Greystones Marina

sportbilly

Marcais wrote:

"the cramped current town centre and harbour"!!

If I recall, you were one of the misguided few who supported the €300m, 900k tonne Marina. Ambiguity worthy of a town councillor. Are you a town councillor by the way? As you seem to have unquestioning support for all their proposals. Or are you a developer?

And, by the way, the sea is not merely a playground for watersports enthusiasts, and hopefully your jetskis won't be bothering seals on the South Beach side for a long time to come.

ps. a small harbour on the South Beach might be acceptable if the obnoxious GReystones Marina goes ahead. However, the downside of all developers' plans is the "fill in the gaps with houses" as soon as possible philosophy.

That's right I do support the new marina proposals, I have seen the plans for the north beach, I have been at the public meetings. I must admit I haven't seen the plans for the south beach development yet.

The sea is not merely a playground for watersports but it is the biggest free access amenity in the town. Access to it for recreational purposes needs to be increased. When "the men's" was in its prime with well maintained diving board, raft and bridge it was packed everyday of the summer. It has been allowed to fall into decline. This was a modest facility but was/is used by many people. Imagine the amount of activity there could be with even better facilities. I too am not a fan of jet skis, they are pointless as a recreational watersport. Good for lifesaving though.

I agree with the person who said the surrounding infrastructure needs to be addressed, but I believe that the road network in the south end of the town is superior to the northern end.

The reason why so few people air support for the marina in public is because of the situation I find my self facing now. Anyone who supports development is "in the pocket of the developers" or getting "brown envelopes".

If one in anyway supports the development of anything in Greystones these days you get jumped on by a group of self righteous, self appointed guardians of the status quo, who are intolerant of other peoples opinions and are not open to rational debate.

That's my tuppence worth, I look forward to the usual castigation!

future_plans

Sportbilly, I fully respect and acknowledge the fact that there may be residents in Greystones who support and look forward to such developments. For many people, development is progress and what the town will lose in the natural beauty of the beaches or the quaint attraction of the existing harbour, it will gain in being a new, ultra modern, award winning urban development. It is no doubt that if these developments go ahead, Greystones will be changed forever and will resemble more the west coast of American rather than the east coast of Ireland. And perhaps such development will add to the value of all existing properties in the locality so everybody wins.....

Although, I do not know if the above meantioned reasons are partial to your way of thinking because you have not fully explained why you support these developments other giving some vague "political" answers in the form of "moving the focus" and other such comments. Perhaps if you explained your view more, then other people will be able to understand where you are coming from and perhaps accept the merit of your opinions.

In any case, I do agree with you that the old harbour has been allowed fall into decline over the last 20 years and I am in favour of some redevelopment of the area. However I am bewildered by the scale of both the proposals (North and South beaches) and I cannot understand why public representitives feel that redevelopment on such a scale is required. As a Greystones resident, I would hate to see this beautiful village lose its unique appeal and identity and that is what will happen with such large scale changes. I cannot understand why local counsillors do not feel the same way.

Most likely, these developments will go ahead eventually because there are just too many big fish out there and in 20 years people will look back on the old photographs of Bray head, the harbour and the south beach and wonder what they think was so wrong with it all......

Marcais

sportbilly wrote:

That's right I do support the new marina proposals, I have seen the plans for the north beach, I have been at the public meetings. I must admit I haven't seen the plans for the south beach development yet.

The sea is not merely a playground for watersports but it is the biggest free access amenity in the town. Access to it for recreational purposes needs to be increased. When "the men's" was in its prime with well maintained diving board, raft and bridge it was packed everyday of the summer. It has been allowed to fall into decline. This was a modest facility but was/is used by many people. Imagine the amount of activity there could be with even better facilities. I too am not a fan of jet skis, they are pointless as a recreational watersport. Good for lifesaving though.

I agree with the person who said the surrounding infrastructure needs to be addressed, but I believe that the road network in the south end of the town is superior to the northern end.

The reason why so few people air support for the marina in public is because of the situation I find my self facing now. Anyone who supports development is "in the pocket of the developers" or getting "brown envelopes".

If one in anyway supports the development of anything in Greystones these days you get jumped on by a group of self righteous, self appointed guardians of the status quo, who are intolerant of other peoples opinions and are not open to rational debate.

