roco71 wrote: » sorry I am not an expert when it comes to the interpretation of the laws on that one but to the best of my knowledge the parking of vehicles regardless of being empty or not does not require a permit - perhaps the City Council could answer the concerns on this one.
Facts wrote: » My point is this is great news & our councillors should be congratulated for using their influence, the fact is we're very quick to moan and complain about them when we want to!
giles lynchwood wrote: » may i suggest new rath as a location as there is a few large sheds empty in that area and it is close to the motorway,ideal location.
Lurching wrote: » Which sheds are you thinking of?
giles lynchwood wrote: » in by tom´s tyre´s,i´m sure i saw a for sale/to let sign on one. 500 objection´s not a great reflection of waterford´s civic pride,i might add.
ToxicPaddy wrote: » Well its at least 500 households who would have withdrawn their custom from Oxigen and there could have been an increase of up to 5 fold in that number with friends, other family members etc withdrawing their custom on that basis. So even though it seems a small amount of people the knock on effect and negativity towards the company could have been huge and at the end of the day, like any other company, Oxigen are in that business to make money.. A nice little victory, just waiting to see what politician jumps on the bandwagon claiming credit for this.. :rolleyes:
Facts wrote: » Toxicpaddy the fact is oxigen gave the waterford city councillors credit for their decision to reverse their application! Look at their letter in the waterford today.. As I said before credit where credit is due
Bards wrote: » typically only a small fraction of people will voice their concern while "The Silent" Majority will also be abhorred by the proposed development. so 500 people might have objected but lost customers could easily be x20 times that number