News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

Fiachra2 wrote: »

I think its less a case of "call my bluff" as "chance my arm"

When the current project was unveiled in 2005, Sean Quirke, the council official responsible for the project, when asked could it not be smaller than the proposed 375 dwellings stated categorically that if even one apartment were removed the project would not be viable.
In 2007 when an Bord Pleanala reduced it to 340 the same Mr. Quirke was reminded of his earlier comment but stated that the project had been planned at 2004 prices and so it was viable at 340 given the uplift in house prices.
He was recently quoted in the times re-iterating this claim in the context of the sugestion that the project might no longer be viable in the light of falling house prices. It will be interesting to see how he now defends the need to go back up to 375!

What is really staggering is the fact that the decision of An Bord Pleanala can be overturned by the Council themselves!
After two lengthy oral hearings and all the work that went into the submisions made by the community. The project was permitted but on a reduced scale in order -to quote the Bord- "to reduce the quantum of the development". Now the council can-without recourse to anyone- reverse that decision. Many will ask why did we bother going to An Bord Pleanala in the first place?

What is equally amazing is the veiled threat quoted in the last paragraph of the IT article where the developers said basically "if you dont give us this we will leave you with a building site forever and a day"

An the response of Councillors- other than Tom Fortune- is basically "arent we lucky that they are being so nice to us"

Indeed :- the threat of non-completion is obviously entirely toothless. We've been assured from day one that there were bonds and guarantees in place, and the developers couldn't walk away without incurring swinging financial penalties.

I mean, it couldn't be that those bonds and guarantees are entirely worthless, could it ?

And frankly I don't understand this attempt to increase the number of units, even from the developer's perspective. They're gaining say 10-15% more units to sell, and therefore increasing their total revenues from the project by 10-15%. Ongoing house price deflation (which is pretty much guaranteed ) will wipe out that increase in 12 months anyway. And it'll be a lot longer than 12 months before they're in a position to start selling them (obviously they can forget about selling anything off plan).

If the project isn't viable now with the current number of units, it cannot be rendered viable by the increased number of units, given ongoing house price deflation.

Huntthe wrote: »

Shortly after it's finished we'll have a lovely road running from the top of windgates across the green belt to the new developement as there is no way the current road network can cope with that volume of increased traffic. There will be no alternative....and who will pay for it !

Surely a new road is a good thing or am I missing something?

cotton wrote: »

Have you any proof of this happening?

No, but I can't prove the sun will be up in the morning either.
A new road was mooted. It doesn't take any great imagination to see that the no. of vehicles that will be trying to gain access to the new resdidential areas, clubs pubs and eateries will not be serviced adequately by the existing road and a new road will become a necessity.

From this weeks Wicklow Times




Labour Party Councillor Tom Fortune has expressed serious reservations about aspects of the proposals around the stalled Greystones marina project which were made public recently.

“What we have here”, said Councillor Fortune “are two very different issues being rolled into one package and I don’t think that this is appropriate”.

“Firstly” he explained “there is a plan, to be implemented immediately, to construct a medical centre as part of the commercial and residential development and simultaneously to build the clubhouses for the watersports clubs. This involves completion of a building, which was approved by An Bord Pleanala. The only difference is the change of use of this building from mainly residential to mainly commercial. This is an issue which, subject to the approval of the community, should be acceptable especially as it would facilitate the removal of a substantial proportion of the hoardings that have blighted the harbour area for two and a half years.

Secondly, there is a proposal to increase the number of housing units to a total of 375 in direct conflict with the ruling of An Bord Pleanala. This is a major concern” stated Fortune. “It involves the Council members agreeing to overturn a decision of An Bord Pleanala for no obvious reason. The Bord believed that the development, as originally planned, was excessive in size and ordered a reduction in the number of houses. I do not see why this decision should be reversed, particularly when the developers (Sispar and Wicklow County Council) are not necessarily planning to build the houses in the near future.

The developers have made it clear that the completion of the housing will depend on a recovery in the housing market. Therefore it is very possible that, having finished the medical centre and clubhouses, they will board up the rest of the site leaving the community of Greystones looking at a half finished development for many years to come.

I do not” concluded Fortune “believe that this is an acceptable outcome and I believe that there should be further discussions between the developers and the community about the future of the site before any variations are even considered”.

tennisplayer wrote: »

I suppose its no harm that one councillor finds it unacceptable

Indeed but it would be very concerning if ONLY ONE finds it unacceptable.
In my opinion any significant change to the development should be required to go through the full rigour of a complete and proper planning process.
We are in a big enough mess due to inappropriate planning decisions elsewhere.

tennisplayer wrote: »

I suppose its no harm that one councillor finds it unacceptable

Well as I see it, Councillor Fortune is one of 24 (members of Wicklow Co Co) not one of 4 (Greystones electoral area members of Wicklow Co Co). This will be decided by the County Council and Cllr Fortune has an opportunity here to try and get other council members to vote against it. The likely scenario in my view is that he will convince most of his Labour colleagues and that FG/FF vote for it en masse

What I find puzzling and worrying is the primary health care centre - is this some sort of private community clinic, will they be moving the Greystones HSE health centre into this?

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Tom is the only one suggesting caution particularly with regard to the second element of the proposals-the increase in housing. Unfortunatley he will have difficulty pursuading FG votes on the council as George and Derek will be campaigning vigourously for their support and Simon Harris has yet to indicate what way he will go.

Yes, at the end of the day though the ironic thing is that the 20 other council members will decide on this. I suspect that Simon Harris is probably hedging his bets to try and see what way the populist wind blows.

I think the health centre details need to be very clearly spelled out, what is going to be in it? Is it just another form of creeping privatisation? Could it just be a group of doctors officers or other services? If there were other services what impact if any would this have (if any) on Loughlinstown?

There is a difference between regulation and guidance.

Thats interesting information branchflower. The problem however is the enforcement of regulations. An Bord Pleananla appear to be free to ignore all sorts of regulations and guidlines in granting permission for a development such as this (including for example Wicklow county councils own guidline not to build with 20m of an eroding coastline!). The only recourse any citizen has to enforce the regulations would be to seek a costly judicial review of the Bords decision.

In the instance we are discussing here the authority responsible for enforcing the guidlines regarding dumps is, presumably, WCC however they are also the developer so enforcement is unlikely.

Re Medical Centre
Saw little flyers in Greystones Medical Centre on Church Road saying they are relocating to new Harbour facility in 2011.

Nice for them to get a purpose built premises.
But I did think 2011 seemed an optimistic timeline!

Going to be even more difficult to park near them when they move I'd have thought.

Proin wrote: »

I mean, what is the marine equivalent of a white elephant?

I was going to say a Great White but we all know there are no Sharks in Greystones.... well not in the water.
On reflection I think it would be a Cod.