Waterfords Original Submission to the Boundary Commission on this matter, there's various structures already set up for both councils to work and collaborate together to better the area which they argued weren't working.

The boundary commission examined this and from what I read they sided with Waterford City and County Council, hence it beggars believe that Coveney is returning us to the status quo that doesn't work and has been acknowledged as not working for the betterment of the area.

Mr Coveney came down am met with South KK residents to announce his decision, I wonder did he meet with the respective councils in advance to hear their points of view, rather than the wall of GAA drivel on which his decision was based?

dzilla · 04-04-2017 9:16am

Sosurface wrote: »

Dont forget to run out and vote FG again next time lads. Paudie and John are entitleled to a job. And they're great for Waterford.

To be fair, Paudie was not voted back in and the invisible man in Dungarvan was touch and go for the final seat iirc.

Sosurface · 04-04-2017 9:32am

dzilla wrote: »

To be fair, Paudie was not voted back in and the invisible man in Dungarvan was touch and go for the final seat iirc.

Plenty of clowns on here still singing Paudies name like he'd be some great saviour of Waterford though. Important to stamp in the memory exactly what Waterford means to Fine Gael.

Irishlad2014 · 04-04-2017 9:36am

I dont think this is then end of this, kicking a can down the road if anything

Aquos76 · 04-04-2017 9:37am

Sosurface wrote: »

Plenty of clowns on here still singing Paudies name like he'd be some great saviour of Waterford though. Important to stamp in the memory exactly what Waterford means to Fine Gael.

Paudie was a junior minister in the last government, he's also well in with Enda, the likelihood is he would have at least held that position in this current gov had he have been re-elected.He would have been far more beneficial to Waterford than what Halligan, Deasy, or Butler are at present, that's a certainty. I certainly wasnt Paudie's biggest fan, but he's deserves huge credit if this North Quays development goes ahead.

Max Powers · 04-04-2017 9:52am

Sosurface wrote: »

Dont forget to run out and vote FG again next time lads. Paudie and John are entitleled to a job. And they're great for Waterford.

I'd vote for Coffey again, lot of positives, including that boundary review, pity he wasn't around to help it thru final stage.

dzilla · 04-04-2017 10:17am

Sosurface wrote: »

Plenty of clowns on here still singing Paudies name like he'd be some great saviour of Waterford though. Important to stamp in the memory exactly what Waterford means to Fine Gael.

Waterford means nothing to Fine Gael, their absolute contempt for the city and county during the bad times resulting in a Fine Fail chocolate teapot roaring back back in during the last elections proved that. If anything you'd think they would be trying to get their second seat back, but we are very much on the periphery of their viewpoint.

road_high · 04-04-2017 12:39pm

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

I dont think this is then end of this, kicking a can down the road if anything

Lol- you wish. Not sure which part of county boundaries are not changing you can't understand- it'll probably take a few decades to sink in.
This is as close as it got and not very close at all really.

fricatus · 04-04-2017 1:19pm

I'm sure there will be headlines in the Kilkenny People now along the lines of "peace in our time" or some such! :rolleyes:

However anyone who thinks this issue is going away now is having themselves on. The same problems that led to this being considered are still outstanding. Meanwhile, a growing city continues to spill into south Kilkenny, and the population of the Ferrybank area continues to grow strongly.

The only way Kilkenny County Council will hold on to this area is by love-bombing the residents with spending, e.g. parks, playgrounds, nice roads, etc., and also by cooperating with Waterford Council on planning. This means reorganising its structure to reflect Ferrybank's status as the second-largest urban area in Co Kilkenny, planning the area in an integrated way with the Waterford Metropolitan District, and putting an end to the continued efforts to undermine the city with aggressive planning decisions such as the Ferrybank shopping centre.

If they continue doing what they've always done, which is being a thorn in the side of the city while neglecting the residents, this issue will not go away, and the report which has been rejected on this occasion will be implemented as soon as the political weather is fairer.

