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

pixbyjohn · 21-04-2010 10:24am

Dyflin wrote: »

When was this photo taken?

Date and Time (Original) 2010:04:16 17:38:35

Tinker13 · 23-04-2010 1:08pm

it would be nice if we could at least get the hoardings taken down asap.

Huntthe · 28-04-2010 8:25am

Ciaran Hayden said.

Full steam ahead at Greystones Habour. New plan unveiled today which will see HSE take a large block for a Primary Care Centre, this will help finance club facilities and see a substantial part of the project being completed by end 2011. Happy Days

Langerland · 28-04-2010 8:50am

Key changes to Greystones plan

Amendments to the Greystones harbour redevelopment plan would include the development of a primary care medical centre (left) and additional car parking and public gardens next to the civic square. Also envisaged are 34 additional new homes and an additional 800sq m of commercial space.

BUILDERS OF the €300 million redevelopment scheme under way at Greystones harbour in Co Wicklow are to seek increases in the residential and commercial elements of the project.

Sispar, a consortium involving John Sisk and Company and house builders Park Developments, in partnership with Wicklow County Council, is proposing to increase the number of new homes in the scheme from 341 to 375.

It also proposes to increase the commercial area to 6,425sq m – an addition of about 800sq m. Car parking at the €300 million redevelopment project is to be increased from 953 spaces to 1002.

Because of the involvement of Wicklow County Council the application is be decided by Wicklow county councillors under Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act, which does not provide for an appeal against the local authority’s decision.

Sispar had initially sought planning permission for 375 homes, the maximum allowed under the County Development Plan. But this was reduced by An Bord Pleanála to 341 in a move designed to reduce the bulk of the new homes at the front of the project and create a larger civic square.

Sispar said the use of Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act was not a move to undermine the planning board’s decision. Spokesman Paraic Keogh said the board’s decision had been designed to create a civic square and this would be retained in the project. The additional apartments would be located to the rear of the development, on part of a site reserved for a 16-acre park. The move would utilise about three acres of the park.

The commercial changes proposed include the redesignation of most of a block of apartments known as “block D” fronting on to the civic square, for commercial purposes.

This increased commercial space would then be used for a primary care, medical centre. Mr Keogh said a deal had already been agreed with healthcare company Meret, which had an agreement with the HSE.

Wicklow County Council director of services Seán Quirke said the application would be the subject of four weeks of public consultation, followed by two weeks for objections.

The decision would ultimately be made by a vote of elected councillors and there was no provision in Part VIII of the Planning Act to appeal the decision either to the council or to the planning board.

The application to reconfigure block D is to be made next week, followed in July by the application to change the number of new homes. Work on the existing harbour walls is due to be completed by this October.

Should planning permission be granted, work will then get under way on the development of the reconfigured block D, car parking and the civic square.

Work would also continue on the provision of facilities for local clubs.

By the end of 2011 hoardings opposite the Beach House pub and Bayswater Terrace would come down and the public would have access to the square and the waterfront.

No date for the start or completion of the housing elements of the plan was given.

According to Mr Keogh the application to vary the development represented a firm commitment to complete the project. “Sispar are prepared to finish with this subject to achieving the necessary amendments,” the company said.

The alternative is that the harbour walls would be completed with an unfinished public square and routes through the site to the sea for boat users, the developers said.

Huntthe · 28-04-2010 9:01am

Thanks for that, pretty typical of a politician to take the bits that suit him.

MyPerfectCousin · 28-04-2010 9:16am

Huntthe wrote: »

Thanks for that, pretty typical of a politician to take the bits that suit him.

???

If you mean Ciaran Hayden, he's not a politician. He's head of the local chamber of commerce.

Huntthe · 28-04-2010 9:24am

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

???

If you mean Ciaran Hayden, he's not a politician. He's head of the local chamber of commerce.

Wannabe

Fiachra2 · 28-04-2010 1:18pm

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

???

If you mean Ciaran Hayden, he's not a politician. He's head of the local chamber of commerce.

