McCann objects against Brewery Complex

merlante

lostexpectation wrote:

you still havn't shown me how mccann has anything to do with the refusal of planning!

He has lead a campaign that has galvanised the views of some local residents and many others against the project. He has launched many, many such campaigns in recent times. The City Council, afraid of negative publicity, can be prevailed upon by such campaigns. If it had gotten past the council he would have seen to it that it went in to the Bord Planala lottery.

McCann makes *all* developments, be they good or bad, pass over this minefield. The planning process did not envisage serial, campaign objectors. Because each development can only be considered in isolation, the planning process does not have a mechanism for detecting and dealing with individuals with pan-development agendas.

Even if Bord Planala made the right decisions 100% of the time, which they certainly do not, (they are known for their inconsistency) every single development can be held up for months or years or until the developer goes bankrupt. There is one developer in the papers who was mentioned in this thread who has had to re-mortgage his house because he is unable to do anything with the properties he has bought -- this is a direct result of harassment from McCann. Where is your sympathy for this man?

If you think that McCann really and truly has no effect on the planning process, then you won't mind if he answers our prayers, and heads back home to Galway. He is a cancer on to Waterford at a time when we can least afford it.

col o

lostexpectation wrote:

you still havn't shown me how mccann has anything to do with the refusal of planning!

What do you want me to show you?A smoking gun with McCanns finger prints perhaps.

As merlante said he has galvanised a group of people who are opposed to the shopping centre for different reasons.The reasons given for refusal have been published in the media.These are exactly the same reasons that McCann objected to the project.

As I stated in an earlier post.The only thing these people can agree on is that they don't want the development.If it was left to them to decide on what is best for the area,they wouldn't be able to agree.

As we speak the government is reforming an Bord Pleanala to fast track infrastructure projects.Why is it neccessary to do this?Because of people like McCann.

If you are from Waterford you will be familiar with the pedestrianisation of the city centre that has been ongoing and now complete.McCann attempted to put this on hold because he wanted a full archaeological excavation.This could have held the project up for at least a year. We would have had an Eyre Square type fiasco all because of this man.This was because some animal remains were found.The archaologial reports stated they were of no significance but this wasn't good enough for him.He stated then and later his interest in Waterfords heritage for his objections.However it is the likes of Eddie Mulligan and the people of Waterford who have to suffer the inconveniences created by McCanns indulgence.

I was walking around Mount Sion monastery yesterday.This is going to be developed a large heritage site to attract tourists.As anyone would know who went to the school it is a large monolithic building of major architectural significance.This was built in the 19th century.On the opposite side of the valley formed by St Johns River there is the old infirmary.This is another monolith and also of immense architectural significance.Also built in the 19th century.If we had the same planning laws then and McCann was around these buildings would not have been built.Dotted around the city are similar buildings the little sister and De la Salle as well as St. Johns college.Thank God no McCanns were around then.

Down in railway Square you have the 21st century development and the Maritana gate in Canada St.Another new monolith in New St which is a mixed use development.In among them all are the viking towers and the church steeples.And you know what they all look fine together.

lostexpectation

col o wrote:

What do you want me to show you?A smoking gun with McCanns finger prints perhaps.

As merlante said he has galvanised a group of people who are opposed to the shopping centre for different reasons.The reasons given for refusal have been published in the media.These are exactly the same reasons that McCann objected to the project.

sorry for repeating myself I was looking for credible newpapers articles or reports from APB to see if the shopping centre had been refused because of mccanns unwarrented objection or because it failed planning laws

Bards

From Munster-Express. Reasons are outlined in Bold
======================================

Waterford City Council has refused planning permission for a proposed mixed-use Brewery development in the city centre.

KRM Construction Partnership sought permission for the development, to include a shopping centre, hotel with leisure and conference centre, sports bar with bowling centre, 29 apartments and parking facilities, on a site encompassed by Michael St., New St., Stephen St. and Alexander St.

The reasons for refusal are threefold: 1. The proposed scheme would materially contravene the development objectives for parts of the site set down in the Waterford City Development Plan, to protect, provide and improve residential areas and their amenities in New St. and to preserve and provide for recreational uses, open space and amenity facilities in Wyse Park.