That's my tuppence worth, I look forward to the usual castigation!

Apologies if it appeared like castigation but your reference your statement of support of the South Beach development stating that it takes development away from the overcrowded harbour and village whilst you support the overdevelopment of the harbour is ambiguous at best...could you clarify?

Fiachra2

I would have two comments on Sportbilly's post.

With regard to castigation I would accept that some people do react very strongly but doesn't that tell us something? I can look at a Kandinsky painting and my natural reaction is that its rubbish and a 5year old could do something similar. However I have to accept that there is a body of people, more perceptive than I, who think its wonderful. Something similar applies here. Quite clearly many people feel very strongly about the North Beach. So strongly that they react angrily to those who wish to build on it. Why not accept that they have a point of view? Why not work towards a compromise? Why let WCC steamroll its plans through against the wishes of a huge number of the population?

You are quite right about the Mens and indeed the old harbour. They were fantastic 30 years ago and WCC let them fall into ruin. That is no excuse for allowing WCC, hand in hand with a commercial developer, wreck the things we love about the place. Why not insist that WCC restore or rebuild a small harbour that has character and which will serve the needs of those who use the sea without compromising the facilites which the community values so much. The sollution here is blindingly simple. Lets get back the great amenties we had when we were kids. Then we can all be happy.

sportbilly

I'll try to address some of the questions but I'm not very good at this kind of thing!

Under the national spatial plan the population of Greystones/Delgany is planned to reach 21k by 2010 . If you consider that many of the people currently moving to Greytones are young couples one can assume that hopefully they will settle in the area and bring up their families here too. As we also know people are living longer so over time the population will naturally increase further. These people will need recreational amenities.

For this reason I believe that two harbours are better than one. I know this may sound like a very juvenile or simple, ill thought out reason for my support but I don't believe we should look a gift horse in the mouth.

As for the main harbour development. I'm not fully au fait with the scaled down plans but my understanding is that it doesn't address the erosion issues along the north beach and would not be a self financing/sustainable development which would rule it out for PPP funding. This would mean that we would be back to relying on the CoCo to fund, develop and maintain the scaled down development.

For these reasons I support the larger development as I can see if this doesn't go ahead nothing will and the harbour will deteriorate further along with the erosion of Darcy's.

Furthermore currenlty facilities for young people are not of the highest standard. I know this because there has been little improvement in the last 15-20 years since I was running around the town!

There have been some improvements lately and some further are planned. Some facilities have been funded by developers; Greystones Mariners Little League Diamond and the Astroturf Football pitches. Others planned by the community like the proposed swimming pool and community centre. The ones tied into private developments are delivered quicker.

These are some of the reasons behind my support for redeveloping the existing harbour and possibly developing a second south harbour, although admittedly I need to look at the plans for the southern development in more detail at some stage.

Fiachra2

With regard to the small V large plan. the facts are actually as follows:

1. The WCC plan does not solve coastal erosion. It makes it worse. (This is not a matter of dispute, it is clearly stated in their EIS document and admitted by the engineers at the Oral hearing.) For this reason they will have to dump 30,000 tonnes of gravel on what will be left of the beach every year to stop the cliffs from washing away very quickly. Even at that this will only slow down the rate of erosion. It wont stop it. The coast will continue to erode.

2. The development is not a self sustaining PPP. A 230 berth marina is not financially viable and will require a subsuidy from the Council. It is expected that this will come from the rental from the commercial units in the development but there is no contingency plan if the units dont yield enough rent. (The same units also have to finace maintenace of the devlopment, maintenance of the public park and the item at 1 above. This sounds like a lot and we would have liked to investigate the financial viability but naturally WCC will reveal no details of the finances of the project even though the Public are meant to be partners in it)

I would again stress that this is all documented at the EIS and Oral Hearing it is not a meter of opinion on my part.

The small scale development does not address the erosion issue but at least it doesnt make it worse like the WCC Plan!
It was much more financially viable because it did not include an expensive marina. Claims to the contrary by local public reps are not supported by the Councils own assesment of our plans.