Ciatran is not president of the chamber of commerce. That is Mark Felton (if his term of office is not over) and he, Ciaran, is a Fianna Fail member of Greystones town Council.

MyPerfectCousin · 28-04-2010 2:47pm

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Ciatran is not president of the chamber of commerce. That is Mark Felton (if his term of office is not over) and he, Ciaran, is a Fianna Fail member of Greystones town Council.

I stand corrected (twice over)

greygardens · 28-04-2010 3:35pm

Hi interesting article in todays Irish Times, page two - had trouble with link.

micandre · 29-04-2010 12:18am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0428/1224269222257.html

dr ro · 29-04-2010 11:01am

reading that article it seams that sispar's exit strategy is to reapply for something they've either already been refused or something they've no chance of getting so they can settle on the cheapest option of doing nothing and cutting their losses. I hope i'm wrong. Sounds like it's going to be a shambles.

nobby grande · 29-04-2010 11:33am

According to Mr Keogh the application to vary the development represented a firm commitment to complete the project. “Sispar are prepared to finish with this; subject to achieving the necessary amendments,” the company said.
The alternative is that the harbour walls would be completed with an unfinished public square and routes through the site to the sea for boat users, the developers said.

What a joke. Sispar will finish the job providing the council lets them change the original plans. Should the developer not be allowed to move the goal posts they will start packing up and get their coats.

No sympathy for sispar, but i think it is shameful that Greystones has been railroaded into having these plans put into place after having had a vote and a petition stating the community did not want it to go ahead. Now we have a mess made by the developers and the people that live in the town have to look at that eyesore and go through at least another two summers without harbour access.

Blanchflower · 29-04-2010 1:21pm

Is this a case of "Call my Bluff" .

The dogs on the street realise that the property bubble is well and truely burst and that the expected prices on which this bubble era project was based have fallen by 50% and are still in feeefall. Throughout Ireland there are ghost estates of empty houses and apartments which are now to be demolished by NAMA.

Sispar are now looking for an excuse to break their contract with Wicklow County Council by proposing a variation to the plan which was already rejected by An Bord Pleanala.

To finish this development the number of structures should be drastically reduced and not increased.

Langerland · 29-04-2010 2:07pm

nobby grande wrote: »

According to Mr Keogh the application to vary the development represented a firm commitment to complete the project. “Sispar are prepared to finish with this; subject to achieving the necessary amendments,” the company said.
The alternative is that the harbour walls would be completed with an unfinished public square and routes through the site to the sea for boat users, the developers said.

What a joke. Sispar will finish the job providing the council lets them change the original plans. Should the developer not be allowed to move the goal posts they will start packing up and get their coats.

No sympathy for sispar, but i think it is shameful that Greystones has been railroaded into having these plans put into place after having had a vote and a petition stating the community did not want it to go ahead. Now we have a mess made by the developers and the people that live in the town have to look at that eyesore and go through at least another two summers without harbour access.

Indeed. My jaw dropped to the floor yesterday when I read this. I cannot believe our local councillors signed over the jewel in the Greystones crown with such a flakey contract. This surely cannot be true to say Sispar can withdraw and stop works without even a completed square if they don't get their way? Surely some legal action can be taken against them if this happened? Or is that too common sense? Who will be voting these councillors back in???:(

pixbyjohn · 29-04-2010 4:05pm

Next Local elections in 4 years

Langerland · 29-04-2010 4:25pm

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Next Local elections in 4 years

And chances are, the harbour will still be a building site even then....

They all seem to be very, very sheepish on this issue......apart from Tom Fortune.....I've seen a few paragraphs in the Council report of the People every now and then where some councillors voice some mild concerns regarding the issue, but apart from that? Nothing. The silence is deafening considering the big WhoHaa they were all making when so many locals were objecting to the project....I remember Councillor jones even coming on here regularly to preach about the greatness of the project and how it would improve the town......

It's ohhh so quiet now.....kind of like the harbour for the foreseeable future.

