Apple Market Roof/canopy?

Minister wrote: »

Local authority engineers/planners are usually those rejected by the private sector or are not wanting to have to work hard in a challenging job.

absolute nonsense

Road-Hog wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Yes the idiocy is bleedin' obvious. Most engineering work is implemented by private contractors  who have their own engineers.

But they 'implement' designs done by a combination of local authority-private sector engineers/consultants so the point you are making is.....?

That the statement is bollox and without substance.The implementation is overwhelmingly by the private sector. The local authority's role is severely limited. And the assertion about the LA engineers is based on what exactly?

Anyone know when the whole thing is going to be finished? Anyone contact the council about concerns on the layout and get a response?

Road-Hog wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

That the statement is bollox and without substance.The implementation is overwhelmingly by the private sector. The local authority's role is severely limited. And the assertion about the LA engineers is based on what exactly?

Why is it bolllcks....by 'implementing' what exactly do you mean? If you mean 'constructing' then they are constructing  based on design, drawings and specifications produced by a combination of LA engineers/architects and private sector consulting engineers/architects😀

What I mean by "implementing" is implementing. If you don't understand the word then get a dictionary. There is no "If"! The word means what it means. But seeing as you seemingly DO understand the word and you seem to realize that the involvement of the LA is minimal at best then what seems to be your problem with it? The design, supervision and construction are 100% done by private sector companies. But all of this is superflous! A poster made a statement of pure ignorance and their own prejudice by claiming that the public service engineers are  somehow composed of people who can't cut it in the real world.  It is clearly unsubstantiated and based on prejudice and thus it is bollox. You want to defend this superficial statement  for some reason but that doesn't make it any less bollox.

tonc76 wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

What I mean by "implementing" is implementing. If you don't understand the word then get a dictionary. There is no "If"! The word means what it means. But seeing as you seemingly DO understand the word and you seem to realize that the involvement of the LA is minimal at best then what seems to be your problem with it? The design, supervision and construction are 100% done by private sector companies. But all of this is superflous! A poster made a statement of pure ignorance and their own prejudice by claiming that the public service engineers are  somehow composed of people who can't cut it in the real world.  It is clearly unsubstantiated and based on prejudice and thus it is bollox. You want to defend this superficial statement  for some reason but that doesn't make it any less bollox.

I think you are mistaken if you think the LA's involvement was minimal. The design was undertaken by a private sector company (DBFL?) however it would have been reviewed and commented on by the LA throughout the process. The design would also require LA approval prior to going to tender and ultimately construction. Construction was undertaken by Murphy's but supervision is probably by an agent of the LA, a LA employee or a combination of both. The LA will be writing the cheques for this project (and claiming a % of it back from a European funding pot in all likelihood) so will want to keep a close eye on proceedings.

The OPs statement re LA and private sector engineers is utter bollox.

So in otherwords minimal. Oversight and check writing! Again minimal. Design and contruction! Virtually nothing! No underestimating required!...Now why don't you put the same effort you made in trying to justify the ridiculous and prejudiced statement that suggests the engineers of the LA are some pack of numpties who cant cut it with the big boys in the private sector. Or maybe that statement ticks all the right boxes for you as well? The LA did not design, directly supervise or construct it. period!

So lets get this straight you want to engage in semantics! For what? To prove that the LA has what? 10% input being generous? Great! good for you. Now put an exact figure on what input the LA has with regard to design, construction and supervision. You must know surely since you think I'm talking through my hole! These agents of the LA that deal with certification on their behalf. In other words the private sector. Design input is not design. It is essentially a design brief and feedback. Thet did not design it nor did they build or supervise it. They have the power to stop it if some deviation is happening or some out of control situation. But once the terms of the brief is understood and agreed it is for all intents and purposes out of their hands.

JohnC. wrote: »

https://www.waterfordlive.ie/news/motoring/498882/endanger-public-safety-waterford-city-centre-car-park-refused-planning-permission.html

The appeal for the car park behind the old Bank of Ireland has been refused. It was already refused before but they opened it anyway pending appeal, which they’ve now lost.

Good. The sooner they can stop cars using the Applemarket as a rat run, the better. Should be open 7-11 in the morning for deliveries, and then only to emergency and council vehicles.

If they could do the same on Barronstrand St, all the better. For some reason, they open up the barriers after 5 on Saturdays and then the "park where I like" brigade start trundling their Corollas and Tuscons in, like cattle when you leave the gate open.

AdMMM wrote: »

Is that the same Sean Johnston who had The Toddle on the yellow road a few years back?

Yes

south wrote: »

Yes

Without dragging the thread too far off-topic, how did he end up owning half of Waterford when his old business failed?

AdMMM wrote: »

Without dragging the thread too far off-topic, how did he end up owning half of Waterford when his old business failed?

Apparently bank rolled by some US group. I don't know the exact details though.

Don't think he's fronting the cash himself

Crusty Blaa wrote: »

Are people forgetting that there are residents living on Spring Garden Alley?

Give them all a fob to open the barrier. Problem solved!

Alternatively, open up access via Colbeck St.

friendlyfun wrote: »

Not forgetting it, obviously they need access. But the traffic going through the apple market is crazy. Someone win get seriously injured there if nothing is done. Mark my words.

Have to agree, I'd lay blame at drivers though, they still going to fast around there and dont seem to understand pedestrian area there and a shared space. Same for side of city square/friary area, they are bombing around there, just to be stopped at traffic lights then at end of colbeck street, makes no sense and ignorant really.

Crusty Blaa wrote: »

Are people forgetting that there are residents living on Spring Garden Alley?

I like what was done in the apple market. However, the council completely had blinkers on when it came to traffic management as a consequence of doing what they did. Sure they admitted they never did a traffic management plan for this. It is hypocritical to make it hard to have a car when living in the city and say we need to have the city centre more pedestrian orientated but give themselves (council employees) free parking on a surface carpark in the city centre. You know, practice what you preach. Why not make council employees park in the RSC and get the bus in.

JohnC. wrote: »

Colbeck St. side is open. I don’t know if it is all the time as I don’t walk down that street as often as I used to, but I have seen cars go through there a few times.

The entrance is narrow but surely there's a way to give better access from the other side. There's paving already coming up in the Applemarket. The brown poles are hideous. Should have been a pedestrian area from the off. It's become a lame duck already.