I take your point about using housing developments to finance facilities however we must be very careful how this is done. It should be totally open and the community should have a say in what facilities are provided and assessing whether value for money is received. At present that doesnt happen.

Dont be discouraged from debating this matter. Its a pity George Kathleen and Derek woudn't do so.

Ossie

sportbilly wrote:

As for the main harbour development. I'm not fully au fait with the scaled down plans but my understanding is that it doesn't address the erosion issues along the north beach and would not be a self financing/sustainable development which would rule it out for PPP funding. This would mean that we would be back to relying on the CoCo to fund, develop and maintain the scaled down development.

For these reasons I support the larger development as I can see if this doesn't go ahead nothing will and the harbour will deteriorate further along with the erosion of Darcy's.

Sean Quirke stated recently in the Wicklow Times that the new development will cause more coastal erosion. The cliff walk will be destroyed by the 2 huge breakwaters protecting the commercial buildings in the reclaimed foreshore. WCC should sell land elsewhere in Greystones to fund the refurbishment of the existing harbour without giving the foreshore away to private developers who are only interested in a quick profit.:mad:

When the **** hits the fan in about 20 years with the harbour destroyed, with the clay cliffs eroded up to the railway line, with the owners of the apartments no longer able get insurance on their homes due to constant flooding these developers will be long gone. :mad:

Marcais

Ossie wrote:

Sean Quirke stated recently in the Wicklow Times that the new development will cause more coastal erosion. The cliff walk will be destroyed by the 2 huge breakwaters protecting the commercial buildings in the reclaimed foreshore. WCC should sell land elsewhere in Greystones to fund the refurbishment of the existing harbour without giving the foreshore away to private developers who are only interested in a quick profit.:mad:

When the **** hits the fan in about 20 years with the harbour destroyed, with the clay cliffs eroded up to the railway line, with the owners of the apartments no longer able get insurance on their homes due to constant flooding these developers will be long gone. :mad:

Sean Quirke is one of the main proponents of the Marina and he said this

Marcais

Coucillor Kelleher has stated that many people formerly opposed to the Marina are now in favour, like all of her statements on this one sided* issue, totally unsupported. There were 6,000 submissions against the Marina, I woud ask her to name one of these that have changed their mind?

The councillors claim they have consulted with the people on this act of ...they have not, they misunderstand the term "consult"

consult  /v. knslt; n. knslt, knslt/ Pronunciation[v. kuhn-suhlt; n. kon-suhlt, kuhn-suhlt]

–verb (used with object) 1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from: Consult your lawyer before signing the contract.

2. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans.

Consultation is not meeting people to tell them why what you are going to do is right no matter what, it's actually a two way process.

They have shown no regard for our views and dismissed them outright. K. Kelleher decribed people opposing the harbour as AGITATORS, that is the level of disregard she has for the majority view. I am not an agitator but, walking down Trafalgar Rd. (now that name is something that could change!) looking out to Bray Head to teh Victorian Day, I was certainly agitate, I could not help but think of the proposed view, the back of 5 story apartments as anything other than environmental terrorism

(*one-sided rather that "divisive" as 90+ are opposed to it, Dick Roche agrees that the majority are opposed, and agreed that the FF councillor's view is "doing him no favours")

Bertie

I for one have changed my mind having discussed it at length with some neighbours over dinner as has my partner and some of our friends I can count about 15 so from our point of view when we signed the petition we were only exposed to the negative impact now more informed or self informed after researching the project from both ends I agree the balance of the argument seems to be with the revised development.
As for the argument put up for the cliff walk disappearing if it stays the way it is its going to disappear anyway and currently greystones is a sprawling commercial shambles moving a new park down to the harbour would give the town a heart or centre.The harbour at present is also hazardous and totally delapidated.

Marcais

Bertie wrote:

I for one have changed my mind having discussed it at length with some neighbours over dinner as has my partner and some of our friends I can count about 15 so from our point of view when we signed the petition we were only exposed to the negative impact now more informed or self informed after researching the project from both ends I agree the balance of the argument seems to be with the revised development.
As for the argument put up for the cliff walk disappearing if it stays the way it is its going to disappear anyway and currently greystones is a sprawling commercial shambles moving a new park down to the harbour would give the town a heart or centre.The harbour at present is also hazardous and totally delapidated.

