Limerick improvement projects

MrJones2013 · 18-02-2016 1:19pm

Vanquished wrote: »

That's the point. It's just going to encourage more car commuting and if you don't own a car you're at a distinct disadvantage. I'm not sure how reliable the bus service is on the Caherdavin route but in order to make inter campus movement in any way feasible LIT will have to lay on a shuttle service from Moylish. The long promised Ennis Road and Thomondgate green routes/bus lanes seem to be going nowhere fast. We really need to show more urgency on infrastructural projects like this in order to make public transport more popular and usable.

If it's anything like the other routes its probably as reliable as the Irish weather.

Vanquished wrote: »

That's the point. It's just going to encourage more car commuting and if you don't own a car you're at a distinct disadvantage. I'm not sure how reliable the bus service is on the Caherdavin route but in order to make inter campus movement in any way feasible LIT will have to lay on a shuttle service from Moylish. The long promised Ennis Road and Thomondgate green routes/bus lanes seem to be going nowhere fast. We really need to show more urgency on infrastructural projects like this in order to make public transport more popular and usable.

Have to agree with you on this, the public transport in Limerick, there is nothing to entice people to use it. I drive regularly but would rather hop on a bus but the quality and reliability of the service puts me back in the car.

Limerick is the Irelands Smarter Travel 'Demonstration City' however they just seem more intent on popping cycle lanes everywhere rather than improving the public transport service. Why not introduce buses with bike racks like below so you can cycle to the bus stop, pop your bike on the bus and cycle to your final destination after you get off the bus.

zulutango · 18-02-2016 4:32pm

Anybody know when the upgrade to the towpath between the Park Canal and Plassey is due to finish?

Vanquished · 18-02-2016 5:14pm

zulutango wrote: »

Anybody know when the upgrade to the towpath between the Park Canal and Plassey is due to finish?

It was due to finish in May but with the dodgy weather it's been put back until June/July.

Townie_P · 19-02-2016 2:07pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

On reading more of the LIT development plans I see that there are a few city center developments planned.

Irish Fashion Incubator Limerick - (IFIL)
A currently vacant retail premises is being purchased, and will be
re-purposed as a City Centre Education and Enterprise Incubation
Hub, with IFIL as the primary occupant of the building

LSAD Quadrangle
Building on the proven international success of the School of Art
and Design (LSAD) this project will create a series of 15 additional
learning, social and civic spaces which will bring new life to a
collection of century-old protected buildings

Food Development / Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts
This innovative scheme will incorporate: new teaching kitchens,
multiple teaching spaces, a Research Centre for Tourism and
Hospitality including product development, a food and nutrition
laboratory. This facility will create a new food orientated destination
for the city centre.

Student Accommodation
The design will provide a home from home for Limerick based
Higher Education students in a new city settlement. The project
consists of study bedrooms designed for a wide range of students,
from fresher to postgraduate and international.

The last 2 seem to be in the Opera Center, but aren't due till after 2020.

Anyone who thinks they are ignoring the city center by expanding to Coonagh needs to read the document. I'd suggest someone from An Taisce read it too.

All that has the whiff of tokenism off it to be fair. Bits and bobs here and there, but that's not what the city centre needs. The city centre needs an actual substantial campus, the real deal basically.

Isn't Coonagh Cross on a flood plain, or am I mistaken? If it is there should be zero development approved for there.

There are sites available in the city that would be suitable as mentioned already. Another area that's ripe for development is the junction between Ballinacurra Road/Childers Road/Rosbrien Road which is across the way from Punches Hotel. Aside from Lidl and the Ballinacurra SC, most of that fairly substantial site is available for development. Punches Hotel itself could be purchased and developed in to a student village and there's also huge space behind the hotel as well that could potentially be purchased. There's even more land lying idle all around that general area. And all just a 10 minute stroll in to town. The possibilities are there, they just don't want to do it or haven't looked in to it properly.

zulutango · 19-02-2016 3:10pm

Townie_P wrote: »

Isn't Coonagh Cross on a flood plain, or am I mistaken? If it is there should be zero development approved for there.

It is indeed. It's a Category A risk according to the An Taisce submission.

https://antaiscelimerick.wordpress.com/

Townie_P wrote: »

There's even more land lying idle all around that general area. And all just a 10 minute stroll in to town. The possibilities are there, they just don't want to do it or haven't looked in to it properly.

