Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1…89111314…106

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Alan_P
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭Alan_P


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    Regrettably we have no choice but to speculate because neither the council nor the developer will supply up to date factual information.
    For example. The loan was in NAMA for quite some time before the public, or the councillors were told. Why ?
    To the ordinary man in the street the involvement of NAMA suggests FUBAR. So why not tell the public? Why not explain to them that yes the project is in NAMA and yes we are dependent on funding from NAMA but because of factors X,Yand Z this is not a problem.
    Instead we only found out when Cllr Fortune asked the question.
    When asked whether this spelt disaster for the project the response was. No we are confident of getting funding. No further explanation offered.

    The reality is that NAMA's brief is to obtain a financial return for the taxpayer. On the face of it providing funds for a yacht harbour and sailing clubs which offer no commercial return and certainly no capital return does not fall into that remit.
    If the politicians who believe we dont have a problem would articulate WHY they believe that and explain in what way NAMA's brief allows it to fund this project then we would not have to speculate. The reality is that they have not done so and are unable to do so because they are living in hope.
    Until there is a bit of honesty we can only speculate. However John keeps supplying us with (factual) pictures. The thread hasnt got abusive as some others have done and if you look at the number of vists this thread gets its clear that at least we are providing entertainment.

    There's also the question of simple maths. They've apparently spent something like 80 million on the works thus far :- they have planning permission for 340 residential units, and hope to increase that to something like 380.

    80 million divided by 340 is 235,000. 80 million divided by 380 is 210,000. There are 2 bedroom houses for sale in Greystones (Redford Park) for 240,000.

    But they haven't built anything they can actually sell yet. The project would be financially marginal if the money spent thus far was the total budget :- add in the cost of actually building something of commercial value and it's financial lunacy. And NAMA is legally barred from engaging in financial lunacy.


  • Options
    #303
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Alan_P wrote: »
    There's also the question of simple maths. They've apparently spent something like 80 million on the works thus far :- they have planning permission for 340 residential units, and hope to increase that to something like 380.

    80 million divided by 340 is 235,000. 80 million divided by 380 is 210,000. There are 2 bedroom houses for sale in Greystones (Redford Park) for 240,000.

    But they haven't built anything they can actually sell yet. The project would be financially marginal if the money spent thus far was the total budget :- add in the cost of actually building something of commercial value and it's financial lunacy. And NAMA is legally barred from engaging in financial lunacy.

    maths to the rescue once again. Also property prices continue to fall, particularly for apartments, and there's not likely to be any significant pickup in the next 5 years.


  • Options
    #304
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,692 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Alan_P wrote: »
    There's also the question of simple maths. They've apparently spent something like 80 million on the works thus far :- they have planning permission for 340 residential units, and hope to increase that to something like 380.

    80 million divided by 340 is 235,000. 80 million divided by 380 is 210,000. There are 2 bedroom houses for sale in Greystones (Redford Park) for 240,000.

    But they haven't built anything they can actually sell yet. The project would be financially marginal if the money spent thus far was the total budget :- add in the cost of actually building something of commercial value and it's financial lunacy. And NAMA is legally barred from engaging in financial lunacy.

    Unfortunately that's a very narrow minded and selective view of the project. You're forgetting the very reason the scheme is being built - a viable and working harbour. Any idea what a marina goes for these days? And all the retail units and the medical centre etc? I would imagine the scheme becomes a lot more attractive when you factor everything into it ;)


  • Options
    #305
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    Regrettably we have no choice but to speculate because neither the council nor the developer will supply up to date factual information.

    So basically, no news is bad news?


  • Options
    #306
    cuddlycavies
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭cuddlycavies


    loyatemu wrote: »
    maths to the rescue once again. Also property prices continue to fall, particularly for apartments, and there's not likely to be any significant pickup in the next 5 years.

    Beautiful location, view of sea ,head and coastline. Close to a lovely village the dart, pubs,happy pear, restaurants. Five mins to best oak woods in Ireland, 15 mins to spectacular mountain scenery. If people start thinking in these terms instead of languishing in the negative little place that you find yourself Loya; then maybe they might pick up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Blandpebbles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Blandpebbles


    Yep and plenty of houses and apartments for sale already in Greystones.. no sense in building more to remain empty.


