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

I read in the times over the weekend, a banner headline that describes Irish politics and senior civil servants after another week of turmoil. It read

"If institutional Ireland were a stick of rock, the words ‘loyalty is prized above honesty’ would run through it. Irish authorities always choose loyalty"

Cerco wrote: »

I thought this whole harbour development was on track for completion. Once the PCC is built it should be plain sailing. I understand WCC and Sisk are committed ....according to the Town Council anyway.

Anybody have a timeline?

Where do we start?!!

The PCC was abandoned over a year ago (Well probably about three years ago to tell the truth)

According to the TC Santa Clause exists.

No one has a time line. (Certainly not one that can be believed)

Sorry Crrco I am being flippant. I suggest just reading the last couple of month posts.

GUBOH have an amazing team of committed professional people who have uncovered and digested much information on what was tendered by WCC. The Contract however, was modified before being finalised with Sisk. And this modification is a closely guarded secret by WCC. However, we feel that they do so only to create a backdrop retreat position because the most fundamental requirement remains and that was confirmed recently by Sean Quirke.

Sicon, the parent company of Sisk/Sispar, have committed to a parent company guarantee for funding the project from start to finish.

What this means, is that regardless of the banking crisis with the original funder which led to the intervention of NAMA, we see Sicon as being contractually bound to fund the entire project from start to finish, with no breaks, or suspension in the programme.

And thus, Sisk have been allowed by WCC to stall the project for almost 4 years now.

Sisk have also been allowed not to spend the very significant annual contingent liability [hundreds of thousands of euro per annum] in controlling the erosion to the north beach, and we have lost much of the headland, far far far beyond what was allowable.

WCC and certain TC’s have tried to publicly obfuscate the line between the ‘market change’ clause [which they also confirmed was in the amended contract] and the obligation by Sicon to fund the project.

In reality, there is no conflict, nor indeed complexity.

Cllr. Tom Fortune eventually got to see the clause, [albeit was expressly told he was not allowed to write it out verbatim, nor was he allowed to bring an expert in to review the clause and its connected clauses] and essentially the market change clause allows Sisk if the market falls continuously for a period of 12 months, to make an application to WCC to change the development to suit the down turn. For example, change from commercial units to more housing units etc. Sisk did just that, but what they threw into the equation was a change to include a primary care centre. We all know the PCC is now not going ahead, and [not surprisingly] was probably never going to go ahead. The PCC in Greystones was never listed by the HSE in its national list of imminent PCC projects & despite the community asking why not, we were fed a long line of bulls**t!! . Sisk finally reported back, having strung the TC and community along for almost 3 years that it was going to happen, that funding would not allow this PCC to be built. They succeeded in stalling the project for almost 3 years on this one point. Go back to the Sicon funding guarantee……..their excuse doesn’t make contractual sense does it?? It was plainly used by Sisk [tolerated by both WCC and out TC] as a stalling tactic to allow the market to recover.

WCC have adopted the position, that the project has never stalled due to this ongoing investigation by Sisk into the PCC. How can this be so I ask? If the PCC failed according to Sisk on the basis of not being able to secure funding, then why not fund it by the parent company guarantee from Sicon??? You can now appreciate why we do not believe a word from WCC.

Secondly, Sisk were given [by way of a gift by our County Manager] 34 additional sites free of charge, more than 2 years ago, to ‘make the project viable’. Two things occur here, (1) The sites were taken from what should have been the community park, and (2) even if they were gifted these sites under the market change clause, then that was on the basis that they continued to build without stalling the programme.

[By the way we conservatively estimate the value of these additional sites at between €15 and €17 million euro,]

Sisk have stalled the programme now for almost 4 years, taken the €17million in sites [thanks WCC!!] and not spent the money to protect our beach and cliffs. [which by the way weve lost the 15m of beach that once was present*

[*Refer to the extensive reporting by John Gerrard]

Now that the market for housing has turned a corner [and housing is in demand again in Greystones], they have decided to build and sell the houses [nothing else] and harvest the huge profits. With no sign or commitment to completing everything else.