Yep, the city centre is full of vacant or derelict land. That whole area around the market especially.

jbkenn · 20-02-2016 10:53am

This An Taisce objection to the LIT development strikes me as a nitpicking exercise by well intentioned people with time on their hands and a laudable agenda to develop the city centre, regardless of the cost.
A couple of points, I have lived in the area for 36 years and in that time I have not witnessed any flooding issue's, I am sure that the public transport concerns could be easily addressed, parking etc., in fact all these concerns can be easily addressed.
The site in Coonagh is in NAMA, so the long suffering taxpayer is saddled with it anyway, the structure is largely complete and will lead to substantial construction cost savings and a more rapid time to delivery of the project than any of the proposed city centre alternatives.

Townie_P · 21-02-2016 1:59am

jbkenn wrote: »

I have lived in the area for 36 years and in that time I have not witnessed any flooding issue's

Well if you want to witness flooding there for the first time, keep building on flood plains. Plenty of examples lately of places flooding that never flooded before.

Mr.H · 21-02-2016 2:58am

Townie_P wrote: »

Well if you want to witness flooding there for the first time, keep building on flood plains. Plenty of examples lately of places flooding that never flooded before.

Not as much of an issue as people make it out to be. The only objection to new builds is taking business from other part of the city ie: Parkway valley taking Crescent customers

Flood plains can be moved/altered and created. Digging purpose built "reservoirs" along they river which can be filled/unfilled with dams is the best way to help release pressure on the river.

For example if we bought a plot of land a few hundred acres, we could dig down a few hundred meters. The land doesnt even have to be right beside the river. Build man made rivers to divert the water and only allow the water in (through a dam system) when the river is high.

If we had a few sites like that along the river it would surely help.

zulutango · 21-02-2016 1:40pm

The flood risk is a valid grounds for objection but really the bigger one is the damage that this kind of development does to the long term vitality of the city. It's common sense and proven time and time again that if you promote development like this on the outer edge of city you kill the city over time. This has been happening in Limerick for nearly 50 years and LIT's proposal is just a continuation of this kind of bad planning.

johnnyryan89 · 21-02-2016 4:00pm

Townie_P wrote: »

All that has the whiff of tokenism off it to be fair. Bits and bobs here and there, but that's not what the city centre needs. The city centre needs an actual substantial campus, the real deal basically.

It's still more than what the UL have proposed for the city centre though. I'm sure LIT could develop a campus at Coonagh Cross and even one in the city centre. The council own the Cleeves site and they could easily ask LIT to develop theses bits and bobs here and there ideas at somewhere like the Cleeves site and still use Coonagh Cross and move their sports facilities out there which frees up a lot of space at Moylish to develop that campus.

Cookiemunster · 21-02-2016 4:04pm

zulutango wrote: »

The flood risk is a valid grounds for objection but really the bigger one is the damage that this kind of development does to the long term vitality of the city. It's common sense and proven time and time again that if you promote development like this on the outer edge of city you kill the city over time. This has been happening in Limerick for nearly 50 years and LIT's proposal is just a continuation of this kind of bad planning.

Simple question. Would you have the same issue if they were building this on their existing campus?

zulutango · 21-02-2016 10:54pm

Cookiemunster wrote:

Simple question. Would you have the same issue if they were building this on their existing campus?

No. It's in a developed area. While not in the centre of the city it's not on the very edge either.

phog · 21-02-2016 11:14pm

Townie_P wrote: »

Well if you want to witness flooding there for the first time, keep building on flood plains. Plenty of examples lately of places flooding that never flooded before.

I remember flooding on lower Cecil St but with flood barriers installed it hasn't flooded in years. Should we be planning to move the city?

Cookiemunster · 22-02-2016 12:26am

zulutango wrote: »

No. It's in a developed area. While not in the centre of the city it's not on the very edge either.

Well we'll have to disagree then. As far as I'm concerned as the building is already there, it's a developed area. Plus when it comes to the sports pitches and facilities there's no choice but to go to the edge of the city.

zulutango · 22-02-2016 11:55am

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Well we'll have to disagree then. As far as I'm concerned as the building is already there, it's a developed area.

Let's say, down the line, they've developed the campus. Would you permit more development further out then?

Cookiemunster · 22-02-2016 12:09pm

zulutango wrote: »

Let's say, down the line, they've developed the campus. Would you permit more development further out then?