Bernie, your signing of a petition would not be considered as one of the 6,000 petitions that went into An Bord Pleanala and probably not one of the reversals that K. Kelleleher was referring to. By the way, I would suggest that anybody signing a petition only does so having made themeselves aware of all sides of the argument, as I'm sure the majority of individuals submitting objections and sitting through the oral hearings did.

Could you give us an idea of the new knowledge gained by you since signing a petition because there is certainly nothing in the revised plans which differ in any great shape or form from the original submission.

gstonesmx5

surley marcais a change of mind is free to all without explanation.
if you can sign a petition with what you think is an enformed oppinion i would think as you intemated above that as you get more information over time you would be entitled to change your opinion without need to explain yourself.
i did not sign the petition because i wanted more info at the time and all i could get was the negative because apparently nothing was positive about it. my position now is i'm for the harbour development. development and the future catches up with every one and every place. seeing as the harbour has been left in such disrepair i think development will only serve to improve the area. however the in water defences that are planed i think will need improving and more research done as it seems to me to be somewhat haphazard at this time but with more info i might change my oppinion.

my two cents

Bertie

When we signed the petition we amongst about 3000 ie the majority of new residents in the "new" developments were quite new to the area.We had a lot of propaganda or should I say literature in the doors explaining why the development was "bad thing" we were then canvassed or petitioned door to door by those with petitions who explained and I quote" most of the community are against this " this would be catastrophic for the town" when I asked them to call back it was said that there just days to get the petition in --which proved untrue afterwards and it was vital to get my signature Again I protested but was again pressed further at that stage we signed on the one hand just to be rid of the person. Considering this ,and what I had read and in an effort to support my new community I signed.This was the case with most of my neighbours and partners family living in the area also, we have discussed it since the pestering is what stood out.
Now I know that some individuals can get over zealous and emotive on a petition campaign and a cause they believe themselves to be right on but this one driven individual could have pestered a couple of hundred if not a lot more into signing.
A petition like a poll or election is a snapshot in time of the thoughts and views of people and believe it or not peoples attitudes and impressions can change just as mine an quite a few others in Charlesland and Greystones have whenever the topic is brought up . I'm quite sure this could be said in other new developments in the area. According as we settled into the area and got to know the territory and became more informed of both sides of the argument our view changed.
I would consider the petition to be invalid now as time has moved on and would challenge you to strengthen your argument if you think it is strong by re petitioning also and using that for your campaign
Also 6000 signed was there any attempt to petition how many are in favour?Are they to be ignored ! Gagged! Going on the areas petitioned outside of the Greystones census area Eden Gate And Charlesland are in Kilcoole and Kilquade census areas.They were petitioned as were parts of Delgany.Yet it was presented as 6000 signatures in Greystones this cannot be denied as the media carried this story which gives a false perspective
.What about the other 16000 or so population adding up the census figures of the areas petitioned.Are their opinions not valued last time I looked this was a democracy.A majority decides in a democracy every one has the right to a voice.
Charlesland and Eden Gate make up about 4500 newbies probably all as ill informed as I was at the date of petitioning even though my partner is from Greystones admitted to being ill informed as we had being living away from the area for years.
Looking at the new electoral register and prelim census 1400 houses and apts and 300 apts and houses respectively make up these 2 developments .Almost 3000 new voters in charlesland and Eden Gate.What about the transient rental or non national residents were they petitioned.Do they still live here. A lot of Questionable issues around this petition.A new fairer on should be carried out giving both sides a voice.

Sparks115

Bertie wrote:

When we signed the petition we amongst about 3000 ie the majority of new residents in the "new" developments were quite new to the area.We had a lot of propaganda or should I say literature in the doors explaining why the development was "bad thing" we were then canvassed or petitioned door to door by those with petitions who explained and I quote" most of the community are against this " this would be catastrophic for the town" when I asked them to call back it was said that there just days to get the petition in --which proved untrue afterwards and it was vital to get my signature Again I protested but was again pressed further at that stage we signed on the one hand just to be rid of the person. Considering this ,and what I had read and in an effort to support my new community I signed.This was the case with most of my neighbours and partners family living in the area also, we have discussed it since the pestering is what stood out.
Now I know that some individuals can get over zealous and emotive on a petition campaign and a cause they believe themselves to be right on but this one driven individual could have pestered a couple of hundred if not a lot more into signing.
A petition like a poll or election is a snapshot in time of the thoughts and views of people and believe it or not peoples attitudes and impressions can change just as mine an quite a few others in Charlesland and Greystones have whenever the topic is brought up . I'm quite sure this could be said in other new developments in the area. According as we settled into the area and got to know the territory and became more informed of both sides of the argument our view changed.
I would consider the petition to be invalid now as time has moved on and would challenge you to strengthen your argument if you think it is strong by re petitioning also and using that for your campaign
Also 6000 signed was there any attempt to petition how many are in favour?Are they to be ignored ! Gagged! Going on the areas petitioned outside of the Greystones census area Eden Gate And Charlesland are in Kilcoole and Kilquade census areas.They were petitioned as were parts of Delgany.Yet it was presented as 6000 signatures in Greystones this cannot be denied as the media carried this story which gives a false perspective
.What about the other 16000 or so population adding up the census figures of the areas petitioned.Are their opinions not valued last time I looked this was a democracy.A majority decides in a democracy every one has the right to a voice.
Charlesland and Eden Gate make up about 4500 newbies probably all as ill informed as I was at the date of petitioning even though my partner is from Greystones admitted to being ill informed as we had being living away from the area for years.
Looking at the new electoral register and prelim census 1400 houses and apts and 300 apts and houses respectively make up these 2 developments .Almost 3000 new voters in charlesland and Eden Gate.What about the transient rental or non national residents were they petitioned.Do they still live here. A lot of Questionable issues around this petition.A new fairer on should be carried out giving both sides a voice.

Bertie....it seems you have changed your mind quiet a bit lately and turned to what seems the dark side!!! I can only say its been nice reading your past mails but now I bore of your latest remarks on several trhreads regarding your blatant turn around and "newly found ideas" it seems the dark side has taken over and you are now " using what I would call political crap talk by putting others down" to make your point...as my grandad once said...if you having nothing positive or nice to say dont say anything at all. Education is Knowledge...Knowledge is power...Power can be corrupted and indeed my friend...... it seems very easliy. But the force is still strong with the rest of us and we aim to build a better future for ourselves and children here in Greystones.:D Isnt that what we all want...(except those with the brown envelopes);)

Fiachra2

In fairness bertie has the right to change his mind. I am interested that he has done so and the reasons for so doing. I find it hard to understand that people feel they only got one side of the storey. The GPDA produced only one or two leaflets. WCC and the pro-marina group proudeced a whole raft af glossy leaflets, christmas cards etc as well as public displays and more than their fair share of coverage in the media reports of the one-sided debate that goes on in the Town Council.

I would be interested to know if you changed your mind as a result of the changes in the plans or simply because you now know more about the background to the project and that you would have supported the original plan had you known more?

I think do however think your challenge to the 6000 signatures is rather unfair. While there may have been one or two zealots out collecting signatures, most of them were ordianry joes, many of the quite timid, for whom the job was a real challenge. I know only two well after 10 years of canvassing, collecting signaturs etc that getting 6000 is a phenomenal result and clearly signifies the feelings of the majority in the town.

So lets keep this debate going. It informs all our views!

red_bairn

I'm only a minor when it comes to these politics yet it matters a great deal to me as I'v been brought here in Greystones and lived here for almost twenty years now. I do NOT want Greystones to be pushed into the shadows of rich businessmen! I love the way our town is and do NOT want a massive development going on down the road. This project is gonna cause more problems then fixing them if it ends up like a Miami Vice harbour area. The traffic which will build up on our roads means that we will have to build more roads which means that we will have to destroy even more of the landscape instead of preserving our land. I am for the people who want to fix up the Bray-Greystones Cliff Walk and to strengthen the piers in the Harbour and perhaps build a facility for rowing/sailing. But when it comes to hotels or more shops along the seafront or high rise buildings I just shake me head and say no, no, no. We have got to preserve our landscape, our waterscapes and our traditional style.

tomflynn

INCH wrote:

except those with the brown envelopes);)

Its a cop out for posters to continuously question politicians and public officials integrity. Debating the diverse views and opinions held on developments or proposed developments is positive. However hinting at 'irregularities' when you feel a decision may favour proponants of any scheme rather than supporting your preferred view or outcome is uncalled for. Play the ball not the man.

iknowitall

Have to agree debate should be about the issues.

