More Houses to be Built.

MuffinsDa

Tauren wrote:

isn't the gain that it could be purchased for 1/3, 1/4 of the commercial value of the site

No, not if they don't want it! They may not have any money to spend on it anyway! And then they say: oh nobody wants it lets build more homes. How many times we've been tricked like that?

It would be a gain if they build a school and handed it over to DoE (which was the rumours I initially heard but obviously the negotiation power of our councillors limits to this board and not real world )

Fiachra2

1.If all this was such a great deal why was it not in the original draft plan and why did the planners oppose it?

2. Just how good a deal is ZAPI getting? There was no chance of any industry being built, so the 80 acres -zoned for industry-was effectivly worthless. Now with all this planning permsiion it has assumed a massive value. Will theh community get to have a look at that figure to see if they-the community-are really getting a good deal vis-a vis what Zapi makes?

future_plans

On the face of it, it seems that this "deal" would be an enhancement to the area. The central issue on the thread now seems to be the transparency of the whole process. When such information is witheld along, with the dismissal of the town planners views and lack of public consultation, it is only natural that people feel that something is amiss here.

Also, even though there is an agreement for a school and Garda station, etc. There seems to be an inherent lack of commitment and the residents in the area then question the validity of these agreements and doubt that these promises will be kept.

The majority of people would have to see the turning of the first sod on the sites of the new school and Garda station before confidence in this agreement would be fulfilled. This will hardly happen before the general election because of the planning process.

Now that this land has been rezoned, I would expect the public to be properly consulted in the next phase. There is an unused showroom in the Fairways owned by Ballymore/Zapi. I would propose that all plans should go on show here in plenty of time for all local residents to take timeout and view.

Sparks

tomflynn wrote:

Thats why this is quite a good deal

What? The flaws in the plan are why it's a good deal? How badly do you misunderstand the situation that you could say that with a straight face?

If a Garda station at Charlesland comes to pass, I am sure the Dept of Justice will sell the ramshackle station by the La Touche Hotel. It is long passed its sell by date, inaccessible to anyone with disabilities and a miserable place. The station site with unobstructed views of the sea, even if only partially sold, is worth a fortune and would easily fund the purchase of a new site and construction of a new Garda barracks, located midway between Kilcoole and Greystones. Greystones station covers both.

So you're saying that if Charlesland gets a Garda station at all, then:

1. The DoJ will have to get into the business of selling off its property;
2. There will be some unplanned luxury housing in a prime location going begging;
3. Greystones will lose its station, located within rapid response time of the banks, credit union, major housing estates, the DART station and other areas where you'd need them fast if you need them at all;
4. Greystones and Charlesland will have no station at all in the interim while the Greystones station is decommissioned and sold off and the Charlesland station is built and commissioned.

That's not a great deal; it's not even a good deal. It's a farce.

As for school site, the various Churchs used to do it all for the state but now the Dept of Educ, while loaded with €€€, have failed to fully take on this duty and unless a site is put it in front their faces. And here the developer is obliged to sell at a subsidised price- even at which they will make a profit.

Hold up. You know the DoE won't take on the duty; but you think it's a great deal that you're requiring them to do so before we get a school? What is this, the "lets stick it to the man" club? What's your priority here, to show up the DoE or to look after our interests? And what serves our interests more - having the developer build a school and hand it to the DoE for €1 or having the developer make a serious profit by offering the land to the DoE for a large sum - which the DoE won't pay - and then selling the land for an even higher sum for housing when the DoE follow the inevitable route?

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.

Sparks

future_plans wrote:

On the face of it, it seems that this "deal" would be an enhancement to the area. The central issue on the thread now seems to be the transparency of the whole process.

Excuse me, but that's not the case. The central issue on the thread is that this deal does not seem to be an enhancement to anyone or anything but the developer's profit margins.

Also, even though there is an agreement for a school and Garda station

There is no such agreement. There is an agreement that land will be sold to the DoE or DoJ if and only if either body wishes to pursue that option. Which, given their capital spending in the past decade, seems highly unlikely to even outside observers. Any agreement for a school or garda station would not have anything to do with the council or the developer; it would have to do with the Departments involved. Have they issued any statement on this plan?