I assume you mean the Coonagh Campus. I'd like to see LIT (and UL) move more into the city center before developing Coonagh any further than the current plan for the engineering facility and the sports facilities.
But as I said already, I don't see an issue with them expanding into an already built, but derelict building, which isn't that far from their main campus and which is probably the only nearby location suitable for the sports facilities.

zulutango · 22-02-2016 12:45pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I assume you mean the Coonagh Campus. I'd like to see LIT (and UL) move more into the city center before developing Coonagh any further than the current plan for the engineering facility and the sports facilities.

It sounds like you agree that too much development on the edge of the city is not a good thing, but you're ok with the scale of LIT's plan? If it was a bit bigger you'd be against it?

Cookiemunster · 22-02-2016 2:16pm

zulutango wrote: »

It sounds like you agree that too much development on the edge of the city is not a good thing, but you're ok with the scale of LIT's plan? If it was a bit bigger you'd be against it?

Pretty much. It's just in this instance they aren't building a new development, just repurposing an existing one. If they were actually developing a new campus on a greenfield site outside the city I'd be totally against it.

zulutango · 22-02-2016 3:48pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Pretty much. It's just in this instance they aren't building a new development, just repurposing an existing one. If they were actually developing a new campus on a greenfield site outside the city I'd be totally against it.

Why would you be totally against it if they were proposing a new campus on a greenfield site?

Cookiemunster · 22-02-2016 11:09pm

zulutango wrote: »

Why would you be totally against it if they were proposing a new campus on a greenfield site?

In general I agree with you that new developments, where possible, should be focused in the city center, so I would be against them building something on a greenfield site at the edge of the city. They reason I don't have an issue with this one is that the building is already there and they're co locating it with the sporting facilities.

pigtown · 22-02-2016 11:41pm

I agree with Cookiemunster. Ideally the college wouldn't expand away from the city but this location is close to the existing campus, and it would bring life to a derelict eyesore.

On a related note, the University of Ulster in Jordanstown, outside Belfast, are close to finishing their relocation project. They are moving almost 15,000 students and staff to a new £250 million campus in Belfast city centre. Granted their existing campus needed an upgrade anyway so the money would have been spent either way, but it shows that colleges can move wholesale in to city centres.

Vanquished · 23-02-2016 12:03am

At long last we appear to have the first signs of some activity at the former opera site.

UL have plans in for a "health hub" at the old Town Hall. It may actually be the adjoining building at the corner of the laneway.

Applicant name: University of Limerick

Development Description: a change of use from restaurant to use as a Health Hub and to carry out associated internal alterations which includes the demolition of the existing mezzanine level, kitchen and toilets and the construction of a toilet pod in the northern side of the ground floor (this is a protected structure RPS 014)

Development Address: Old Town Hall, Rutland Street

zulutango · 23-02-2016 12:04pm

Vanquished wrote: »

At long last we appear to have the first signs of some activity at the former opera site.

UL have plans in for a "health hub" at the old Town Hall. It may actually be the adjoining building at the corner of the laneway.

No, I think it's the old town hall. That was a restaurant (The Green Onion) and it had a mezzanine level. It would be the left hand side of the building (as you look from the street).

Very good news indeed.

Vanquished · 23-02-2016 3:56pm

I didn't know there was a restaurant in the old town hall. I remember the Italian next door alright. Fat Zoes I think. Looking back it was a ridiculously rash decision to turf all those businesses out before planning permission had even been secured for the doomed shopping complex.

This application is a positive development anyway as the old town hall is the most significant building on the terrace. Both architecturally and in terms of size. It should be suitable for a number of additional uses too.

zulutango · 23-02-2016 4:33pm

Yes, Fat Zoe's was the one on the corner, beside the laneway. The Green Onion was on one side of the building and the Limerick Post offices on the other in more recent years and it was the old Mayor's Office before that.

Vanquished · 24-02-2016 12:58pm

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/90m-development-is-shape-of-things-to-come-for-cork-city-383629.html

This is the type of private sector investment and development that we badly require in Limerick if we are going to be competitive in attracting new business to the city.

That project is just one of a number of large schemes that are getting underway this year. They've got out of the blocks very quickly while in contrast we're still talking about various masterplans and rehashing press releases.

Progress and actions are needed. Not more waffle!

Cookiemunster · 24-02-2016 2:04pm

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/02/24/e200-billion-development-planned-for-limerick-city/

Vanquished · 24-02-2016 2:59pm

unveiling a series of plans for the aptly named ‘Limerick 3,000’ project.

I wonder where they could've possibly got the inspiration for that from?!

zulutango · 24-02-2016 6:18pm

The Chamber of Commerce are hosting an event in a few weeks - Reimagining and Rejuverating Limerick City Centre

"As the Greater Limerick Region shows strong signs of recovery with numerous positive announcements, it is imperative that the City Centre feels the effects of this recovery and the infamous "donut effect" is reversed.