To be frank, I don't hold out much hope that things will change from the way they've been all along. Since this is one of these things that is going to happen sooner or later, I fear we'll be back rehashing the same arguments in ten years' time, when a change is already long overdue.

I would think the best approach though would be a plebiscite of residents in the area. Has this even been put forward, or is it seen as being biased towards Waterford?

Irishlad2014 · 04-04-2017 1:24pm

road_high wrote: »

Irishlad2014 wrote: »

I dont think this is then end of this, kicking a can down the road if anything

Lol- you wish. Not sure which part of county boundaries are not changing you can't understand- it'll probably take a few decades to sink in.
This is as close as it got and not very close at all really.

Covney - "There is a responsibility on me now to ensure we have an appropriate statutory management structure to allow Waterford City to grow into the South Kilkenny area. Whereas I don’t intend to implement the recommendation to move the county boundaries, I do intend to ensure that new management solutions are in place to facilitate the cohesive expansion of Waterford City, which will include areas of South Kilkenny. There is an onus on both Waterford and Kilkenny Councils to be open to imaginative and new local government solutions in this regard. I will work with the Chief Executives of both authorities and councillors to that end over the coming months".
Lets see what happens...

Squidvicious · 04-04-2017 1:39pm

I think that the extension is dead for a long time to come. Fianna Fail came out against it and now Fine Gael have knocked it on the head. There will be no appetite to resurrect such a contentious issue again for many years. Indeed, it is entirely possible that some in Waterford CCC are quietly relieved. Any extension would have incurred a fine bill for WCCC and I suspect that some in the West of the county will have been a little lukewarm at the prospect of a boundary extension.

I don't think that there needs to be too much gloom on the Waterford side. As I've said before, I can see how, potentially, the overall area(i.e. Waterford and Ferrybank) could be better planned with one authority. However, that is potential only. Development in Ireland tends to end up being developer led as opposed to Council led. I suspect that there will not be a huge degree of difference to the area whether it is run from Kilkenny or Waterford.

Now, I can almost hear some of you shouting about Ferrybank shopping centre. Some think that this was a deliberate ploy by KKCC to torpedo Waterford and took it as proof that KKCC could not be trusted to administer the area. While I disagree with that, I do accept that it was a misguided development. However, it is worth considering the small print of Simon Coveney's words. He is proposing having some independent method to force cooperation between the two Councils, possibly on a statutory basis(as set out very clearly by Irishlad2004 above). Something like that could mean that WCC could veto proposals that it considers detrimental to Waterford, for example. My reading is that the boundaries will not change, but it may not be quite business as usual either.

Coveney seems to be serious about more development on the Ferrybank side. The important thing is to ensure that resources are put in place to support this, such as a second bridge between Ferrybank and Waterford. More resources plus a structure to facilitate cooperation could really drive development in the future in and around Ferrybank. And that's what you all want, isn't it? Or is it that some of you only want development in Ferrybank if it's part of Waterford?

Sosurface · 04-04-2017 2:02pm

Max Powers wrote: »

I'd vote for Coffey again, lot of positives, including that boundary review, pity he wasn't around to help it thru final stage.

From the intense love that dare not speak its name you show for him on every possible occassion, I'm not entirely convinced you're not Paudie. Max Powers is exactly the type of moniker that muttonhead would give himself.
I'll say one thing for him- he must know some **** about some people- from ESB to TD to Senator. A very well paid life all on the taxpayers back and after coming from a relative nobody......

road_high · 04-04-2017 3:10pm

Squidvicious wrote: »

I think that the extension is dead for a long time to come. Fianna Fail came out against it and now Fine Gael have knocked it on the head. There will be no appetite to resurrect such a contentious issue again for many years. Indeed, it is entirely possible that some in Waterford CCC are quietly relieved. Any extension would have incurred a fine bill for WCCC and I suspect that some in the West of the county will have been a little lukewarm at the prospect of a boundary extension.

I don't think that there needs to be too much gloom on the Waterford side. As I've said before, I can see how, potentially, the overall area(i.e. Waterford and Ferrybank) could be better planned with one authority. However, that is potential only. Development in Ireland tends to end up being developer led as opposed to Council led. I suspect that there will not be a huge degree of difference to the area whether it is run from Kilkenny or Waterford.

