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

So was you know who right all along?

Finnbar01

Hi folks, just heard on WLR that the Stepehen street shopping complex is more or less dead in the water.

IMO If it had gone ahead we would now probably be dealing with a half completed white elephant.

So, was Mr greenie right in a funny sort of way?

BTW, does anyone know what's happened to the shopping complex in ferrybank?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jmcc

fricatus wrote: »

It's easy to toss around accusations like that. Do you care to give any examples of this "smear campaign" so that we can evaluate them for ourselves?

There was a concerted PR effort by developers a while back. It was limited and was not a proper operation. Of course it was aided by the fact that McCann's students union politics was not what Waterford needed and it deprived the Greens of what should have been a natural seat on the City Council. McCann wanted to turn Waterford into Galway village. Instead of hotels and shopping centres Waterford would have had twee little hovels (none above three storeys) that Michael D. Higgins would have been proud to write poems about while ignoring the fact that Waterford is a city.

Regards...jmcc

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

What happened with the Ard Ri was an extreme case, because it is so difficult to secure the building in its isolated position. Derelict sites, like the De La Salle centre, in the centre of the city, have been much easier to secure and monitor -- being just a few minutes from the city centre and the main Garda station. The De La Salle centre, incidentally, is just one of the eye sores that the Newgate project would take off our hands.

The De La Salle centre became derelict after it was sold for development. It was a non-derelict ugly building before.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

The De La Salle centre became derelict after it was sold for development. It was a non-derelict ugly building before.

The place was falling down long before it was sold. In any case, I guess we're going to get used to it now, aren't we?

merlante

jmcc wrote: »

There was a concerted PR effort by developers a while back. It was limited and was not a proper operation. Of course it was aided by the fact that McCann's students union politics was not what Waterford needed and it deprived the Greens of what should have been a natural seat on the City Council.

McCann also had a huge amount of popular opposition that had nothing to do with developers. A perusal of this board over the past 10 years makes this clear.

Ultimately McCann's many spurious objections, and many of them were spurious, did harm.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

The place was falling down long before it was sold. In any case, I guess we're going to get used to it now, aren't we?

Then why were the members so opposed to De La Salle selling the place. Should we replace a derelict club with a derelict hotel?

Also, maybe you can list the actuall objections you think were spurious, and show that these actually were McCann's grounds for objection?

merlante

Finnbar01 wrote: »

That's fallacious thinking. If we build just for the sake of it, it is a waste of capital, time, resources etc that could have better being employed somewhere else. Also, most of the hotels buildt recently were done so because of tax breaks and tax incentives. AFAIK, these tax incentives and tax breaks have been phased out. So I don't know where the project stands now.

BTW, Off topic but do you or anyone else know what's happening the Waterhaven project.

Every business that has ever required investment entailed a certain degree of risk for the investors. The main risk, and sometimes the only risk, is to the investors. So if an investor wants to invest, and the plan gets permission, I say go ahead -- particularly if he is redeveloping wasteland, and particularly if the proposed development could potentially herald a new dawn for retail in the city. The employment during construction is also great.

Tax incentives only pay off if the underlying business makes some kind of sense. Tax incentives do not cover the purchase of land and redevelopment, they just incentivise it.

No idea about Waterhaven.

Yes Boss

dayshah wrote: »

Then why were the members so opposed to De La Salle selling the place. Should we replace a derelict club with a derelict hotel?

Also, maybe you can list the actuall objections you think were spurious, and show that these actually were McCann's grounds for objection?

According to a planner friend of mine...Most planning appeals are dishonest and don't convey the true reasons for the objection. Planning in Ireland is gray, allowing anyone to form an argument against a perfect application. The cards are stacked in favor of the objector...

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

Then why were the members so opposed to De La Salle selling the place. Should we replace a derelict club with a derelict hotel?

Also, maybe you can list the actuall objections you think were spurious, and show that these actually were McCann's grounds for objection?

Sentimental value?

I am not an expert in planning objections, but I can give a few examples, and I can, at least, point out the fact that for a certain period of time he objected to almost all developments big and small. So either all of these developments were exceptionally poor, or McCann was trying to make a point.

I do remember the man talking on the radio, and citing reasons like, "there are already enough places selling alcohol" in his opposition to the new shop in Farran park, which I believe eventually went through at a cost to the owner. Last time I checked, the market determines 'if there are enough places that sell X', and legislature decides how alcohol sales are controlled, not McCann.