  • Options
    #308
    Fiachra2
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fiachra2


    We are probably going a bit off track here. It is probably correct to say that apartments in that location would fetch a premium price. However it is equally possible that the collapse of the housing market might render them financially not viable at all. (wow thats terrible english!)However neither of these factors is likley to be relevant to NAMA as they wont be building apartments in the near future. NAMA is concerned with a medical center and clubhouses. Our concern as a community is what happens if NAMA says no (or delays its response for a long time).


  • Options
    #309
    darter
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭darter


    cuddlycavies wrote: »
    Beautiful location, view of sea ,head and coastline. Close to a lovely village the dart, pubs,happy pear, restaurants. Five mins to best oak woods in Ireland, 15 mins to spectacular mountain scenery.

    There is no doubt that the planned apartments would bring a premium price given their superb location, but that is a premium price in today's reality, not the Celtic Tiger prices upon which the whole financial package was based.

    I don't know what the actual figures are (failing my own requirement for people only to post on this thread with facts not speculation, but it's irresistible), but assuming that half of the financing was to come from the sales of the apartments/housing units, and the other half from the marina and rental units, this means that just to cover funds spent of 80M euro they need 40M euro profit from sales of 380 apartments, so average of 105K euro profit per apartment. Add on to that the costs of finishing the project, perhaps another 50% (? anyone have any idea?), means a profit of 150K euro is required. This was happening during 2006 and 2007, but I don't think it's realistic today, despite the premium location.


  • Options
    #310
    Jimjay
    Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭Jimjay


    Where does the figure of 80m spent so far come from?
    The most recent articles I can find estimate current spend at 40m and these are from last couple of months.


  • Options
    #311
    Blandpebbles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Blandpebbles


    What's the agreed date for the Hoardings to come down in November, per Councillor Mitchell's previous postings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Fiachra2
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fiachra2


    Jimjay wrote: »
    Where does the figure of 80m spent so far come from?
    The most recent articles I can find estimate current spend at 40m and these are from last couple of months.

    My reccolection was that the harbour construction cost supplied by the developers at the oral hearings was €70M. Given the time at which the work was carried out they should have been able to drive this down by 10-15%. However as it ran 50% over budget time wise there would have been a related cost. So €80M give or take 10M or so is probably not a mile out.

    A point of information relating to some earlier posts again taken from the developers submissions at the above mentioned oral hearing.

    The Marina does not make money They very specifically confirmed that because of its small size it was uneconomic and would require a subsidy from the rental of the shops/offices.

    Secondly the commercial units were not intended to make a significant contribution to the capital cost of the harbour. It was intended that they would be rented out and and that the rental income would pay for:
    • Marina subsidy
    • Harbour maintenance
    • Coastal protection
    • Maintenance of public park
    • Maintenance of urban square
    • Developers profit

    So presumably the full construction cost of the harbour would have to be borne by the housing.
    However this is no longer a relavant consideration. The 80M has been spent and the only issue is whether apartments can be sold for an amount greater than their construction cost.If this is possible then NAMA can recover some of the 80M. But it really doesnt matter how much.


  • Options
    #313
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,692 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Fiachra2 wrote: »

    The Marina does not make money They very specifically confirmed that because of its small size it was uneconomic and would require a subsidy from the rental of the shops/offices.

    With all due respect, I would question this assertion. We have a number of marinas of similar size in Ireland (in much less desirable locations) that trade quite happily. Look at Malahide for example. There is a clear distinction between the marina and the surrounding residential properties there. There are also many marina operators in the UK (don't know if the same in Ireland) who may be interested in buying the facility from the developers thereby reducing the outstanding balance.

    I really find the statement that the marina will be subsidised by the retail units etc. to be extremely unlikely in actual fact.


  • Options
    #314
    Jimjay
    Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭Jimjay


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    My reccolection was that the harbour construction cost supplied by the developers at the oral hearings was €70M. Given the time at which the work was carried out they should have been able to drive this down by 10-15%. However as it ran 50% over budget time wise there would have been a related cost. So €80M give or take 10M or so is probably not a mile out.

    A point of information relating to some earlier posts again taken from the developers submissions at the above mentioned oral hearing.

    The Marina does not make money They very specifically confirmed that because of its small size it was uneconomic and would require a subsidy from the rental of the shops/offices.