2. The city planners consider that the proposed development, by reason of its overall design and in particular its scale, bulk and massing, would be seriously injurious to the amenities of properties in the vicinity, including residential, by reason of overlooking and overshadowing; it would detract from the setting of protected structures in the vicinity; and would be seriously injurious to the visual amenities of the area.

3. The planning authority is not satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed development would not have significant adverse effects on the environment, in relation to archaeological and architectural heritage considerations.
City Manager Conn Murray confirmed the refusal at Monday night’s City Council meeting, but at the same time stressed that the local authority was very anxious that appropriate development takes place on the site and that the retail sector continues to develop within the city generally. The Council would be positively disposed in that regard, he said.

Cllr. Seamus Ryan voiced the hope that developers would learn from the refusal and the reasons behind it and that more consideration would be given in future to the proper treatment of communities affected.

Cllr. Mary Roche jumped to the defence of the Council’s planning office, saying that public hysteria had been generated by claims that the staff there did not recognise the worries of residents and business people in the area. But the refusal had put that notion to bed.

It is anticipated that a revised plan will be submitted in due course by KRM, taking into account the reasons for refusal first time around, unless they decide to appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

Relief

Responding to City Hall’s decision, the campaign group Waterford Alliance for Sustainable Inner City Development has expressed relief, having been fearful of “inappropriate development slipping through”.

In a statement, chairman Brendan McCann said: “The Alliance considers that the Brewery application was premature and unrealistic for what is a critically important urban site. Given its obvious defects and lack of consideration for the local community and heritage on the site, it is entirely appropriate that the planning application should have been rejected out of hand.

“We would also view the refusal as merely a first step in the process of developing the area in a more holistic and sustainable manner, in consultation with the local community. We believe that any future development proposal should take into account the need to maintain the existing residential communities. Future development should also ensure that existing residents do not have their daylight blocked out and that their quality of life is not diminished by noise, traffic or air pollution. Furthermore, redevelopment proposals should be in keeping with the character of the area and should not result in damage to the archaeological or architectural heritage. This would enhance the potential for sustainable urban tourism in Waterford.

Co-operation

“Finally, we should look at examples elsewhere, especially in Britain, where developers, local communities and environmental and heritage interest groups have worked together to allow development proceed in a more integrated manner. Such co-operation can result in a community dividend whereby the redevelopment of an inner city area can genuinely enhance the quality of life for existing residents. In the current instance we believe that the loss of the De La Salle Centre should be balanced by the provision of a wide range of new community and social facilities in the area”.

Mr. McCann was elected chairman at the first committee meeting of the Alliance on Monday night. Other officers are: Treasurer, Julie Ryan; Secretary, Rena Beirne; Spokesperson, Kitty Kennedy; Fundraiser, John Buckley.

merlante

lostexpectation wrote:

sorry for repeating myself I was looking for credible newpapers articles or reports from APB to see if the shopping centre had been refused because of mccanns unwarrented objection or because it failed planning laws

We will never know the true reasons why each councillor voted the way they did. Some good objections were made, but there is no doubt that the campaign was a strong factor in the way things went.

We will never know if people actually voted for Martin Cullen because he had a shot at becoming a cabinet minister, but you know, it might just have had a bearing!

What you are asking for: a complete & written, connected train of events leading from McCann's involvement in the campaign up to the point when the Brewery application being was denied; simply is not realistic, and if you think about it, ridiculous.

Bookee

Did "Brady" ever get Planning for a big development in O'Connell street? As I remember he was the first to label 'McCannot' a serial objector..

col o

I would like to know.I noticed in the News and Star yesterday he objected to a residential project somewhere out in Kilbarry/Ballyhoo.On the grounds that it would destroy some Hedgerows.Although it got the Green light.

AdMMM

I live with a Councillor and he told me that it was rejected because the plans weren't thought through and there wasn't a proper traffic management plan drawn up. Brendan McCann didn't have much (if anything) to do with it and it was destined to be rejected (this time) since the moment it was submitted!

col o

|.Murderer.| wrote:

I live with a Councillor and he told me that it was rejected because the plans weren't thought through and there wasn't a proper traffic management plan drawn up. Brendan McCann didn't have much (if anything) to do with it and it was destined to be rejected (this time) since the moment it was submitted!