Huntthe · 29-04-2010 5:15pm

Blanchflower wrote: »

Is this a case of "Call my Bluff" .

The dogs on the street realise that the property bubble is well and truely burst and that the expected prices on which this bubble era project was based have fallen by 50% and are still in feeefall. Throughout Ireland there are ghost estates of empty houses and apartments which are now to be demolished by NAMA.

Sispar are now looking for an excuse to break their contract with Wicklow County Council by proposing a variation to the plan which was already rejected by An Bord Pleanala.

To finish this development the number of structures should be drastically reduced and not increased.

I think your right it is. Call their bluff and tell them to go ahead and see what happens. They won't do it because it doesn't make commercial sense to do bui;d more properties that no one will buy.

Fiachra2 · 29-04-2010 6:10pm

Blanchflower wrote: »

Is this a case of "Call my Bluff" .

.

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"

Huntthe · 30-04-2010 8:06am

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 !

Alan_P · 30-04-2010 9:18am

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.

cotton · 30-04-2010 9:29am

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 !

Have you any proof of this happening?

thecommander · 30-04-2010 10:49am

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?

Tinker13 · 30-04-2010 12:03pm

Obviously I don't have the figures but a 10-15% increase in housing and commercial areas may make the project viable for the developers. It would have a negative effect on traffic though with 100s of cars added to the morning queues!

Huntthe · 30-04-2010 5:10pm

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.

Fiachra2 · 30-04-2010 6:19pm

Tinker13 wrote: »

Obviously I don't have the figures but a 10-15% increase in housing and commercial areas may make the project viable for the developers. It would have a negative effect on traffic though with 100s of cars added to the morning queues!

It is worth noting two things in connection with the increased housing:

1.The developers have probably spent -based on the limited information available-about 70M on the project to date. To recover that investment they would need a profit of 200K+ per dwelling. This ignores the cost of building roads, maintaining the marina, etc etc. Therefore, at this stage, they are presumably looking to recover whatever they can. At the end of the day they will loose money on the project which I am sure as businessmen they can accept as "the luck of the draw". What they are looking for is to minimise these losses but at the expense of the community. I dont blame them for trying but its amazing to hear our "public representatives" welcoming the opportunity to facilitate them.

2.The additional houses will be built on part of the public park. This park was put forward by pro-marina councillors as one of the main pluses of the development and the reason why we should accept housing development on the beach. To allow the increased housing means reducing the size of the park by 20% yet those same councillors who felt this park was so important see no problem with this.

Blanchflower · 07-05-2010 1:28pm

I see from the latest plans that it is now proposed to build houses right on top of the old town dump.

I am sure that this would be in breach of all kinds of legislation.

d'Oracle · 07-05-2010 4:21pm

Blanchflower wrote: »

I see from the latest plans that it is now proposed to build houses right on top of the old town dump.

I am sure that this would be in breach of all kinds of legislation.

And hence would not pass the planning process.
If it was in breach of legislation.

Blanchflower · 07-05-2010 8:55pm

If they do build on the dump they will find it very very difficult to find buyers.

I for one certainly would not buy a house built on a dump.

pixbyjohn · 08-05-2010 11:15am

It has happened before, but in USA

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/10/TampaBay/Suit__Homes_built_on_.shtml

Suit: Homes built on dump site
Nineteen Martin Luther King Village residents file suit against the city of Tampa, a builder and two nonprofit agencies.
By JEFF TESTERMAN, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published April 10, 2002

Blanchflower · 08-05-2010 11:24am

Extract from the An Bord Planala Inspectors Report dated July 2006 is as follows:

14. The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation of any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the north breakwater, being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall comply with the requirements of the Authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on site is dealt with in
accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term adverse environmental impact is avoided.

pixbyjohn · 08-05-2010 11:42am

Blanchflower wrote: »

Extract from the An Bord Planala Inspectors Report dated July 2006 is as follows:

14. The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation of any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the north breakwater, being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall comply with the requirements of the Authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on site is dealt with in
accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term adverse environmental impact is avoided.

