nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

McCann objects against Brewery Complex

merlante

What we have all expected is happening. That bastard, Brendan McCann, has come on WLR with a 200 page objection. Again the man is given prime air time, despite being elected by nobody, and being supported by only very few.

What will happen? Who knows.

My guess is that it will go through minus one floor -- cheers Brendan! Thanks for keeping out the Marriot and taking a floor off the cinema being developed in Railway Square, and all of the other developments that have been blocked and hindered! Have you done Waterford enough harm yet? :mad:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BEEMER

What a sad, little man. Wonder has HE ever been properly 'investigated' ?
Must be some dirt, somewhere.
:cool:

merlante

BEEMER wrote:

What a sad, little man. Wonder has HE ever been properly 'investigated' ?
Must be some dirt, somewhere.
:cool:

The worst thing was there were people texting in to WLR supporting him, making it look like he has a fair amount of support. Successive elections show that he has little or no support from the public at large. :mad:

What other individual gets a regular slot on WLR to air all their eccentric grievances! :mad:

Maharet

The problem with this development is there probably is a lot of objection to it, not just from him...unfortunately.

merlante

Maharet wrote:

The problem with this development is there probably is a lot of objection to it, not just from him...unfortunately.

Yeah, but he is probably the most experienced objector and obstructor in the state at this stage! :mad:

Maharet

Well yeah, with more people objecting, he'll have more clout because he can organise them.

trishw78

I wasn't listening to WLR.

I don't understand why he's objecting to rejuvinating one part of the city that badly needs. It people like him that are dragging the place down.

merlante

trishw78 wrote:

I wasn't listening to WLR.

I don't understand why he's objecting to rejuvinating one part of the city that badly needs. It people like him that are dragging the place down.

He has a thousand tiny little points that don't add up to much, like the fact that at certain times of day a load of loading trucks will have to go down down a narrow street in a residential area, and the people living nearby will have no light, etc. Or that the view of the city from John's hill isin't medieval anymore. Or that lots of cars will need to navigate narrow streets for parking. (fair enough, but people don't *need* to park right underneath the thing)

Well I live just off John's Hill, and I noticed that this medieval view of the city was finally obscured by railway square. I love our medieval city, but I have to say, if ancient towers and spires are the tallest things in the city, then modern Waterford has big problems. I intend to move back to "modern" Waterford, and it would be nice if the shopping was up to the standards of the other cities. It'll get there if McCann backs off, even a little bit.

As for the concerns of the locals, the inner city was very busy in the past, and it will be/is very busy again. If they think that inner city streets are going to go back to the tranquility (or the quietness of decay) of the 1950's, then they're living on another planet! If they want quiet and light, they can sell their houses, whose value will have skyrocketted, and move to a quieter part of the city.

trishw78

Ah I see his point. True there will be more traffic. But then again will he be the first to do a u-turn if the city dried up and became a waste land...

merlante

trishw78 wrote:

Ah I see his point. True there will be more traffic. But then again will he be the first to do a u-turn if the city dried up and became a waste land...

He says he doesn't disagree with Waterford getting more retail, if it's the right sort of scheme yada, yada... (which in his eyes it *never* is) He'd be the first one to tell retail on the outskirts of a city is unsustainable, so where is the shopping supposed to go? If not bang, smack in the city centre, where?

If they have to close the narrow streets and move the parking out a bit, then so be it! (and I don't think that is necessary yet)

trishw78

I'm afraid on this topic I think he's wrong retailers esp the big ones like marks and spencers are not going to come to waterford as there's no where for them to go in the city centre so I'm afraid that building or refurbishing shopping centres in the burbs is the way to go.

And I'm sorry if people don't agree but it's a fact. Town is nightmare for parking or driving through as it is

Bards

trishw78 wrote:

Ah I see his point. True there will be more traffic. But then again will he be the first to do a u-turn if the city dried up and became a waste land...

Is everyone forgetting that the Bypass will Start in April of this year and be finished well before the shopping centre..thus removing a lot of traffic from the City. I am sure that a successfull one-way system can be put in operation to cater for the traffic movement around the city centre.

There should also be a move towards providing Park & Ride facilities on the outskitrs of the city near the bypass & outer ring roads further alleviating the amount of traffic entering the "old city"

merlante

Indeed, park & ride, etc. is much more progressive than moving retail out to the suburbs. Non centralised services only make traffic congestion worse in the long run.