I would agree with 90% of that statement.I saw the plans myself and had a lot of reservations about them.However my opinion was galvanised in favour of the development because McCann was against it.In fact I would almost say the plan was intentionally way over the top because when an amended version is applied for McCanns campaign may have run out of steam.

The real issue here is not whether McCann objected to this.It is that he is impeding the development of Waterford as a whole.It is all very well some people saying he is only exercising his democratic rights but that does not mean it is not an abuse.He has more or less single handedly delayed every project large or small in the city.Many of his reasons are unrealistic and inconsistent.If you took McCanns approach to everything nothing at all would be built and if it was it would take years.They seem to think you can make an omelette without breaking eggs.

We have a new infratructure bill upon us.Why? because Brendan McCann and people like him have held up inportant projects throughout the country,delaying them by years.More often than not for selfish reasons.The result is an erosion of local democracy. The most vocal against the new bill are the Green party but they won't be affected by it.

karma police

|.Murderer.| wrote:

I live with a Councillor and he told me that it was rejected because the plans weren't thought through and there wasn't a proper traffic management plan drawn up. Brendan McCann didn't have much (if anything) to do with it and it was destined to be rejected (this time) since the moment it was submitted!

Well, I've only met Brendan McCann once, can't speak for the inner motives of the man, never attended the objection meeting(s), etc. I can say however that, IMHO, the plans were awful and the whole project smacks of something that was to benefit those who are funding it at the expense of those of us living in the city. I just don't understand how a high rise block overlooking one of our oldest streets is going to enhance anything other than the pockets of the developers. I mean, in all honesty, Waterford is physically a small city. If the tourist industry has spent years trying to get over the fact that Waterford is viewed as a place to drive through on the way to Cork/Kerry then why rush to make it even less attractive. There are European cities where they have taken small walled cities and enhanced their appeal by keeping the high rise development outside the traditional city area. I can't understand why I need to have my local history and the beauty of my city overlooked by something that does not benefit me personally in any way. Waterford city can grow and develop and prosper without some frantic rush to pretend this is New York.

Those are just a few personal thoughts. Again, I don't know Brendan McCann or the developers and am not part of a political interest group. I'm just a regular joe expressing an opinion that will probably fly in the face of some of the more vociferous anti-McCann sentiments that have flown freely and tangentially to this topic. 2c spent.

merlante

To be honest, Karma, most of the anti-McCann people on here are also very proud of the city's history. However, Waterford is unique in Ireland in that the old medieval city centre has been very well preserved because the modern city centre has moved west. The old main streets were High St., Peter St. and Lady Lane. Instead of demolishing these small streets, the Wide Streets Commission, etc., in the 18th century, decided to build large streets around them. Hence The Quay wall was knocked to create a thoroughfare, the Pill was drained to create The Mall and Parnell St. replaced Spring Garden Ally as the main route to John St./Michael St. Also business moved to Barronstand St.(previously Barry's Strand St.)/Broad St./Michael St., etc.

It is because the city centre has moved that there is much less chance of destroying our heritage by developing in the Brewery area. Yes it is still inside the city walls, but it is not so sensitive an area archaelogically -- to the best of anyone's knowledge.

It is an odd and somewhat depressing fact that the Waterford of 1900 was, generally speaking, a higher rise city than it is now. In the economic malaise that followed, older, taller buildings were knocked and replaced by smaller, less ambitious structures. The Shaws building on the Quay is a good example. The huge City Jail & Church on Ballybricken was knocked in 1934. The apartments on Adelphi Quay are much smaller than the buildings that were there in 1900. Buildings all over the city have had floors taken off them.

Now, in 2006, we can't even build to the same height as we could in 1800: that's a fact. Railway Square, The Revenue Building in the Glen and Maritana Gate by the park are rare exceptions. Magnificent buildings that we still have from the past are the De La Salle College, The Infirmary, John's College buildings and the WIT College Green Campus.