Ossie

The people still have not seen these revised plans over 2 weeks later.:mad: This is indicative of the ultra secretive non consultative approach adopted by WCC/Sispar to this whole development. From the press release it appears to me that nothing much apart from a few cosmetic alterations has changed.

• There will still be traffic chaos for a 5 year period.
• There will still be increased coastal erosion nort of the development
• There will still be a cancer causing concrete factory on the harbour
• Ther will still be 5 story apartments destroying the landscape
• The breakwaters are still too low with wave overtopping and flooding
• The dump will still be left on the harbour
• the public beach will still be handed over to the property developers

The people promoting this inappropriate development must not yet have heard of Global Warming and rising sea levels. The structures in the sea will have a very short design life. (30 years max!!)

The idea of proper and sustainable development is absent from this hideous unwanted development.:mad:

Sparks115

[*]the public beach will still be handed over to the property developers


Can someone please tell what part of this they agree with??? The beach is public and therefore an example is being set here for all future coasts of Ireland. If we allow the property developers to take our beaches what will they do next. I cant understand how anyone in their right mind would find this anyway acceptable and would love to hear Berties newly found ideas on this or anyones elses how they can justify it at what cost!!!

Personally I have never felt so strongly about anything in my life and this point is my main problem with the development. I have talked to other mothers and familys in the area and they agree developers have no right to take over public beaches and the day that this is allowed will be a very sad day for us morally and for anyone with an ounce of common decency but it seems there are very few of those people left. And yes I do think that certain people are corrupt and dont think for one second that people are going to think otherwise. Since I have moved to Greystones I have heard and seen nothing to say otherwise and from all the meetings and interviews with the people involved I would say they have showed their true colours!!
By god Brown envelopes and kick backs are a plenty in co wicklow...there must be a tree somewhere growing them!!!! happy days for all those with no morals.:D

Bertie

INCH wrote:

Bertie....it seems you have changed your mind quiet a bit lately and turned to what seems the dark side!!! I can only say its been nice reading your past mails but now I bore of your latest remarks on several trhreads regarding your blatant turn around and "newly found ideas" it seems the dark side has taken over and you are now " using what I would call political crap talk by putting others down" to make your point...as my grandad once said...if you having nothing positive or nice to say dont say anything at all. Education is Knowledge...Knowledge is power...Power can be corrupted and indeed my friend...... it seems very easliy. But the force is still strong with the rest of us and we aim to build a better future for ourselves and children here in Greystones.:D Isnt that what we all want...(except those with the brown envelopes);)

Changed my mind quite a bit "new found ideas" --where else have you evidence of this inch --"Dark Side" we're on the real planet here these are real issues affecting real people and the future of the area not a star wars fantasy."Political crap talk":( I just give the other side3of the story- obviously you dont want to hear or see it."Education is Knowledge etc etc ..."-this the real claptrap .Education is knowledge and the abitlity to absorb this knowledge and form a view point.Thats what I did Educated myself to the whole project .
Marcais agreed with me on another thread that we will see a linking up of greystones Killincarraig Kilcoole and Delgany in the long term and we must look to this and create a proper Centre in Greystones as a focal point of this community not a sprawl for miles with no identity and no heart in it.Look at Tallaght.We can all disagree with each other but at the same time we must be ready . Look at Lucan and the west of Dublin its comin our way and we cannot stop it.
Losing a small stretch of Coastline less than quarter of a mile is small sacrifice, look at Dublin there must be over 40 miles of coastline changed over the centuries its simple progression of the human race.-
-Brown envelopes what are you on about show me the proof not the speculation or rumour.Do this or just leave it it alone.I'm sure individual councillors in the area are going to love your acussation when they see it.
I am only expressing my viewpoint just as you can yours- what happened to freedom of expression Fiachra allowed my view point to be expressed as I his even though we may not agree with each other-- but you would prefer not to allow it to be expressed at all by the tone of your pontification. Maybe just maybe you were one of those "overzealous people that fiachra said were a minority on the petition campaign pestering people into signing :eek:

Sparks115

Bertie.... I think we probably both want the same thing in the long run. Proper development and forethought for the future of the area. If you have been lucky enough to have been given new and updated information other than what has been posted or told to you by local councillers and politicians then fine. Yes you do have a right to free speech and I never said you didnt. I would just like to understand why the change of heart on the views of the Marina development and why you think its ok for our shores to be sold to developers. I have a view too and i also tlak to others about what is intended for the future and there will always be a difference of opinion so lets not continue arguing with each other we both want a better future for our familys but we my debate is at what cost.:D

Marcais

Duplicate Post - Deleted

gomarinago

This Marina needs to be built now.If these objections continue it may fail and we may be waiting another 10 years for development of the harbour while the whole surrounding area develops and we are hearing screams of no facilities again.
Or we could end up with a far different and larger development.
The yacht club boat club and scouts all need new facilities and the south beach has ample space to leave as it is and cater for those of us that have greener credentials.
I think that focus as some posters have said should be on the greater greystones area and forcing the council to come with a proper development plan.
Housing estates are going up willy nilly all over the place with no focus or no integrated plan recently we see more dev at Eden gate ,Killincarraig roundabout and it looks like charlesland is likely to do so too from the posts I see here and Kilcoole village is exploding and yesterday driving through delgany on the hill across the Glen from the Church of Ireland I saw massive land clearance and large mature trees being toppled whats this about?Look at the new commercial centre in blacklion taking businesses away from the town centre.The Greystones area is going to be a planning disaster zone in a few years if it isn't taken in hand.As it stood it wasa pretty well laid out area with Sports facilities in one zone commercial in the town itself and the various residential areas orbiting this.At the rate things are going in a few years you'll have to go to Charlesland to visit the Garda station all the way across to go to Tesco.To Blacklion to go to a florist as I hear five businesses on the main street are relocating there.And from rumours floating about about the fate of our pubs Burnaby and beach house/Danns you'll probably have to go to Delgany or Willow Grove for a half decent pint.I'm thinking of selling up and shipping out like most of Church road are doing.:mad:

Marcais

tomflynn wrote:

Its a cop out for posters to continuously question politicians and public officials integrity. Debating the diverse views and opinions held on developments or proposed developments is positive. However hinting at 'irregularities' when you feel a decision may favour proponants of any scheme rather than supporting your preferred view or outcome is uncalled for. Play the ball not the man.

Branding somebody who objects to: 341 apartments and a car park where a harbour of natural beauty now exists and, objects also to the building of 210 houses behind his own (when he purchased his property expecting that this would not be the case and the zoning supported this), as: a liberal tree-hugger, somebody who objects to everything as if just for the sake of objecting, and questioning his activity in relation to other local issues is certainly a cop-out. I could certainly address the questions as to how active I have been in my short time here in regards to Charlesland issues Bertie and put you to shame;) but that is not the topic!

Now, back on topic...Greystones Marina

1. The harbour is in a state of disrepair and should be refurbished, nobody disagrees, so this point does not need to be repeated time and time again.

2. Any refurbishment needs to be financed - agreed

3. The €300m Marina is the only option - NO - as pointed out many times in the thread, the GPDA put forward a much more modest self-financing proposal. This was dismissed by the Council as not being finacially viable (a shortfall of €8m according to their review). However, the costings used had the 70 houses proposed valued at below €300k! Harbourside houses with a lifetime view almost as far as Wales.....put me down for 3 please.

Sispar stated that the removal of any apartments from the 375 originally proposed would not be financially viable, but now say that it is viable with less units because of the growth in property prices. So where would this growth put the GPDA proposal, how much would those 70 houses sell for?

Their review also stated that the GPDA proposal would lead to silting and not solve the erosion problems, they now accept that not only will the €300m Marina not solve the erosion problems, it will in all probability cause worse erosion!