Now, I can almost hear some of you shouting about Ferrybank shopping centre. Some think that this was a deliberate ploy by KKCC to torpedo Waterford and took it as proof that KKCC could not be trusted to administer the area. While I disagree with that, I do accept that it was a misguided development. However, it is worth considering the small print of Simon Coveney's words. He is proposing having some independent method to force cooperation between the two Councils, possibly on a statutory basis(as set out very clearly by Irishlad2004 above). Something like that could mean that WCC could veto proposals that it considers detrimental to Waterford, for example. My reading is that the boundaries will not change, but it may not be quite business as usual either.

Coveney seems to be serious about more development on the Ferrybank side. The important thing is to ensure that resources are put in place to support this, such as a second bridge between Ferrybank and Waterford. More resources plus a structure to facilitate cooperation could really drive development in the future in and around Ferrybank. And that's what you all want, isn't it? Or is it that some of you only want development in Ferrybank if it's part of Waterford?

Course it's dead. It couldn't be clearer really. The boundary ain't changing- the policy going forward is to work with existing ones. Only a very slow learner will try revisit the issue again and waste vast sums of cash payers money on attempted political strokes. Now we all know Paudie is not the sharpest tool in the box but no doubt even he and his fanatics will eventually have to accept reality.

road_high · 04-04-2017 3:17pm

fricatus wrote: »

I'm sure there will be headlines in the Kilkenny People now along the lines of "peace in our time" or some such! :rolleyes:

However anyone who thinks this issue is going away now is having themselves on. The same problems that led to this being considered are still outstanding. Meanwhile, a growing city continues to spill into south Kilkenny, and the population of the Ferrybank area continues to grow strongly.

The only way Kilkenny County Council will hold on to this area is by love-bombing the residents with spending, e.g. parks, playgrounds, nice roads, etc., and also by cooperating with Waterford Council on planning. This means reorganising its structure to reflect Ferrybank's status as the second-largest urban area in Co Kilkenny, planning the area in an integrated way with the Waterford Metropolitan District, and putting an end to the continued efforts to undermine the city with aggressive planning decisions such as the Ferrybank shopping centre.

If they continue doing what they've always done, which is being a thorn in the side of the city while neglecting the residents, this issue will not go away, and the report which has been rejected on this occasion will be implemented as soon as the political weather is fairer.

To be frank, I don't hold out much hope that things will change from the way they've been all along. Since this is one of these things that is going to happen sooner or later, I fear we'll be back rehashing the same arguments in ten years' time, when a change is already long overdue.

I would think the best approach though would be a plebiscite of residents in the area. Has this even been put forward, or is it seen as being biased towards Waterford?

Interesting how a plebiscite seems to be the latest desperate card you lot seem to be playing. Wasn't a mention of it until this Coffey "report" hit the shredder.
Mainly along the lines of these are "our Waterford people"- which is the real nub of the issue, dressed up as dreams of better services etc...well they moved to Kilkenny of their own free will I suggest they deal with it.

Max Powers · 04-04-2017 3:34pm

Sosurface wrote: »

From the intense love that dare not speak its name you show for him on every possible occassion, I'm not entirely convinced you're not Paudie. Max Powers is exactly the type of moniker that muttonhead would give himself.
I'll say one thing for him- he must know some **** about some people- from ESB to TD to Senator. A very well paid life all on the taxpayers back and after coming from a relative nobody......

I can confirm, I'm not p Coffey...I think its important to give people even TD's when they get jobs or investment into Waterford/SE and/or make conditions for more investment/jobs more likely.
I can see where you are coming from though because I find it hard to credit sometimes that the idiocy, short sightedness , negativity, small minded, blaming everyone but offering no credible alternatives or positives and even racist/stereotypical comments from sosurface are actually coming from multiple people...