    Secondly the commercial units were not intended to make a significant contribution to the capital cost of the harbour. It was intended that they would be rented out and and that the rental income would pay for:
    • Marina subsidy
    • Harbour maintenance
    • Coastal protection
    • Maintenance of public park
    • Maintenance of urban square
    • Developers profit
    So presumably the full construction cost of the harbour would have to be borne by the housing.
    However this is no longer a relavant consideration. The 80M has been spent and the only issue is whether apartments can be sold for an amount greater than their construction cost.If this is possible then NAMA can recover some of the 80M. But it really doesnt matter how much.

    Can someone confirm why NARMA would need to recover 80M. Has the total of work so far (if it has amounted to 80M) been done from one bank loan? Has all the work been done using credit or has any money been put down by the developers, council or private investors? Does anyone actually know the amount of the loan taken by NARMA?

    Also no one actually knows the cost of the work so far, or the amount of money used from finance. If the work, as stated in in recent reports has costed 40m, and 20m of that has been put down from developers accounts or investers then at the moment the loan NAMA have taken could be more like 20m, they could quite realisticly look at recovering that by completing some of the developement.


  • Options
    #315
    Alan_P
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭Alan_P


    Dyflin wrote: »
    There are also many marina operators in the UK (don't know if the same in Ireland) who may be interested in buying the facility from the developers thereby reducing the outstanding balance.
    That definitely won't be a possibility.
    From the oral hearing transcript,
    http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/EF2016.htm

    quote from S. Quirke, Senor Executive Officer in the Wicklow Planning Department :-
    "The marina will be run on a concession agreement. It will not be in private ownership, it will remain in public ownership. The harbour will always remain in public ownership. The park will always remain in public ownership. The only areas transferred into private ownership are private houses. "

    The developers cannot sell what they won't own.


  • Options
    #316
    Fiachra2
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fiachra2


    (Quote)I really find the statement that the marina will be subsidised by the retail units etc. to be extremely unlikely in actual fact.[/QUOTE]

    I dont know enough about Marinas to dispute it with you. All I know is that I put it to the developer's Marina expert that at 230 berths it was below what the industry considered economic. He agreed and confirmed that it would require a subsidy. He has built and-at that time at any rate-operated Marinas in Ireland so I think we would have to accept that he knew what he was talking about.


  • Options
    #317
    Fiachra2
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fiachra2


    Jimjay wrote: »
    of that has been put down from developers accounts or investers then at the moment the loan NAMA have taken could be more like 20m, they could quite realisticly look at recovering that by completing some of the developement.

    That was more or less my point above. It doesnt matter what size the loan is or what proportion of it can be recovered by building houses. If any of it can be recovered by building houses (or marinas or whatever) NAMA is mandated to do it.

    However I noted in an article today on a succcessful sale of luxury apartments in Booterstown for a realistic price (<50% of their original price) the journalist claimed that the value of the sales did not cover the construction cost. If sales values are that low then it would impact on Greystones as it would be uneconomic to build the apartments.


  • Options
    #318
    Blanchflower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Blanchflower


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    That was more or less my point above. It doesnt matter what size the loan is or what proportion of it can be recovered by building houses. If any of it can be recovered by building houses (or marinas or whatever) NAMA is mandated to do it.

    However I noted in an article today on a succcessful sale of luxury apartments in Booterstown for a realistic price (<50% of their original price) the journalist claimed that the value of the sales did not cover the construction cost. If sales values are that low then it would impact on Greystones as it would be uneconomic to build the apartments.

    I Blanchflower being of sound mind and judgement hereby decree that present day Irish property prices still have some way to fall.

    The value of an asset is related to the yield the asset returns. In houses and apartments, the yield is the rent. In the US, a house was traditionally valued at some multiple of the rent it generated. Typically, the value of a house was calculated at 12 to 14 times its annual rent. This relationship has held in the US for over 100 years. There is no reason to believe that this shouldn’t be the way to value Irish houses.

    Newly built apartments near the Greystones seafront which were originally on the market for €800k are now not for sale but are being rented at €1300 per month. Based on a generous multiplier of 14 times the annual rent the value of these apartments is approximately €218,000.


  • Options
    #319
    darter
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭darter


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    However I noted in an article today on a succcessful sale of luxury apartments in Booterstown for a realistic price (<50% of their original price) the journalist claimed that the value of the sales did not cover the construction cost. If sales values are that low then it would impact on Greystones as it would be uneconomic to build the apartments.