I would hate to think that Waterford is winding down to some little tourist town, instead of being a major hub of business and industry as it has always been! Not New York, but not Killarney either!

If you have specific issues with the Brewery plan that was on the table, then fair enough. We should have the right plan. But please don't protest on the basis of height, because Waterford needs larger building in order to support the retail that a city of its size demands. Otherwise we will end up moving the retail outside the city centre and that would be a disaster.

col o

karma police wrote:

There are European cities where they have taken small walled cities and enhanced their appeal by keeping the high rise development outside the traditional city area. I can't understand why I need to have my local history and the beauty of my city overlooked by something that does not benefit me personally in any way. Waterford city can grow and develop and prosper without some frantic rush to pretend this is New York

Frantic rush to pretend it's New York?

The thing about using places in Europe or Britain as an example is you're not comparing like with like.There is Carcassonne in France for example.This is a similar size to Waterford in population.Like it or not their city walls are a lot more impressive.They are near one of Frances major cities Toulouse,which is the size of Dublin.Therefore they are in a much better position to exploit there heritage.There is a similar situation in York which has been put forward as an example Waterford could emulate.York has 2.5 miles of it's city walls still in existence and complete.Added to this they have one of the largest medieval cathedrals in Europe.I'm sorry but I have to put local pride aside and be pragmatic.Waterfords heritage hasn't got this potential.It will never be the basis of our economy,which like it or not is the foundation of our city.We can't pretend to be New York but we're certainly not York either.

Waterford is a small city.Nevertheless in Ireland it is one of the major cities.It has a the same population in realistic terms as Galway but is not reflected in census results for various reasons.It is the regional capital effectively.With that it is necessary to have services and infrastructure.This includes a significant retail area in the city centre which we havn't got (and I'm not advocating driving people out of the inner cty as some might claim).It would be great if we could live in some Utopia where business doesn't drive wealth and our economy is not intertwined with society and it's well being.

All this might not benifit you personally.It doesn't benefit me either.However I want my city to do well and I don;t believe that will be acheived by chasing a pipe dream.You used an interesting term in 'high rise'.This is another problem.Anytime someone like Brendan McCann sees a proposal of more than five floors they start going on about high rise developments. I don't know where this aversion to tall structures came from.Probably from mistakes made in England for example the view of St. Pauls cathedral no longer visible from the Thames.This fear of making mistakes is causing bigger mistakes.In Dublin Docklands there is no tall structures among all the new developments near the point.This has been criticised by a leading British town planner (who is hostile to the motor car and advocates harsh taxes to discourage the use of).It has just created a bland skyline in where there could have been real innovation.

When they start developing the North Quays which is ideal for some high rise every ****er who thinks his has taste and an eye for beauty will be up in arms about claiming it will block out light and it is out of character with the industral 20 story eyesore that is the R&H hall building.They will say it is 'American style 'this and 'American style that' and they won't be happy unless it is the usual bland 2,3 and 4 storey ****e that we are now used to in 21st century Ireland.

meldrew

Well said Col , too many people thimk this is personal with McCann when the real problem with him is he is trying to keep Waterford in the past while every county town around us races ahead in developing 21st century infrastructure .
Only today there was an announcement by the Environment minister of a 200m development in Wexford town and the relocation of his department to that town , you can only imagine the benefits this will bring !
At the same time there is a 100m development going ahead in Kilkenny town ( I refuse to call it a city ) while down here in Waterford all we hear is objection after objection , if we keep going at the rate we're going these two towns are seriously going to impact on our status as the regional capital and gateway city .

lostexpectation

col o wrote:

Frantic rush to pretend it's New York?