Will they sort out the erosion in compliance to ABP and EIS? Seems not – what they have done is superficial and in contravention of the aforesaid documents.

Will they implement elements of the community plan? NO – they do not want to spend any money, and no-body is making them except the supporters of the community plan.

They simply want the profit or to minimise their losses. And why shouldn’t they? If WCC allows it, and our own Town Council heretofore has allowed it, they indeed why shouldn’t they [well done Sisk!!!]

So, what can be done? Well WCC are the enforcing authority, and ought not have allowed Sisk to behave in the manner in which they have. They have a power to instruct Sisk to perform and if Sisk do not, or cannot by a deficit in funding [guaranteed by Sicon] then they are in default under the terms of their contract and can be determined [contract terminated]

What happens here is crystal clear in the documents we have digested:

[Supposing Sisk has spent €80million to date]

WCC terminate the contract, and go out again to Europe to seek tenders from companies to finish the PPP.

Essentially other European Companies are bidding for c400 mixed use sites, building out the infrastructure, and running the scheme for a 30 year concession period.

Say the highest bid WCC receive from tender’s is €65million, then WCC are allowed to offset any costs they have incurred by Sisks default event [that gave rise to a breach of contract and triggered the termination [lack of funding for example] ] say this is €4million, then, Sisk are simply handed back €61million with no further liability to WCC whatsoever. Sisk then lose €19million [80 million less 65 million less 4 million for WCC = 19 million], which is perfectly acceptable and a condition of the contract they tendered, and I am 99.9999999999% sure contracted!

Why has WCC not done just that and saved our community to endure a building site and lack of amenity for 4 years????

Who knows, but our elected representatives heretofore, have allowed them to do just that.

F3 wrote: »

GUBOH have an amazing team of committed professional people who have uncovered and digested much information on what was tendered by WCC. The Contract however, was modified before being finalised with Sisk. And this modification is a closely guarded secret by WCC. However, we feel that they do so only to create a backdrop retreat position because the most fundamental requirement remains and that was confirmed recently by Sean Quirke.

Sicon, the parent company of Sisk/Sispar, have committed to a parent company guarantee for funding the project from start to finish.

What this means, is that regardless of the banking crisis with the original funder which led to the intervention of NAMA, we see Sicon as being contractually bound to fund the entire project from start to finish, with no breaks, or suspension in the programme.

And thus, Sisk have been allowed by WCC to stall the project for almost 4 years now.

Sisk have also been allowed not to spend the very significant annual contingent liability [hundreds of thousands of euro per annum] in controlling the erosion to the north beach, and we have lost much of the headland, far far far beyond what was allowable.

WCC and certain TC’s have tried to publicly obfuscate the line between the ‘market change’ clause [which they also confirmed was in the amended contract] and the obligation by Sicon to fund the project.

In reality, there is no conflict, nor indeed complexity.

Cllr. Tom Fortune eventually got to see the clause, [albeit was expressly told he was not allowed to write it out verbatim, nor was he allowed to bring an expert in to review the clause and its connected clauses] and essentially the market change clause allows Sisk if the market falls continuously for a period of 12 months, to make an application to WCC to change the development to suit the down turn. For example, change from commercial units to more housing units etc. Sisk did just that, but what they threw into the equation was a change to include a primary care centre. We all know the PCC is now not going ahead, and [not surprisingly] was probably never going to go ahead. The PCC in Greystones was never listed by the HSE in its national list of imminent PCC projects & despite the community asking why not, we were fed a long line of bulls**t!! . Sisk finally reported back, having strung the TC and community along for almost 3 years that it was going to happen, that funding would not allow this PCC to be built. They succeeded in stalling the project for almost 3 years on this one point. Go back to the Sicon funding guarantee……..their excuse doesn’t make contractual sense does it?? It was plainly used by Sisk [tolerated by both WCC and out TC] as a stalling tactic to allow the market to recover.

WCC have adopted the position, that the project has never stalled due to this ongoing investigation by Sisk into the PCC. How can this be so I ask? If the PCC failed according to Sisk on the basis of not being able to secure funding, then why not fund it by the parent company guarantee from Sicon??? You can now appreciate why we do not believe a word from WCC.