Freddie59

trishw78 wrote:

I'm afraid on this topic I think he's wrong retailers esp the big ones like marks and spencers are not going to come to waterford as there's no where for them to go in the city centre so I'm afraid that building or refurbishing shopping centres in the burbs is the way to go.

You're dead right. But this guy is typical of a fourth rate politician trying to run for a third rate fringe party. He'll use any vehicle and that WLR crowd are worse to humour him.:rolleyes:

trishw78

Ah I see his point. True there will be more traffic. But then again will he be the first to do a u-turn if the city dried up and became a waste land...

Maybe my sarcasim wasn't clear enough

merlante wrote:

Indeed, park & ride, etc. is much more progressive than moving retail out to the suburbs. Non centralised services only make traffic congestion worse in the long run.

I think we need something in between. I understand your point but at the moment the quay and bridge street can't handle the normal saturday evening shopping traffic. Park & Ride is a good idea in theory but it's not going to work. Because people hate the idea of having to drag bags around town when it's easier to make several trips back and forth to your convently park car nearby.

merlante

trishw78 wrote:

I think we need something in between. I understand your point but at the moment the quay and bridge street can't handle the normal saturday evening shopping traffic. Park & Ride is a good idea in theory but it's not going to work. Because people hate the idea of having to drag bags around town when it's easier to make several trips back and forth to your convently park car nearby.

Yeah, ye see, all this is going to have to go, sooner or later. If you lived in Dublin, you'd get used to walking and fighting your way through crowds in order to shop. We can't expect to bring our cars everywhere we like, especially not on Waterford's narrow streets.

When lots of people shop in one small area -- which is way better traffic wise, and public transport wise, than out of town shopping -- you can't expect to drive right up outside every shop. You won't be able to do this for much longer in Waterford, and the streets weren't designed for cars anyway.

As an intermediate solution to park and ride, I suggest park and walk.

Ultimately the cars will have to go from the quay too, because it is a truly awful use of an amazing riverfront. :mad: More and better multi-storey carparks are needed, accessible by decent streets.

trishw78

at last merlante sometihng we can agree on

Bookee

Anyone here going to his up-coming meeting..?!

kano476

yeah with a sack of doorknobs

Bards

Is it tonight at 8:00 ?

trishw78

Oh I'm busy darn I'm planning on having a headache

merlante

kano476 wrote:

yeah with a sack of doorknobs

Go on you good thing, my eyes are watering with pride just thinking about your dedication. Give him a whack of a snooker ball in a sock for me, will yeh?

Bards

Did anyone go to this meeting, and if so, what was the outcome?

meldrew

Who appointed him spokesman for the residents anyway ? It only makes him think he's more important than he is

Bards

Apparently he appointed himself....

Article from Waterford Today
===============================================

By Deirdre Dalton
A public meeting organised by Green Party activist Brendan McCann to discuss the proposed Brewery shopping complex development, which if given planning permission will incorporate fifty retail units, a food court, sports bar and bowling centre, a 110-bed hotel with conference centre and swimming pool, as well as parking for approximately 800 cars, facilitated an open and lively debate among the 50 people who attended on Monday evening last.
Opening the debate Mr McCann stressed that he was not against the development of the area which is to include buildings on Michael Street, New Street, John’s Lane, Browne’s Lane, Stephen Street and Alexander Street. However he stated he is concerned in relation to the size and impact of such a development on the community and local landscape.

Scale of Development
In an attempt to quantify what would be the single largest development Waterford City has ever seen Mr McCann went onto explain that “a development this size will define the city for the next century. It would be twice the size of City Square or 6 times the size of the current New Street carpark and the height of the Railway Square Development.”
However Mr McCann’s biggest concern was the impact the increased volume of traffic will have on the area which was built in Norman times for much less traffic. He also expressed concerns in relation to access for local people to their homes and what he envisages as a state of “grid lock”.
In defence of the development he stated that the quality of the apartments proposed are “the best he has seen for the city centre.”
Development Needed
Although some individuals took exception to the fact that Mr McCann was making objections to the development the general consensus at the meeting was that the development is needed but that the scale is too big for the area to cope with.
Julie Ryan a resident on New Street while not against the development feels that the developers would have enough in the brewery and De La Salle commuinty centre without “taking our house as well.”
On the other hand, Colm O’Shea, a native of the city centre but now living in Dublin believes that this development is badly needed in Waterford and “the city centre belongs to everyone in Waterford. We need to grow as a city and attract people to live here. We’re already falling behind cities like Galway and Cork,” stated Mr O’Shea.