While there are numerous stakeholders that each have to play thier part, we as the business community must lead the charge and demand more of others to ensure the full rejuvenation of the City in line with our 2030 plan.
Dr Lisa O Malley will paint a picture and facilitate debate on the night to establish what the business community can do to make this happen and kick off the Limerick Chamber retail and hospitaility strategy.

Dr Lisa O'Malley is Head of the Department of Management & Marketing and Research in the University of Limerick. With over twenty years of experience as an academic in the UK and Ireland, Lisa has a reputation for excellence in research and teaching and will show examples of other Cities that have been through similar processes and how they managed it."

link to event page

So, the key question is, how do we reverse the donut!?

zulutango · 02-03-2016 7:45pm

I wonder, given the election result, will a lot of these projects happen at all. A lot of them were being driven by Noonan and O'Sullivan and they're unlikely to have a senior role in the next Dáil. Neither is Maurice Quinlivan, and Willie O'Dea isn't the kind of politician (rightly or wrongly) who supports these kind of projects.

I'm hoping that the ridiculous footbridge project gets pulled anyway, but it would be disappointing if the the Opera Centre, Cleeves, Hanging Gardens, etc were stalled further.

Cookiemunster · 03-03-2016 12:15am

zulutango wrote: »

I wonder, given the election result, will a lot of these projects happen at all. A lot of them were being driven by Noonan and O'Sullivan and they're unlikely to have a senior role in the next Dáil. Neither is Maurice Quinlivan, and Willie O'Dea isn't the kind of politician (rightly or wrongly) who supports these kind of projects.

I'm hoping that the ridiculous footbridge project gets pulled anyway, but it would be disappointing if the the Opera Centre, Cleeves, Hanging Gardens, etc were stalled further.

I don't think that the projects you've mentioned will be in trouble and I disagree they're being driven by Noonan and O'Sullivan. A lot of this is council driven with the backing of government.
Remember it's not all dependant on central government money and that the council have already borrowed €32m.
The finance is in place for the Hanging Gardens and they're looking for private finance parter for the Opera Center.
Cleeves is a strange one. I think they just bought it to own it without having any plans, so again I'd say whatever development they put there will be self financed.
They also seem to have funding locked doen for O'Connell St. and Parnell St.

I doubt that some of the longer term projects such as Arthurs Quay will go ahead, but I didn't thing they were ever realistic anyway.

Arkady · 03-03-2016 12:17am

About time Limerick got these projects.

zulutango · 03-03-2016 12:45am

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I don't think that the projects you've mentioned will be in trouble and I disagree they're being driven by Noonan and O'Sullivan.

My understanding was that Noonan particularly was pushing for Limerick in a big way at cabinet level. He was, after all, the second most powerful person at the table so he had huge leverage there with all government departments.

The City of Culture title is another example that springs to mind. That was from Jimmy Deenihan, but it was basically Noonan fighting for Limerick at cabinet.

I'm not even a fan of Noonan, nor did I vote for him, but I've heard this from well informed sources.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a political debate, but I'm just wary of Limerick's prospects with whatever new administration is formed.

Townie_P · 03-03-2016 1:50am

phog wrote: »

I remember flooding on lower Cecil St but with flood barriers installed it hasn't flooded in years. Should we be planning to move the city?

If Cecil Street is no longer flooding, it just means some other place further down the river is flooding instead (and possibly a place that may never have flooded before), which was my original point. A flood plain is a flood plain for a reason.

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

The council own the Cleeves site and they could easily ask LIT to develop theses bits and bobs here and there ideas at somewhere like the Cleeves site and still use Coonagh Cross and move their sports facilities out there which frees up a lot of space at Moylish to develop that campus.

Cleeves is a great landmark city centre site on the river Shannon. It'd be a spectacular waste if the best use for it they could think of would be as a college campus. Loads of other sites in the city though that could take a proper campus.

dave 27 · 03-03-2016 11:31am

I'd much prefer to see a high quality development of housing in the cleeves site like mentioned before, imagine something like what we see in England transforming old mills to posh neighbourhoods, would be better in my eyes and have density similar to across the river with riverpoint.

riverrocked · 03-03-2016 12:08pm

I am going to be controversial here but the raving about the Georgian city isn't doing the city any favours as it is cost prohibitive for individuals and even I dare say the government to revitalise these to good living standards.