I remember he objected to Pizza Hut in Railway sq. because of signage. Now that application did not get through, for whatever reason, or else they pulled out, but signage? We all know what a Pizza Hut sign looks like, and there is nothing wrong with them.

I also remember that plans, such as the restaurant on the corner of the Waterside and John's st. was granted permission but McCann had succeeded in delaying it so long the business was no longer viable because the window of opportunity to establish a restaurant in that area had passed.

I remember McCann saying on WLR that anything over 3 stories in Waterford was too high, so naturally, all of these developments were going to be objected to. And he was very consistent in doing so. Again, it is not up to McCann to determine the maximum height of buildings in urban areas -- that also is handled by the legislature. Of course, in his actual objections, I'm sure he would have phrased things a little differently.

McCann unmistakably had an agenda. His expertise with 'dealing' with planning applications was so famous that NIMBYs had him on speed dial. He forced plans to a whole new level -- not, I believe, necessarily to a higher level of quality -- but to essentially proof them against McCann's inevitable objections. McCann had a skill that few amateur planners could match.

You can turn around and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't actually read his objections, but I have heard enough through the media and from the horses mouth to form a solid opinion of him: that of a well-meaning nut. At best, he filibustered the system.

Max Powers

anyone who suggests McCann was right must be on a different planet, well certainly not from Waterford anyway. He has consistently objected to near on every plan, check out Bord Plenala web-site for the various crazy objections he made delaying many projects (terminally in some cases)everything from churchs to shops to creches. He damaged our reputation for a progressive city where business was welcomed.

On Newgate, if it wasnt delayed by McCannt et al, it may be employing 1000 people now, each buying pints, taxis, sandwiches, dinners, papers etc daily. Yeah, if it was there now fully built, i doubt it would be full but Im sure TK maxx would take a place there, M&S seem interested and others have expressed interest to set up here but cant get required retail space. We need space to attract these large businesses into the city, smaller shops will follow.

Silverado

Yes Boss wrote: »

According to a planner friend of mine...Most planning appeals are dishonest and don't convey the true reasons for the objection. Planning in Ireland is gray, allowing anyone to form an argument against a perfect application. The cards are stacked in favor of the objector...

If rumour is true in this case some of the objectors were hoping for "go away" settlements.

jmcc

merlante wrote: »

McCann also had a huge amount of popular opposition that had nothing to do with developers. A perusal of this board over the past 10 years makes this clear.

When he started objecting to local shops around here, any natural support, beyond the usual Green fundamentalists, deserted him. This is the city of Waterford. Now that level of student politics nutjobbery might be ok for the village of Galway but it is positively lethal in a city because the electoral area is not the kind of area that votes along traditional party lines. I think that one Local Elections candidate was the cousin of a sitting TD and she did not get elected but one FFer actually did get elected almost by accident.

Ultimately McCann's many spurious objections, and many of them were spurious, did harm.

Agreed. But his simplistic student politics damned the Greens for years and effectively denied the Greens a foothold in Waterford city. His damage to the Greens, as a political party, was worse. That he was allowed to be a Green Party candidate for so long and to be an abject electoral failure on so many occasions points to a very incompetent Green Party management.

Regards...jmcc

Yes Boss

Silverado wrote: »

If rumour is true in this case some of the objectors were hoping for "go away" settlements.

I am familiar with a number of situations where this is the case, however, Mr. McCann was not involved in anything like that!

Road-Hog

Without having the luxury of reviewing Mr McCann's numerous 'submissions' to numerous planning applications, I think that anyone who does go to the trouble may discover that in the majority of cases he merely points out how by granting permission would contradict planning policy outlined in the city/county own development plans

Road-Hog

I remember McCann saying on WLR that anything over 3 stories in Waterford was too high, so naturally, all of these developments were going to be objected to. And he was very consistent in doing so. Again, it is not up to McCann to determine the maximum height of buildings in urban areas -- that also is handled by the legislature. Of course, in his actual objections, I'm sure he would have phrased things a little differently.

McCann's own personal view re anything above 3 stories being too high for W'ford is just boll0cks..........no matter what his views are re height they would have no bearing on the outcome of a planning application unless the city council's had a policy/restriction in their own development plan

dayshah

Road-Hog wrote: »

Without having the luxury of reviewing Mr McCann's numerous 'submissions' to numerous planning applications, I think that anyone who does go to the trouble may discover that in the majority of cases he merely points out how by granting permission would contradict planning policy outlined in the city/county own development plans

That was the problem with the whole country. Development plans/guidelines were prepared and then completely ignored.