When they start developing the North Quays which is ideal for some high rise every ****er who thinks his has taste and an eye for beauty will be up in arms about claiming it will block out light and it is out of character with the industral 20 story eyesore that is the R&H hall building.They will say it is 'American style 'this and 'American style that' and they won't be happy unless it is the usual bland 2,3 and 4 storey ****e that we are now used to in 21st century Ireland.

the three reasons for rejection are vague?? i don't know what that means

i think there is difference between high rise and bulky boxes, and you equate high rise with innovation?? but i take his points and M's about the big buildings being knocked down years ago.

you still seem to be suggesting that a shopping mall won't be built and you'll be all off to the poor houses, no it will be built.

merlante

lostexpectation wrote:

the three reasons for rejection are vague?? i don't know what that means

i think there is difference between high rise and bulky boxes, and you equate high rise with innovation?? but i take his points and M's about the big buildings being knocked down years ago.

you still seem to be suggesting that a shopping mall won't be built and you'll be all off to the poor houses, no it will be built.

I really, really hope you're right. And I really hope it is big enough to support shops likes M&S, Debenhams, HMV, Waterstones, etc.

karma police

just to touch on a few of the comments made by folks in response to a post I'd made this morning......

In relation to Brendan Mccann, well yes, there have been comments made about the man in this thread by folks that are immature at best, so yes at times it's hard to decipher what is reality and what is just petulance in any sentence where he is mentioned.

As far as the problem with high rise goes, I don't have a problem with high rise as such and am familiar enough with my city not to need a lesson in its basic architecture. I do feel that the brewery plan was a mistake. And yes, I am delighted it will not be going ahead in it's present format and can live without a city centre bowling alley. I do wonder at the motives behind many of the planing decisions made by on our behalf especially when I walk past the still almost empty Maritana Gate, but then that's life and it's not me losing money on it.

Anyway, thanks to the folks who went to such lengths to educate me in all this.

col o

lostexpectation wrote:

the three reasons for rejection are vague?? i don't know what that means

i think there is difference between high rise and bulky boxes, and you equate high rise with innovation?? but i take his points and M's about the big buildings being knocked down years ago.

you still seem to be suggesting that a shopping mall won't be built and you'll be all off to the poor houses, no it will be built.

I'm not suggesting that it won't be built.I'm not equating high rise with innovation.The following is a fact..

What is often referred to as 'high rise' in Ireland especially in Waterford is not in fact high rise.It is medium density.

The aversion to high rise is putting a restriction on innovation.This is an undeniable fact.You're potentially blocking an avenue to a landmark structure.

Considering a significant amount of people think anything over five floors is high rise.This exacerbates the problem.

When high rise developments are proposed.There is uproar.Politicians are afraid of losing votes and the height is restriceted.The building usually is not redesigned a few floors are knocked off.The results is 'bulky boxes'.

There was an article in the Irish times on Wednesday describing this using spencer dock as an example.If my memory serves me correctly it was a lecture at one of the uni's by a prominent British town planner.
He gave the developments in Dublins North Docks as a prime example of this.
Bulky boxes all the way and no graceful tall buildings.This was not the original concept.The original may not have been ideal but the result has been a lot worse.

I never said we would be off to the poor house either.My posts have been concerned with developments in Waterford which have been hindered by a group of people who,In my view are a threat to Waterfords place in the region and country.I do notice however your attempts to undermine my arguements with flipant and in one case 'bitchy' remark.This is fine if you want to continue that way.I get the impression your on the verge of playing the man and not the ball.But please read my post properly first.

col o

lostexpectation wrote:

the three reasons for rejection are vague?? i don't know what that means

i think there is difference between high rise and bulky boxes, and you equate high rise with innovation?? but i take his points and M's about the big buildings being knocked down years ago.

you still seem to be suggesting that a shopping mall won't be built and you'll be all off to the poor houses, no it will be built.

I'm not suggesting that it won't be built.I'm not equating high rise with innovation.The following is a fact..

What is often referred to as 'high rise' in Ireland especially in Waterford is not in fact high rise.It is medium density.

The aversion to high rise is putting a restriction on innovation.This is an undeniable fact.You're potentially blocking an avenue to a landmark structure.

Considering a significant amount of people think anything over five floors is high rise.This exacerbates the problem.

When high rise developments are proposed.There is uproar.Politicians are afraid of losing votes and the height is restriceted.The building usually is not redesigned a few floors are knocked off.The results is 'bulky boxes'.