What we are missing in the city and why people aren't living in the city is because there is nowhere that the vast majority would want to live. The Georgian buildings are freezing and riddled with problems, especially those what have not been occupied for awhile, like on Catherine Street and Mallow Street, which are veering on collapse as we speak. Imagine multiple high quality gated apartments with a parking space built in the city. Now that would improve the city.

I am not saying demolish all the Georgian buildings but there are plenty that really aren't worth saving.

(I can hear rioters at my door already)

Jofspring · 03-03-2016 12:13pm

riverrocked wrote: »

I am going to be controversial here but the raving about the Georgian city isn't doing the city any favours as it is cost prohibitive for individuals and even I dare say the government to revitalise these to good living standards.

What we are missing in the city and why people aren't living in the city is because there is nowhere that the vast majority would want to live. The Georgian buildings are freezing and riddled with problems, especially those what have not been occupied for awhile, like on Catherine Street and Mallow Street, which are veering on collapse as we speak. Imagine multiple high quality gated apartments with a parking space built in the city. Now that would improve the city.

I am not saying demolish all the Georgian buildings but there are plenty that really aren't worth saving.

(I can hear rioters at my door already)

jbkenn · 03-03-2016 2:12pm

riverrocked wrote: »

I am going to be controversial here but the raving about the Georgian city isn't doing the city any favours as it is cost prohibitive for individuals and even I dare say the government to revitalise these to good living standards.

What we are missing in the city and why people aren't living in the city is because there is nowhere that the vast majority would want to live. The Georgian buildings are freezing and riddled with problems, especially those what have not been occupied for awhile, like on Catherine Street and Mallow Street, which are veering on collapse as we speak. Imagine multiple high quality gated apartments with a parking space built in the city. Now that would improve the city.

I am not saying demolish all the Georgian buildings but there are plenty that really aren't worth saving.

(I can hear rioters at my door already)

Well said, a dose of reality is badly needed in this town.

dave 27 · 03-03-2016 2:30pm

Like I said a high quality apartment development at the cleeves site would be a good start, something like what's up in the Dublin docklands

zulutango · 03-03-2016 3:30pm

riverrocked wrote: »

I am going to be controversial here but the raving about the Georgian city isn't doing the city any favours as it is cost prohibitive for individuals and even I dare say the government to revitalise these to good living standards.

What we are missing in the city and why people aren't living in the city is because there is nowhere that the vast majority would want to live. The Georgian buildings are freezing and riddled with problems, especially those what have not been occupied for awhile, like on Catherine Street and Mallow Street, which are veering on collapse as we speak. Imagine multiple high quality gated apartments with a parking space built in the city. Now that would improve the city.

I am not saying demolish all the Georgian buildings but there are plenty that really aren't worth saving.

(I can hear rioters at my door already)

I think you raise a fair point but I'd argue that the Georgian city can be saved and can be a desirable place to live if we go about things a different way. I'd actually argue that some of these streets could be absolute gems and plenty of people would want to live in them. I think we're looking at the problem in the wrong way. Here's a post I made in a different thread, and this way forward would be much more effective and less expensive.

zulutango wrote: »

There's too much talk about renovating buildings. I think we all want to see that happening but we're jumping the gun. Who'll put a lot of money into a building in a run-down area? Very few investors or landlords would take that risk, especially when the rents in these areas are so low.

What we (i.e. the Council) could do, however, is put our focus and energies into making really lovely streets. If we do that then a lot more people will see the areas as up and coming and will take the chance on investment. There's a precedent for this on Clancy and O'Callaghan Strands, of course. Both were quite run down but the excellent public realm works over there breathed life into those areaa. Since then a number of the older houses have been bought and tastefully renovated and the strands have become very popular lesiure areas. Businesses have either opened or greatly benefitted too. I very much doubt if the Curraghower Pub or Jack Mondays would exist in their current form (or at all) if these public realm works hadn't been carried out. The rents over there are the highest in the city centre these days whereas they used to be among the lowest.

We could apply the same thinking to the like of Upper O'Connell Street, Catherine Street and the smaller city centre streets and the rejuvenation of Georgian Limerick would automatically roll on from there. These could be absolutely beautiful residential streets, which is what they were designed to be. At the moment they're only appealing to a certain demographic and that'll continue to be the case until we take the above approach.

Cookiemunster · 22-03-2016 11:04pm

An update on the Opera Center. According to tonights Chronicle 7 interested parties have been reduced to 4 by the council. Apparently a design team is due to be appointed in April, and six weeks after that the tender documents will be submitted to these four. One or two of these will selected to build/run the center by Autumn.