Secondly, Sisk were given [by way of a gift by our County Manager] 34 additional sites free of charge, more than 2 years ago, to ‘make the project viable’. Two things occur here, (1) The sites were taken from what should have been the community park, and (2) even if they were gifted these sites under the market change clause, then that was on the basis that they continued to build without stalling the programme.

[By the way we conservatively estimate the value of these additional sites at between €15 and €17 million euro,]

Sisk have stalled the programme now for almost 4 years, taken the €17million in sites [thanks WCC!!] and not spent the money to protect our beach and cliffs. [which by the way weve lost the 15m of beach that once was present*

[*Refer to the extensive reporting by John Gerrard]

Now that the market for housing has turned a corner [and housing is in demand again in Greystones], they have decided to build and sell the houses [nothing else] and harvest the huge profits. With no sign or commitment to completing everything else.

Will they sort out the erosion in compliance to ABP and EIS? Seems not – what they have done is superficial and in contravention of the aforesaid documents.

Will they implement elements of the community plan? NO – they do not want to spend any money, and no-body is making them except the supporters of the community plan.

They simply want the profit or to minimise their losses. And why shouldn’t they? If WCC allows it, and our own Town Council heretofore has allowed it, they indeed why shouldn’t they [well done Sisk!!!]

So, what can be done? Well WCC are the enforcing authority, and ought not have allowed Sisk to behave in the manner in which they have. They have a power to instruct Sisk to perform and if Sisk do not, or cannot by a deficit in funding [guaranteed by Sicon] then they are in default under the terms of their contract and can be determined [contract terminated]

What happens here is crystal clear in the documents we have digested:

[Supposing Sisk has spent €80million to date]

WCC terminate the contract, and go out again to Europe to seek tenders from companies to finish the PPP.

Essentially other European Companies are bidding for c400 mixed use sites, building out the infrastructure, and running the scheme for a 30 year concession period.

Say the highest bid WCC receive from tender’s is €65million, then WCC are allowed to offset any costs they have incurred by Sisks default event [that gave rise to a breach of contract and triggered the termination [lack of funding for example] ] say this is €4million, then, Sisk are simply handed back €61million with no further liability to WCC whatsoever. Sisk then lose €19million [80 million less 65 million less 4 million for WCC = 19 million], which is perfectly acceptable and a condition of the contract they tendered, and I am 99.9999999999% sure contracted!

Why has WCC not done just that and saved our community to endure a building site and lack of amenity for 4 years????

Who knows, but our elected representatives heretofore, have allowed them to do just that.

F3, Wasn't it the original position that Sispar had until 2014 to complete/resume or they had to handover the bond to WCC and leave? Now they can complete the apartments ONLY and take the money and run?

Why are Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the parties who supported the handing over of the beach to developers (and every other large developer project, in fairness) not informing people what is going on? (By that, I mean, other than the repetitive Derek Mitchell junk mail telling us how this is the greatest harbour in all of Europe!) The onus is on those who proposed this to get it resolved now. It's interesting that (Mr. Europe), Simon Harris, who originally was against the project has now toed the party line and appears in local FG material applauding the "development". Other than Independents like Tom Fortune, Donnolly and Sinn Fein, it seems we have nobody to represent us politically on these issues? Are Labour doing anything?

Also, there is no reason whatsoever why the tonnes of sand due to be deposited in the North beach every year cannot be deposited. The North beach is a despicable eyesore and unusable.

No other country in Europe would allow this mess go on so long!

legrand wrote: »

Thanks F3 for the detailed insight.

I don't believe for a minute that the TC thought the communiuty plan was meant to replace the development. A case of oops, election coming up - how do we back track from our decison to veto/give 2 fingers to the community [plan].

FF candidiate called to my door and mentioned he met with Guboh. He made no mention of supporting the community plan. He did say it was a 'constructive' meeting but (paraphrasing here) "some of them are have very trenchant views" - that I presume would be you then F3! And he said that is such a way (in my view) as to suggest he understood where Guboh were coming from but that he favoured more dialog with Sisk. I get the impression he felt Guboh were being a bit too hard on Sisk. I reminded him that Guboh existed becase the TC failed to represent the community.