As for building height, it should depend on the surroundings. I think the Tower is 4 stories, a relatively modern building, and it looks well. Same with lots of buildings behind the Tower, and out in WIT builds are over 3 stories and look fine. Its all about the context the buildings are in.

I think it would be well worth getting some good architects and spending a few million to get a good development plan, and then sticking to it.

merlante

Road-Hog wrote: »

Without having the luxury of reviewing Mr McCann's numerous 'submissions' to numerous planning applications, I think that anyone who does go to the trouble may discover that in the majority of cases he merely points out how by granting permission would contradict planning policy outlined in the city/county own development plans

Well I can tell you, provision was made in the development plan for a major retail development in the location of Newgate. That doesn't mean that McCann couldn't have found elements of the plan which could be seen to be objectionable and focus on those. In any case, the plan was ultimately successful, but there were unusually long delays, including requests for additional information and a hearing, because of McCann's objections. These delays could have been crucial in causing what was ultimately an acceptable plan to founder. It is quite clear from what McCann himself has said, that he is not in favour of large developments full stop. I believe this was his motivation in digging up any grounds for objections that would help his case. From what was reported on various objections, they seemed to get very complicated, right down to the level of measuring light angles, traffic volumes, etc. An ample battleground for an attempt to slow down and block projects.

As regards not having reviewed his specific submissions first hand, I haven't even read the bible yet, and that is one of the foundation documents of western culture in terms of literature, moral philosophy and intellectual history -- needless to say McCann's objections are further down the list. The human lifespan is finite and we can't verify everything ourselves from first principles. Maybe someone who has the skill and time to parse planning submissions could add something.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

That was the problem with the whole country. Development plans/guidelines were prepared and then completely ignored.

As for building height, it should depend on the surroundings. I think the Tower is 4 stories, a relatively modern building, and it looks well. Same with lots of buildings behind the Tower, and out in WIT builds are over 3 stories and look fine. Its all about the context the buildings are in.

I think it would be well worth getting some good architects and spending a few million to get a good development plan, and then sticking to it.

In Waterford, we're not talking about sites zoned as agricultural, that are flood plains, rezoned as residential or anything crazy like that. We're talking about a council tailoring their development plan around a development that they know is already in the works, e.g. the Newgate centre, the council ultimately saying, yeah, that's exactly what we meant, and then some guy saying to Bord Planala, actually, that's not what you meant because of the following technicalities! Once it all gets written down and re-interpreted by the gnomes in an Bord Planala, with unhelpful input from a man who is against shopping centres, all of a sudden there are problems.

Waterford city council have produced some great plans, produced with input from architects, engineers and planners, which are qualified people that they have on the payroll. They have tried their best. They have made explicit provision for development on the north quays, Newgate, Bilberry, etc., but that doesn't guarantee that even reasonably good plans will get through.

As for the height of buildings, clearly when tall buildings start to be built, the first one or two look out of place no matter where they are. When they clump together they look natural. Some of the buildings on O'Connell st. are quite tall buildings. Because there is precedent that's fine. You move down the Quay a bit and all of a sudden tall buildings are out of character. We seem to be stuck in a 200 year old mold where building height can only stay the same or go down. Some people are saying you can't build something bigger than a medieval tower. We have to ask ourselves whether there can be any compromise on this sort of attitude because otherwise either we won't develop at all, or we'll have to build a second city centre somewhere, which is not going to happen any time soon.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

Well I can tell you, provision was made in the development plan for a major retail development in the location of Newgate. That doesn't mean that McCann couldn't have found elements of the plan which could be seen to be objectionable and focus on those. In any case, the plan was ultimately successful, but there were unusually long delays, including requests for additional information and a hearing, because of McCann's objections. These delays could have been crucial in causing what was ultimately an acceptable plan to founder.

The original plan was not successful. Many of the objections put forward by McCann and others were upheld. If the developers had come up with a realistic plan it would have proceeded far more quickly.

Also, I don't see why you keep calling this a retail development as the retail was only one part of it.

Here is the plan.
http://www.newgatecentre.com/

The (horrendously ugly) hotel is actually physically separate from the rest of the development and definitely should be scrapped.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

The original plan was not successful. Many of the objections put forward by McCann and others were upheld. If the developers had come up with a realistic plan it would have proceeded far more quickly.

Also, I don't see why you keep calling this a retail development as the retail was only one part of it.