Also the Hanging gardens won't have a contractor on site until October with an 18 month build schedule.

None of this is up online yet so I can't link.

zulutango · 22-03-2016 11:27pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

An update on the Opera Center. According to tonights Chronicle 7 interested parties have been reduced to 4 by the council. Apparently a design team is due to be appointed in April, and six weeks after that the tender documents will be submitted to these four. One or two of these will selected to build/run the center by Autumn.

Also the Hanging gardens won't have a contractor on site until October with an 18 month build schedule.

None of this is up online yet so I can't link.

Both projects are still subject to planning, as far as I know. I wonder has that been factored into the timeline.

In Exile · 23-03-2016 2:17am

I can't believe this bridge they talk about could really go ahead.

I am nearly considered a tourist to Limerick these days, but when I do go home, I love nothing more than walking from the city out to the Curragower, sitting outside and enjoying the view across the river.

It is one of my favourite parts of going home. I can't think of anything worse than a bridge blocking the views

zulutango · 23-03-2016 11:06am

The bridge is being discussed on Live95fm in a few minutes (just after the 10am news).

edit: we have to sit through some inane dribble about Eastenders first :rolleyes:

zulutango · 30-03-2016 11:55am

So, the Council seem to be trying to fast track the Cleeves Development as well as the Hanging Gardens one. I wonder if pushing for this before the government changes. I'd imagine Alan Kelly has to sign off on this kind of stuff, and there's every chance that a new Minister for Envoronment and Local Government won't be as kind to Limerick.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/205006/Former-Cleeve-s-factory-in-Limerick.html

Cookiemunster · 30-03-2016 1:53pm

zulutango wrote: »

So, the Council seem to be trying to fast track the Cleeves Development as well as the Hanging Gardens one. I wonder if pushing for this before the government changes. I'd imagine Alan Kelly has to sign off on this kind of stuff, and there's every chance that a new Minister for Envoronment and Local Government won't be as kind to Limerick.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/205006/Former-Cleeve-s-factory-in-Limerick.html

I'm still unsure as to why you think that this has anything to do with the government? The council has taken out a €32m loan to pay for things like this and the Hanging Gardens. They don't need to get central government permission to spend it.

zulutango · 30-03-2016 2:12pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I'm still unsure as to why you think that this has anything to do with the government? The council has taken out a €32m loan to pay for things like this and the Hanging Gardens. They don't need to get central government permission to spend it.

The Minister for Environment & Local Government is over the Council. I'm suggesting that with the plans to fast track the projects (through a development vehicle) it might need the sign-off from the Minister. I am only speculating, but it just seems more than co-incidental that these things are being pushed in the last few weeks since the fallout from the general election. The Council doesn't act independently of the Department of Environment & Local Government in any case.

Cookiemunster · 30-03-2016 2:22pm

zulutango wrote: »

The Minister for Environment & Local Government is over the Council. I'm suggesting that with the plans to fast track the projects (through a development vehicle) it might need the sign-off from the Minister. I am only speculating, but it just seems more than co-incidental that these things are being pushed in the last few weeks since the fallout from the general election. The Council doesn't act independently of the Department of Environment & Local Government in any case.

I would say that other than the Cleeves site, the plans are actually way behind schedule rather being fast tracked. Originally they said that the builders would be in the Hanging Gardens by January, now its next October. And the Opera Center is way way behind schedule.

zulutango · 30-03-2016 2:26pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I would say that other than the Cleeves site, the plans are actually way behind schedule rather being fast tracked. Originally they said that the builders would be in the Hanging Gardens by January, now its next October. And the Opera Center is way way behind schedule.

Yes, but the decision to fast-track them through this development vehicle has just been made in the last few weeks. And, it must be remembered that Noonan was the one pushing these projects at government level.

Cookiemunster · 30-03-2016 2:59pm

zulutango wrote: »

Yes, but the decision to fast-track them through this development vehicle has just been made in the last few weeks. And, it must be remembered that Noonan was the one pushing these projects at government level.

Noonan was pushing the overall €250m 2030 plan, not the individual projects other than the Opera Center.
Surely if they were suddenly fast tracking everything they'd have done it before the election, rather than after it. Especially seeing as the polls for the last 2 years made it obvious that the last government wouldn't be returned.

The other question is does a caretaker minister have the power to sign anything off? Because remember we currently have no government, just a caretaker cabinet.

Limerick improvement projects

Comments