And rightly so, can't argue with that

Fiachra2 · 11-05-2010 1:02pm

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 · 11-05-2010 3:16pm

I suppose its no harm that one councillor finds it unacceptable

danjo · 11-05-2010 8:01pm

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.

Huntthe · 12-05-2010 8:22am

tennisplayer wrote: »

I suppose its no harm that one councillor finds it unacceptable

You need to look into it a bit deeper than that, there are party lines and all kinds of other political stuff going on. What do you think of it yourself.Long time since I took my lead from a politician.

Annasopra · 12-05-2010 12:12pm

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 · 12-05-2010 1:06pm

The health centre may or may not be a benefit. They are apparently a big initiative by the HSE. However I have an association with a health charity whose members are rather sceptical of them. It appears that what happens is that most of the GP's in the area along with other helathcare professionals all move into the one building. There is no guarantee of any additional services e.g. xray facilities etc that might make life easier. Hence there is skepticism as to whether this could be a lot of money being invested unwisely. Put simply it would seem possible that the HSE is effectivley sponsoring a new clubhouse for Greystones Sailing club!

Another possible concern is the involvement in the medical center of a private company Meret which apparently is a subsidiary of SISK. I am not sugesting there is anything improper in their involvement but it does seem a remarkable coincidence.

The construction of the center may be acceptable however what is worrrying is the jubiliation expressed by so many councillors without any real consideration of the value and implications of the change. 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.

Annasopra · 12-05-2010 3:27pm

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?

Blanchflower · 13-05-2010 10:35pm

pixbyjohn wrote: »

And rightly so, can't argue with that

The Irish development control documents (‘Building Regulations 1997 - Part C’, and the associated DoEHLG Guidance ‘Protection of New Buildings and Occupants from Landfill Gas’, 1994) speak of a 250m planning control zone around landfills. The planning guidance notes that the 250m should be considered as a guideline; and in areas with particularly favourable gas migration paths, the gas may migrate further. Importantly the DoEHLG planning guidance notes that in cases where there are gas control measures (e.g. containment & extraction) then little or no gas migration may occur. The DoEHLG documents considered the 250m as a zone around a proposed development site where the developer would check in particular for historical landfilling (i.e. no gas control measures likely), and where a risk needed to be assessed. This is just a requirement to check for risk and not a requisite sterile zone. Indeed, in relation to separation distances, the DoEHLG 1994 planning guidance stated that no (private) houses should be permitted within 50m of an actively gassing landfill and no private garden within 10m.

pixbyjohn · 14-05-2010 12:43pm

There is a difference between regulation and guidance.

d'Oracle · 14-05-2010 1:11pm

Guidance documents are instructional guides as to how to satisfy the associated regulations. So in this instance there is very little difference John.

Fiachra2 · 14-05-2010 1:30pm

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.

Blanchflower · 14-05-2010 7:06pm

Greystones already has its fair share of empty premises and unfinished developments. Why do they want to build even more unwanted properties on the harbour? Everthing has changed, changed utterly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIKA9PvP4aU&feature=player_embedded

Waternews · 15-05-2010 8:58am

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 · 24-05-2010 4:41pm

Was back in Greystones for the first time in years and years last August. Couldn't believe the place. The fields of apartment blocks and the harbour, Greystones harbour for the love of God! How will this massive development pay for itself? I mean, what is the marine equivalent of a white elephant? Greystones will remain a monument to that bunch of grey men of the IICW - The Institute of Irish Cute Whores.

danjo · 24-05-2010 7:23pm

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.

pixbyjohn · 26-05-2010 2:49pm

Tabnabs · 27-05-2010 3:45pm

Are many people using it and what's the access like?

pixbyjohn · 27-05-2010 4:53pm

Dyflin wrote: »

Are many people using it and what's the access like?

Sailing Club, Kayak Club, Rowing Club and Fishing Clubs use it. Access is open most nights and weekends. construction of the public slip is underway.

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

Comments