You know what? (and it pains me really) - at the end of the day no matter who gets elected I cannot see any real near term improvement in terms of the harbour as an amenity. And what's worse is that once the housing/commercial development gets started it will be even worse than what we are experiencing today. Bleak huh? And yea I am bitter, really really bitter.

Hi LG, not me who met FF recently, it was others from the group. I did meet with Tarah Hanley and Billy Norman and had a good interactive chat in December last year.

I did formally meet with Sisk Director with Tom Fortune and Stephen Donnelly in Leinster House, for that very reason to open up dialog on the community plan. He started and pretty much finished the meeting by saying "There is no point really in having this meeting, as the Town Council have rejected the Community Plan" where do you go from there?

Agreed but at least its better to vote for Councillors like Tom who are predisposed to support the community plan that those such as Mitchell and McLoughlin who have stated that they wont.
Some of the candidates (eg Tara Hanley) has the community plan on their literature so changing position will be difficult.

I'd day let's elect them and see how we get on!

Tabnabs wrote: »

Mitchell is a well known sailor who bases his small boat in Dun Laoghaire. There's no real sailing scene in Greystones and he'd miss out on his weekly Dublin Bay racing.

No sailing scene for him. There is (and always was) a great sailing scene for us peasants with our dinghies.

But as the last poster says its pretty rich to be claiming its the 4th best harbour in the world(or whatever) when it can't offer decent yacht racing.
(Which is not to belittle the efforts of those trying to build a keelboat fleet)

Only a technical point but there is keelboat racing every Saturday and Wednesday night. Only a handful of boats and certainly not enough to justify Mitchell's claims (or merit his attendance).

If you want decent competition yes you do have to go to Dun Laoghaire.

Statement from Derek Mitchell published this morning on the Greystones Guide

Interesting use of the word "Premise" (as opposed to premises) at the end of the second paragraph. A premise is defined as "an assumption that something is true".

At the last meeting of Greystones Town Council on Tuesday it was announced that work had been completed on the walk to the North Pier and it was expected to open shortly. Also when the seeded grass on part of the site had become established it would be opened to the public this Summer.

The developers have discussed starting to build the Sailing and Angling Clubhouses this year. Cllr. Mcloughlin reported that the Angling Club was keen to get this work completed so it could move into the new premise.

I am pleased that planning for the start of construction of homes and public facilities is going well and hope that the agreement between Sisk and their new partners is concluded quickly, we need to get it finished’ said Cllr. Derek Mitchell

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Statement from GUBOH

EIGHT of the fourteen candidates contesting the Greystones Local Electoral Area have now signed up to a commitment to push for implementation of the Greystones Harbour Community Plan if they are elected.

The eight candidates have agreed to propose or support a resolution at County Council level which will compel the County Manager to implement the Community Plan in conjunction with Sisk. In addition it will require the County Manager to ensure that all the conditions of the planning permission are fully observed.

We are delighted to announce that the following candidates have already agreed to this:
Liz Dillon (Fine Gael)
Tom Fortune (Independent)
Taragh Hanley (Fianna Fail)
Jacqui Johnston (People Before Profit Alliance)
Charlie Keddy (Independent)
Nicola Lawless (Sinn Fein)
Ian McGahon (Labour)
Jennifer Whitmore (Independent)

GUBOH sought this commitment because we felt it essential that we can show we have full and similar commitments to the Community Plan from all those candidates who say that they support it.

We will update the list if we receive more positive responses.

GUBOH is asking voters in the Greystones Local Electoral Area to vote ONLY for candidates who give this explicit commitment to working to implement the Community Plan.

Have the other 6 explicitly refused to support the Community Plan, or has GUBOH just not got an answer off them yet ?

Two candidates, Derek Mitchell and Grainne McLoughlin have consistently opposed the community plan and voted against it at Town Council meetings. We do not anticipate that they will make any commitment. We are hopeful that the other candidates will support the community in time.