There was an article in the Irish times on Wednesday describing this using spencer dock as an example.If my memory serves me correctly it was a lecture at one of the uni's by a prominent British town planner.
He gave the developments in Dublins North Docks as a prime example of this.
Bulky boxes all the way and no graceful tall buildings.This was not the original concept.The original may not have been ideal but the result has been a lot worse.

I never said we would be off to the poor house either.My posts have been concerned with developments in Waterford which have been hindered by a group of people who,In my view are a threat to Waterfords place in the region and country.I do notice however your attempts to undermine my arguements with flipant and in one case 'bitchy' remark.This is fine if you want to continue that way.I get the impression your on the verge of playing the man and not the ball.But please read my post properly first.

lostexpectation

i only started posting here cos I was amazed at how badly some people were playing the man(mccann) not the ball.

merlante

karma police wrote:

I do wonder at the motives behind many of the planing decisions made by on our behalf especially when I walk past the still almost empty Maritana Gate, but then that's life and it's not me losing money on it..

Hmm. That's funny, I was talking to one of the guys behind the Maritana gate project/idea/vision, who was involved in the development, and who is in my eyes a real fighter for Waterford. He told me last March that it had almost full occupancy!

On one hand you say that developers are only in it for the money. (duh?) And on the other hand you say that developers are idiots for building things that don't make money. So which is it?

Developers want to make money, but in the main, that doesn't mean they'd want to bulldoze the city to make it. At least I've seen no evidence to support such a cynical outlook.

Mossy Monk

karma police wrote:

when I walk past the still almost empty Maritana Gate

what makes you say it is almost empty?

col o

lostexpectation wrote:

i only started posting here cos I was amazed at how badly some people were playing the man(mccann) not the ball.

That is fair enough.I would agree that the thread started off by just slagging off Brendan.However that is expected considering that he has put himself in the public spotlight and upset a lot of people along the way.

The thread has evolved into a more wider debate about Waterford developments but still focused on McCann.This is because Brendan involves himeself in every planning application that is applied for in Waterford.

When you last quoted my post you referred to 'reasons for rejection' being vague.It is unclear what this has to do with the post you quoted.

This and other posts have given me the impression that you want to contradict me or debunk my arguments but havn't got enough information to do so.This in turn leads me to believe it maybe is something personal.

karma police

merlante wrote:

Hmm. That's funny, I was talking to one of the guys behind the Maritana gate project/idea/vision, who was involved in the development, and who is in my eyes a real fighter for Waterford. He told me last March that it had almost full occupancy!

On one hand you say that developers are only in it for the money. (duh?) And on the other hand you say that developers are idiots for building things that don't make money. So which is it?

Developers want to make money, but in the main, that doesn't mean they'd want to bulldoze the city to make it. At least I've seen no evidence to support such a cynical outlook.

wanting to make money, not wanting to make money, wow that's twisting it. OK, you are right, you are right about everything, you were right all along, I should have known you were right when I saw you referring to McCann as a bastard at the top of this thread, yes, there's not much room to hold a different opinion here, yes, I'm probably a bastard for disagreeing with you, you'd probably like to round up all the bastards you don't like and put them in camps. Yes, you are right and I'll not disagree with you over anything ever again, in fact, seems as this is your private rant thread, you can have it back.

col o

karma police wrote:

just to touch on a few of the comments made by folks in response to a post I'd made this morning......

In relation to Brendan Mccann, well yes, there have been comments made about the man in this thread by folks that are immature at best, so yes at times it's hard to decipher what is reality and what is just petulance in any sentence where he is mentioned.

As far as the problem with high rise goes, I don't have a problem with high rise as such and am familiar enough with my city not to need a lesson in its basic architecture. I do feel that the brewery plan was a mistake. And yes, I am delighted it will not be going ahead in it's present format and can live without a city centre bowling alley. I do wonder at the motives behind many of the planing decisions made by on our behalf especially when I walk past the still almost empty Maritana Gate, but then that's life and it's not me losing money on it.

Anyway, thanks to the folks who went to such lengths to educate me in all this.