Special Council Meeting
Meanwhile Waterford City Council are to hold a special planning meeting this evening (Wednesday) at 5pm to discuss the proposed development with planning officials. However only one council member, Cllr Joe Kelly, Sinn Fein attended the public meeting on Monday last and Cllr Seamus Ryan, Labour, sent an apology for his absence.

Submissions
Waterford City Council have already received a number of submissions in relation to the development and the public have until 4pm today (Wednesday 18th) to make submissions, either for or against the development. A decision is then due to be made by 8th February.

Second Meeting
While encouraging people to make observations for or against depending on their position, Brendan McCann stated that “we will hold a another meeting in two weeks time” to discuss the councils decision.
At the time of going to press the development company KRM Construction partners were unavailable for comment.

Trotter

Bards wrote:

Did anyone go to this meeting, and if so, what was the outcome?

The outcome was Brendan McCann's face on the front of a local paper.. with 18ish months to go before a general election, Im starting to think this guy might be shrewd..

The more he shouts, the more people complain, the more media attention he gets, the more familiarity votes he gets.

merlante

Trotter wrote:

The outcome was Brendan McCann's face on the front of a local paper.. with 18ish months to go before a general election, Im starting to think this guy might be shrewd..

The more he shouts, the more people complain, the more media attention he gets, the more familiarity votes he gets.

He's been objecting to developments for years. He didn't get bigger, the developments did!

Bloody hope there's not enough protest/crazy votes in Waterford.

trishw78

There was a fairly lively debate on Bill McCarthy's show yesterday 24/01/06 unfortunately I only heard bits of it when I was on hold. Does anyone know if there's a transcript available

merlante

trishw78 wrote:

There was a fairly lively debate on Bill McCarthy's show yesterday 24/01/06 unfortunately I only heard bits of it when I was on hold. Does anyone know if there's a transcript available

I tried to record it, but I couldn't get the software working...

Basically, it turns out that Billy McCarthy has obvious sympathies for the anti-development argument and for Brendan McCann, and so the pro-development side were getting it from the anti-development types and the presenter! :mad:

The pro-Brewery people were allowed to be shouted down and talked over, and the residents of the area and Brendan McCann were allowed to say whatever they liked. One of the pro-development councillors had to spend half of his debate time defending himself against spurious and untrue claims coming from one eccentric resident who would laugh during other people's speaking time. It was a total circus, as usual, and I doubt anyone got anything out of it.

McCann was pressed on whether it was right that he has lodged over 30 objections over the past 2 years or so, and he was allowed, by a sympathetic presenter, to avoid answering.

Trotter

merlante wrote:

I tried to record it, but I couldn't get the software working...

Basically, it turns out that Billy McCarthy has obvious sympathies for the anti-development argument and for Brendan McCann, and so the pro-development side were getting it from the anti-development types and the presenter! :mad:

The pro-Brewery people were allowed to be shouted down and talked over, and the residents of the area and Brendan McCann were allowed to say whatever they liked. One of the pro-development councillors had to spend half of his debate time defending himself against spurious and untrue claims coming from one eccentric resident who would laugh during other people's speaking time. It was a total circus, as usual, and I doubt anyone got anything out of it.

McCann was pressed on whether it was right that he has lodged over 30 objections over the past 2 years or so, and he was allowed, by a sympathetic presenter, to avoid answering.

Thats that radio show for ya.. short sighted and parochial. I dont bother listening to it.

deisemum

I heard bits of it but the bits I heard were very unbalanced. Billy McCarthy seems to be very biased against the development and no doubt he'd claim he was playing devil's advocate as he has done in the past on other debates. He didn't give the prodevelopment side the same courtesy as Brendan McCann and the anti development. I thought Des Purcell was brilliant. He called McCann a serial objector because he has objected to at least 50 - 60 planning applications. He was like a rottweiler and kept pressing McCann (who kept trying to evade replying) on what his actual architectural qualifications were. Go Des!!! Billy McCarthy allowed McCann off the hook. On every discussion about this development in the last few weeks Billy McCarthy is clearly coming down on the side of the anti development crowd. I missed the rest of the debate.