Back on topic...I think some form of Waterford city council veto (someone else mentioned )or proper control to ensure likes of the empty shopping centre doesn't happen again, best outcome from this current terrible decision.

Irishlad2014 · 04-04-2017 4:48pm

road_high wrote: »

Squidvicious wrote: »

I think that the extension is dead for a long time to come. Fianna Fail came out against it and now Fine Gael have knocked it on the head. There will be no appetite to resurrect such a contentious issue again for many years. Indeed, it is entirely possible that some in Waterford CCC are quietly relieved. Any extension would have incurred a fine bill for WCCC and I suspect that some in the West of the county will have been a little lukewarm at the prospect of a boundary extension.

I don't think that there needs to be too much gloom on the Waterford side. As I've said before, I can see how, potentially, the overall area(i.e. Waterford and Ferrybank) could be better planned with one authority. However, that is potential only. Development in Ireland tends to end up being developer led as opposed to Council led. I suspect that there will not be a huge degree of difference to the area whether it is run from Kilkenny or Waterford.

Now, I can almost hear some of you shouting about Ferrybank shopping centre. Some think that this was a deliberate ploy by KKCC to torpedo Waterford and took it as proof that KKCC could not be trusted to administer the area. While I disagree with that, I do accept that it was a misguided development. However, it is worth considering the small print of Simon Coveney's words. He is proposing having some independent method to force cooperation between the two Councils, possibly on a statutory basis(as set out very clearly by Irishlad2004 above). Something like that could mean that WCC could veto proposals that it considers detrimental to Waterford, for example. My reading is that the boundaries will not change, but it may not be quite business as usual either.

Coveney seems to be serious about more development on the Ferrybank side. The important thing is to ensure that resources are put in place to support this, such as a second bridge between Ferrybank and Waterford. More resources plus a structure to facilitate cooperation could really drive development in the future in and around Ferrybank. And that's what you all want, isn't it? Or is it that some of you only want development in Ferrybank if it's part of Waterford?

Course it's dead. It couldn't be clearer really. The boundary ain't changing- the policy going forward is to work with existing ones. Only a very slow learner will try revisit the issue again and waste vast sums of cash payers money on attempted political strokes. Now we all know Paudie is not the sharpest tool in the box but no doubt even he and his fanatics will eventually have to accept reality.

Again, lets see what happens....

FrankCummins · 04-04-2017 6:20pm

fricatus wrote: »

I'm sure there will be headlines in the Kilkenny People now along the lines of "peace in our time" or some such! :rolleyes:

However anyone who thinks this issue is going away now is having themselves on. The same problems that led to this being considered are still outstanding. Meanwhile, a growing city continues to spill into south Kilkenny, and the population of the Ferrybank area continues to grow strongly.

The only way Kilkenny County Council will hold on to this area is by love-bombing the residents with spending, e.g. parks, playgrounds, nice roads, etc., and also by cooperating with Waterford Council on planning. This means reorganising its structure to reflect Ferrybank's status as the second-largest urban area in Co Kilkenny, planning the area in an integrated way with the Waterford Metropolitan District, and putting an end to the continued efforts to undermine the city with aggressive planning decisions such as the Ferrybank shopping centre.

If they continue doing what they've always done, which is being a thorn in the side of the city while neglecting the residents, this issue will not go away, and the report which has been rejected on this occasion will be implemented as soon as the political weather is fairer.

To be frank, I don't hold out much hope that things will change from the way they've been all along. Since this is one of these things that is going to happen sooner or later, I fear we'll be back rehashing the same arguments in ten years' time, when a change is already long overdue.

I would think the best approach though would be a plebiscite of residents in the area. Has this even been put forward, or is it seen as being biased towards Waterford?

Will the residents respect new playgrounds, parks etc, one thing I can not understand if Ferrybank is that bad why is there so many Waterford people living there, I know one thing if I was buying a property if conditions were as bad as people make out I wouldn't touch the place with a barge pole as I did when I was going to buy a property in Waterford a couple of years ago Waterford Concill are a disaster well you know it.

Boundary Extension for City?

Comments