Of course we can all live without a bowling alley.It would be an ideal amenity to the city centre though.The people who attended the meeting McCann organised largely want to see culturally driven developments on the Brewery site and in Waterford city centre in General.In my opinion the issue of inner city residents lives being didrupted is only a tool they can use to further their aims.Some of the people at the meetings largely want to preserve the status Que in the City centre.

Let's bear in mind though that the City centre for years has been underpopulated.Also there has been a large reduction in the amount of Waterfords retail located in the city centre.There was a lot more social amenities in the city centre up until the late seventies.There was three cinemas (maybe four),We had a synagogue on the manor and a school.There was the old roller disco and the various Ballrooms etc.The economic mess that Ireland became in the seventies closed down a lot of Business in the city centre.Then you had Waterfords population moving out to the suburbs and increased the city centre decay.The city centre as far as retail goes is more like a country town.

You may not have a problem with high rise but you did use the term when describing the shopping centre.I was merely pointing out that it isn't a high rise structure.You also spoke in terms of personal benefit when talking about it.It may be of benifit to the greater number of people of the region.

meldrew

karma police wrote:

wanting to make money, not wanting to make money, wow that's twisting it. OK, you are right, you are right about everything, you were right all along, I should have known you were right when I saw you referring to McCann as a bastard at the top of this thread, yes, there's not much room to hold a different opinion here, yes, I'm probably a bastard for disagreeing with you, you'd probably like to round up all the bastards you don't like and put them in camps. Yes, you are right and I'll not disagree with you over anything ever again, in fact, seems as this is your private rant thread, you can have it back.

Thats a bit strong obviously you dont like people not agreeing with you either

Bards

Can I remind people that Brendan McCann tried to stop the Pedestrianisation of Broad street because he found a few animal bones!!!!!

How many jobs would he have put at jeopardy if he was to succeed... He is a Very Dangerous person and should be treated as such


It fails me as to how an unelected individual can weild so much influence in the development of our City. I thought we lived in a democracy but I am becoming more convinced everyday that we live in some kind of dictatorship with Brendan McCann at the helm.

If we are living in a democracy than I believe the majority of people would like Brendan McCann to stop using the planning system for his own ends, but this is not going to happen

mike65

Chaps calm down eh? I got notice of an abusive post from a user, the post in question is okay (it does'nt contain personal abuse aimed at anyone here) but temps are getting high for no good purpose.

Mike.

merlante

Bards wrote:

Can I remind people that Brendan McCann tried to stop the Pedestrianisation of Broad street because he found a few animal bones!!!!!

How many jobs would he have put at jeopardy if he was to succeed... He is a Very Dangerous person and should be treated as such


It fails me as to how an unelected individual can weild so much influence in the development of our City. I thought we lived in a democracy but I am becoming more convinced everyday that we live in some kind of dictatorship with Brendan McCann at the helm.

If we are living in a democracy than I believe the majority of people would like Brendan McCann to stop using the planning system for his own ends, but this is not going to happen

The system was obviously not designed to cope with people like Brendan McCann. I have been accused of using strong words with regard to McCann on this, and maybe other, threads, but I believe I am completely justified in so doing. I am not a person given to exaggeration, but still I say that this man is single-handedly harming Waterford, and therefore strong words are required.

The law should be changed to cut out serial objectors and crack down on people with agendas wielding a level of power that they were not democratically given. The man has stood for election and he has failed to get elected, yet he thinks that everyone is behind him.

Bookee

If "McCannot" kept his nose out, we'd all be happy, the people defending him would be happy, and even HE might be a little happy. This Thread wouldn't even exist if he kept his nose out.
Local people are well able to object, all by themselves, usually for valid reasons. Let's leave the objections to the locals whom it might actually concern....!!?

col o

mike65 wrote:

Chaps calm down eh? I got notice of an abusive post from a user, the post in question is okay (it does'nt contain personal abuse aimed at anyone here) but temps are getting high for no good purpose.

Mike.

To be honest mike most of the posters here have done their homework on the issue.Some people posted disagreement without much substance in their reasoning.It is reasonable to pick holes in their posts.It is no reasonable to start flying off the handle just because people with oppsosite views to you don't just roll over and start agreeing with you.