Here is the plan.
http://www.newgatecentre.com/

The (horrendously ugly) hotel is actually physically separate from the rest of the development and definitely should be scrapped.

The original plan was not successful, and maybe he was right to object to it. But he also objected to the second plan, which was approved, and many other plans that were later approved. This says to me that at least some of these objections are spurious, based on his personal principles. He definitely has/had an agenda.

The retail part was the part that we all care about and the part that would have been the most successful and would have been a game changer for Waterford. I don't think anyone is really bothered about the hotel part one way or the other. Bord Planala and the council were happy with it (the second plan).

It is unfortunate the KRM didn't submit a plan that would have at least have got past the council the first time. There was a feeling in many quarters back then that you submitted something very ambitious and allowed yourself room to take off a floor, etc., in response to inevitable objections. If this was on their mind, it didn't pay off. I do honestly think, though, that despite their poor strategy in this regard, the hostile planning context instigated by McCann, and carried on by an alliance of inner city 'interests' (I forget the name), forced KRM to take a lot longer over plans and consultations than they ordinarily would. I don't really feel that 'quality' was at the core of the dispute though, because KRM knew that whatever they proposed, and whoever they consulted with, and no matter how many public meetings they organised, the usual suspects were going to object one way or the other.

The story about Railway sq. is relevant here. McCann is said to have been consulted personally on Railway sq. about all aspects of the development. The developers agreed a design with him in the interests of getting the thing built -- imagine McCann nearly playing the role of local planning tsar! But what did he do? He objected to the thing anyway. And of course, Railway sq. was another example of something that he objected to that later got through.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

The original plan was not successful, and maybe he was right to object to it. But he also objected to the second plan, which was approved, and many other plans that were later approved. This says to me that at least some of these objections are spurious, based on his personal principles. He definitely has/had an agenda.

I think saying spurious is a bit too strong. Two normal rational people can have different views on a project. A lot of it comes down to opinion. Roughly half is complaints seem to have been upheld.

Regarding the hotel, its part of the plan, so if the scrap that they have to resubmit.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

I think saying spurious is a bit too strong. Two normal rational people can have different views on a project. A lot of it comes down to opinion. Roughly half is complaints seem to have been upheld.

Regarding the hotel, its part of the plan, so if the scrap that they have to resubmit.

Two normal rational people who are trying to do right can indeed have different views. What I think we have here is somebody who is trying to get certain types of development knocked on the head whether they are good or bad. Obviously, he is doing us a service (in some sense) when the development is bad, but he is certainly not doing us a service when the development is good. It's a question of motivation. Why was he doing it? For good planning, or to pursue Mr McCann's various agendas against alcohol, tall buildings, shopping complexes, etc. If you object to a development on a personal principle, rather than for the general good, then your objection is spurious from a good planning point of view.

These kind of mixed use developments seemed to have been standard and in fact encouraged by the planning authorities. For example, KRM had to replace lost residential units (some houses) in their plan.

I'd say if they built the shopping centre in phase 1 and claimed they couldn't afford (yet) phase 2, I doubt they would get into too much trouble. Having said that, it might just be easier when you have construction people on site just to build the whole thing. The land has been bought already and to have it idle does the owners no favours.

I was up in McDonagh junction today and you can see how successful a spacious, modern shopping centre is serving only a third of the population of Waterford/Tramore. I would say there is zero risk of the Newgate centre making a loss or not taking off. It would change everything. The quicker somebody with access to enough credit comes along to build it the better. That land will not stay idle forever. With the planning secured, the business case is compelling.

rasper

jmcc wrote: »

There was a concerted PR effort by developers a while back. It was limited and was not a proper operation. Of course it was aided by the fact that McCann's students union politics was not what Waterford needed and it deprived the Greens of what should have been a natural seat on the City Council. McCann wanted to turn Waterford into Galway village. Instead of hotels and shopping centres Waterford would have had twee little hovels (none above three storeys) that Michael D. Higgins would have been proud to write poems about while ignoring the fact that Waterford is a city.

Regards...jmcc

I'm sure you're being sarcastic but Galway village has a population approx 50% more than Waterford city , just for reference

jmcc

rasper wrote: »

I'm sure you're being sarcastic but Galway village has a population approx 50% more than Waterford city , just for reference

Waterford is a city whereas Galway is just an accretion of villages. Naturally as a resident of Ireland's oldest city, I was being sarcastic. The idea that Waterford buildings should be limited to three storeys to satisfy McCann is quite offensive.

Regards...jmcc