It has been reported that the Council have spent €3m to date on the Marina proposals and it cost €155k of Council money (i.e. our money) for the oral hearings, where councillors sat for 7 days. This would have gone a long way towards the €15m needed by the Council to "fix" the harbour (per Derek Mitchell outside Greystones town council building) and almost 50% of the (so called) shortfall to make the GPDA plan viable and satisfy everybody, except Sispar.

George Mitchell's Neswletter (paid for by us and insulting our intelligence) called on everybody to get behind the amended plans (i.e. 375 minus 34 apartments!) If we could all agree to get behind something, surely we could get behind a sensitive, imaginitive harbour development?

BY THE WAY BERTIE! The petition you say you signed and since changed your mind, was this the same petition you said you didn't sign in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50921864&postcount=101 ....credibility....

Fiachra2

gomarinago wrote:

This Marina needs to be built now.If these objections continue it may fail and we may be waiting another 10 years for development of the harbour while the whole surrounding area develops and we are hearing screams of no facilities again.
Or we could end up with a far different and larger development.
The yacht club boat club and scouts all need new facilities and the south beach has ample space to leave as it is and cater for those of us that have greener credentials.
I think that focus as some posters have said should be on the greater greystones area and forcing the council to come with a proper development plan.
]

Fair point but isnt there a massive contardiction in what you are saying?

The community want a small scale sensitive harbour development. The Council refuses to do this and insists on a massive housing development. You are arguing that we should let them have their way and instead "force" them to prepare a proper development plan. If we cant make them do what we want vis -a vis the harbour what chance have we got of making them conform to the comunities wishes with regard to the area as a whole?

Another point you should rememebr about the harbour. What is being built is not something which is designed to serve some pent up demand for marine activities. The combimed membership of the marine clubs represents 2% of the entire population of Greystones! The Council have admitted that the marina will loose money. It is an excuse to build houses. If the objective was to build a cost effective facility to accomodate local demand (present and future) they would be looking at something much smaller.
And dont forget the sailing club have objected to the proposal becuse under the current plans we are actully loosing out!

That said I agree entirely with your sentiments about the piecemeal development of the area

gomarinago

Thanks for your agreement Fiachra on the lack of planning but while we're all focussing on the marina look at whats happening around the area .I still think it as a project should go ahead but an integrated plan for the rest of greystones should be prepared.
One Petrol station to serve a town and hinterland of 16000 and it isn't the most ideal station or location and I hear there are plans afoot to change that too which will mean it will be closed for many months meaning no petrol station in greystones for many months.See what I mean- the next retail outlet should have a petrol station attached as a precondition of planning its adisaster at the moment.The new theatre and shop units did you see how to enter them up a lane behind hills Garage.ITs difficult to get a car up there at the moment what happens when delivery trucks come along did anyone object to it on this basis.Heads up arses I must say I'm guilty too.

Fiachra2

gomarinago wrote:

ITs difficult to get a car up there at the moment what happens when delivery trucks come along did anyone object to it on this basis.Heads up arses I must say I'm guilty too.

And if you had objected you would have been- just like the rest of us-called a naysayer, nimby, passremarkable blow- in, oh and the most recent this week "left wing spokesperson" with " a negative agenda"

Thinking logically about planning is not always welcome around here! But lets keep trying!

gomarinago

Fiachra who dont we organise A Greystones Area Development association-name doesn't suggest pro or anti development connotations it could be considered as a lobby group for sustainable and well planned development like it or not we are going to see development no matter how much we object but hte mission should be to get a proper area plan and cry blue murder if it is breached or areas rezoned in contravention to it during its lifetime the idea at present that Kilcoole Greystones and all the other areas should have separate plans is nonsense.A proper plan for everything from Windgates to the North Kilcoole station to the south and every thing between N11 and IRish sea should be included.My argument is that as it is Kilcoole will join up to charlesland in a few years if the willy nilly attitude to planning currently there continues.As it is There is only one field between Lott lane Kilcoole and the back of the sports facilities in Charlesland.

Marcais

COULD WE KEEP THIS THREAD ON TOPIC PLEASE i.e. GREYSTONES MARINA. I'LL POST MY PREVIOUS BELOW TO BRING IT BACK ON TOPIC. NEW THREADS SHOUDL BE STARTED FOR ANY OTHER ISSUES (PLANNING ETC.)