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

Huge hole discovered in Knocknacarra: Council looking into it

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I refer of course to the allegedly unauthorised excavation of a huge site between Dunne's and Aviva in the "Galway West District Centre".

    These major works -- requiring the use of a large amount of plant, including rock-breakers, excavators and dump trucks -- were carried out (noisily) in 2007.

    galway_west_district_centre_excavation.jpg


    A planning application was lodged in 2006, though I have no detailed knowledge of what actually happened to the application subsequently. I always presumed that if the works had gone ahead then permission had been granted.

    If the excavation went ahead without "planning" permission, then one possible interpretation of the report is that it took the City Council five years to notice that a gigantic hole had been illegally created in a busy commercial and residential area:
    The former owners of the Galway Gateway shopping centre on the Western Distributor Road have been warned they face jail and a fine of up to €12.7 million for carrying out major site excavation works without permission.

    The site, which spans 52 acres in total and is also known as the Galway West District Centre, was seized by the National Asset Management Agency last weekend. However, the Council has vowed to continue pursuing the matter.

    The excavation work on Phase 2 of the centre – alongside Dunnes Stores – was carried in 2007 and the site subsequently abandoned. At the moment, the site has filled with water and is fenced off.

    The Galway City Tribune has learned that a warning letter was sent to the Moritz Group – which owned the centre and the land until its seizure – by the City Council, ordering that the land be restored to its original condition.

    “The unauthorised excavation should be filled in immediately, the unauthorised security fencing removed and the lands reinstated to their condition prior to the unauthorised works being carried out,” the letter read.

    It went on to explain that the Planning and Development Act provides for the City Council to recover any costs they incur in relation to enforcement proceedings – the deadline is the end of March.

    http://www.galwaynews.ie/23959-jail-threat-over-centre’s-illegal-site-excavation
    IMO it's odd that the City Tribune doesn't know, or chooses not to reveal, the date of the Council's letter.

    If the Council wrote to Moritz/Rumbold when the allegedly unauthorised works were being carried out, why is the deadline end March 2012?

    On the other hand, if the Council's letter was sent more recently, as seems to be the case, why did it take them so long to notice a hole so large and so illegal?




    New notices have recently been put up around this site.

    "Planning" permission is being sought for retention of the illegal excavations.


  • #33
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    "Planning" permission is being sought for retention of the illegal excavations.

    So that NAMA can sell it to Tesco!


  • #34
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Every little helps.

    A thought occurs: maybe it should be designated a priority habitat to protect the swans who disport themselves there from time to time... ;)


  • #35
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Every little helps.
    A thought occurs: maybe it should be designated a priority habitat to protect the swans who disport themselves there from time to time... ;)

    How??


  • #36
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    How??

    I would imagine they fly there... ;) :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Zzippy wrote: »
    I would imagine they fly there... ;) :pac:

    You would wouldn't you.

    I meant how does he get a HOLE "designated" in Knocknacarra???


  • #38
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The names on the "planning" notice, iirc, are Michael Coyle and Simon Davidson of HWBC Allsop.

    HWBC Allsop are NAMA-appointed receivers to companies in the Moritz group, which includes Rumbold Builders and Maplewood Developments, both of which were involved in the Galway West Business Park project.

    Moritz took NAMA to court early in 2012 in an attempt to halt the process, but it seems the, er, hole in their finances was too great, and the receivers arrived like a pair of black swans in September.


  • #39
    thesandeman
    Registered Users Posts: 9,857 ✭✭✭thesandeman


    Will be interesting to see how they word it in the Allsop catalogue.


  • #40
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    thesandeman wrote: »
    Will be interesting to see how they word it in the Allsop catalogue.

    nama does not sell through allsop


  • #41
    Col200sx
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭Col200sx


    Wonder is there anything going on with this, as today (and maybe before today too, not sure) there has been a huge digger in there.

    Seems like it's clearing it up, not sure.

    Anybody heard anything?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The receivers of the development company applied for retention of the excavations. My understanding is that retention permission was granted, but that the water must be drained for health and safety reasons. I believe the water must be kept pumped out, which may explain the presence of the machinery.

    I had a quick look this morning, and the digger seems to be one of those rock-breaker jobbies. Not quite sure why that would be needed, but in any case all the water is gone now.


  • #43
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Why do they want to retain the hole :confused:
    Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?


  • #44
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Why do they want to retain the hole :confused:
    Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

    why fill it in only to have to dig it out again if its ever developed.


  • #45
    flynnlives
    Registered Users Posts: 739 ✭✭✭flynnlives


    gordongekko wrote: »
    nama does not sell through allsop


    how do you know?

    the truth is nobody knows what exactly goes on in Nama


  • #46
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Why do they want to retain the hole :confused:
    Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?



    In theory unauthorised developments which do not get retention permission must be restored to their previous state before the unauthorised development began.

    http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31564,en.pdf

    AFAIK in this case the development became unauthorised because planning permission expired (after 5 years). I first thought the word "unauthorised" meant that the excavations were somehow carried out illegally, but this does not seem to be the case.

    I suspect that there are unauthorised developments all over this benighted republic because of expired planning permission. Many of the development companies are in receivership as part of the NAMA process (as is this particular development) and the receivers are seeking to regularise the situation by applying for retention and carrying out remedial site works as required. I presume the hope is that at some future date there might be an economic case for resuming the planned development. TTBOMK there is no upper time limit on the granting of retention, so it's conceivable that Galway City Council will continue to give planning permission for this development indefinitely.


  • #47
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    flynnlives wrote: »
    how do you know?

    the truth is nobody knows what exactly goes on in Nama

    show me 1 nama property sold through allsops


  • #48
    beardybrewer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭beardybrewer


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Why do they want to retain the hole :confused:
    Is it that it is more expensive to fill it in?

    It would be nice to think because it was expensive to dog and they haven't given up on the potential of the area. A lot could change in the next 10 years.


  • #49
    emptybladder
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭emptybladder


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    In theory unauthorised developments which do not get retention permission must be restored to their previous state before the unauthorised development began.

    http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31564,en.pdf

    AFAIK in this case the development became unauthorised because planning permission expired (after 5 years). I first thought the word "unauthorised" meant that the excavations were somehow carried out illegally, but this does not seem to be the case.

    I suspect that there are unauthorised developments all over this benighted republic because of expired planning permission. Many of the development companies are in receivership as part of the NAMA process (as is this particular development) and the receivers are seeking to regularise the situation by applying for retention and carrying out remedial site works as required. I presume the hope is that at some future date there might be an economic case for resuming the planned development. TTBOMK there is no upper time limit on the granting of retention, so it's conceivable that Galway City Council will continue to give planning permission for this development indefinitely.

    In this case, it was unauthorised development because they never submitted a Commencement Notice to begin work on the site. While they had PP, they excavated without formal approval and proof that pre-conditions (such as Health and Safety) were being met).
    The retention of unauthorised works application and the application for an Extension of Duration are two entirely separate matters.


  • #50
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Thanks for correction.

    I'm forgetting my own original post, and the relevant newspaper report: http://www.galwaynews.ie/23959-jail-threat-over-centre%E2%80%99s-illegal-site-excavation


Advertisement