    The problem is that during the mad years at the tale end of the Celtic Tiger (2006, 2007) construction costs were ludicrously high. Labour rates were very high - guys working on renovations where I live were getting 200 euro per day net (after taxes and deductions - PRSI etc) during the mad times, and more recently 140 euro gross - and material was stupidly priced. A concrete construction block cost 2 euro in 2007, and now costs 50 cents. Profits made by builders - if they sold during 2006/2007 - were obscene.

    So, yes, apartments built in 2006/2007 are being sold below the-then construction costs, but apartments built today can be built for far less and so be sold for realistic prices.


  • Options
    #320
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,692 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Fiachra2 wrote: »
    I dont know enough about Marinas to dispute it with you. All I know is that I put it to the developer's Marina expert that at 230 berths it was below what the industry considered economic. He agreed and confirmed that it would require a subsidy. He has built and-at that time at any rate-operated Marinas in Ireland so I think we would have to accept that he knew what he was talking about.

    There appears to be conflicting information so, in the 'Inspectors Report 1'

    "Of note in relation to the marina is the revenue stream that it would generate, partly to be used in the continuing maintenance of the overall harbour".


  • Options
    #321
    Blandpebbles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Blandpebbles


    What does the berth booking look like I wonder. Will we really have enough boats taking berths to supply any decent revenue?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    6051884847114E3DBA64C4E3DE1126D2-0000315917-0001986205-00800L-51B587A0F24B49619C4237BB11DE94F9.jpg


  • Options
    #323
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    FE1D6BDBF408402B95442B3D788AAF4B-0000315917-0001986206-00800L-9396D0D0F8F048C5957B8EAC07FD301C.jpg


  • Options
    #324
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    2114C717D93047B493E8C72ED1C01FBF-0000315917-0001986208-00800L-D9051354C8E24B63AED34DB3DFB541BA.jpg
    Look on the original photo size on my pix.ie page
    There are no prizes for correct answers :D


  • Options
    #325
    Jimjay
    Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭Jimjay


    pixbyjohn wrote: »
    2114C717D93047B493E8C72ED1C01FBF-0000315917-0001986208-00800L-D9051354C8E24B63AED34DB3DFB541BA.jpg
    Look on the original photo size on my pix.ie page
    There are no prizes for correct answers :D

    Wow, 6. They dont appear to have slowed down on the work. Unless they are just trying to get out of there asap.


  • Options
    #326
    Blanchflower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Blanchflower


    Jimjay wrote: »
    Wow, 6. They dont appear to have slowed down on the work. Unless they are just trying to get out of there asap.

    I Blanckflower do solemnly declare without malice aforethought that Sispar will indeed with the help of NAMA and an almighty army of hydraulic arms construct the largest public square in Ireland.


  • Options
    #327
    Jammyc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,979 ✭✭✭Jammyc


    Blanchflower wrote: »
    I Blanckflower do solemnly declare without malice aforethought that Sispar will indeed with the help of NAMA and an almighty army of hydraulic arms construct the largest public square in Ireland.
    I, Jammyc think pixbyjohn's photos are quite nice.


  • Options
    #328
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Is it just me...or...

    Is it looking better? Or is it just that pixby's pix are so good?

    It looks like they could clear out the construction equipment, tidy up a little, pop in a few boats and it wouldnt be so bad.

    No yuppie apartment blocks or starbucks but thats okay.

    Of course I'm 3000 miles away...


  • Options
    #329
    Langerland
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Langerland


    To be honest, from those new photos, it seems there has been a lot done in the last few weeks. Would be great if they could even finish out the harbour part and then move the hoardings back to place them around the marina part of the project....


  • Options
    #330
    Blanchflower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Blanchflower


    Langerland wrote: »
    To be honest, from those new photos, it seems there has been a lot done in the last few weeks. Would be great if they could even finish out the harbour part and then move the hoardings back to place them around the marina part of the project....

    It looks like they are landscaping the place at last. Perhaps the hoardings will indeed come down.

    I am really looking forward to playing a game of football in the biggest public space in Ireland when they finish the harbour development with the beautiful view of Bray Head fully intact. Go old Sispar!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Blandpebbles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Blandpebbles


    Aah the old Friday late night post pub optimism post.

    Football. On a building site? Careful now


Advertisement