I would propose that all plans should go on show here in plenty of time for all local residents to take timeout and view.

That's a nice idea. Of course, it would have to effectively be on 24hr display because of the dormitory nature of Greystones and Charlesland; something that has not been taken into account up to this point it would seem. Where was the postal distribution of plans for this deal, for example?

future_plans

There is no such agreement. There is an agreement that land will be sold to the DoE or DoJ if and only if either body wishes to pursue that option. Which, given their capital spending in the past decade, seems highly unlikely to even outside observers. Any agreement for a school or garda station would not have anything to do with the council or the developer; it would have to do with the Departments involved. Have they issued any statement on this plan?

Agreed Sparks. Essentially that is what I meant. In my opinion, on paper the whole thing does not seem to be the worst deal for the area. The likelyhood of any of it happening apart from more housing and the shopping centre however is slim.

tomflynn

Sparks wrote:

What? The flaws in the plan are why it's a good deal? How badly do you misunderstand the situation that you could say that with a straight face?


So you're saying that if Charlesland gets a Garda station at all, then:

1. The DoJ will have to get into the business of selling off its property;
2. There will be some unplanned luxury housing in a prime location going begging;
3. Greystones will lose its station, located within rapid response time of the banks, credit union, major housing estates, the DART station and other areas where you'd need them fast if you need them at all;
4. Greystones and Charlesland will have no station at all in the interim while the Greystones station is decommissioned and sold off and the Charlesland station is built and commissioned.

That's not a great deal; it's not even a good deal. It's a farce.


Hold up. You know the DoE won't take on the duty; but you think it's a great deal that you're requiring them to do so before we get a school? What is this, the "lets stick it to the man" club? What's your priority here, to show up the DoE or to look after our interests? And what serves our interests more - having the developer build a school and hand it to the DoE for €1 or having the developer make a serious profit by offering the land to the DoE for a large sum - which the DoE won't pay - and then selling the land for an even higher sum for housing when the DoE follow the inevitable route?

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.

If everyone had a negative attitude towards such developments, nothing would be built. My previous post, which is my opinion and seems not to be consistent with yours, is one which I am entitled to. I agree with some of your suggestions and may not agree with all. I am not a counillor so I can't have planned this out. My interest is in the provision of facilities for my family and ALL local residents. You will probably find that many people will be quite satisfied with these facilities when they are complete.

In my opinion, which you will probably disagree with, the biggest issue is not 210 houses which is relatively minor, it is the location of a shopping centre a long way from the main street.

Should you have been resident in Greystones during 1980s/1990s (which you may or may not have been) it was obvious that many facilities were not provided. In terms of the community facilities the fact remains that government regularly fails to provide community facilities when and where they are needed. Usually they are provided after groups, often created by active people like you, start seeking them. In this case the provision of facilities appears to have been given a head start.

Incidentally Greystones Garda station will, if relocated, be in the centre of the Garda district which also serves Kilcoole, Delgany etc. It is not only a Greystones station.

Sparks

tomflynn wrote:

If everyone had a negative attitude towards such developments, nothing would be built.

Indeed. Good thing then that there's only a negative attitude towards the bad plans.

You will probably find that many people will be quite satisfied with these facilities when they are complete.

I strongly suspect that instead what I'll find is what I see now - that most people feel they had no voice in the process and that they're just focussing instead on their needs and only their needs and they're putting up with the developments rather than being involved in the process; because that's the only logical thing they can see to do when they're given the very clear message by the council that their input is Not Desired, Thank You Very Much.

Should you have been resident in Greystones during 1980s/1990s (which you may or may not have been)

I was, from '86 onwards.

it was obvious that many facilities were not provided.

Actually, it was never a problem because even then Greystones was a dormitory town. So long as there was any form of transport to Dublin and cheap housing, people could live here. (Which is why the plan mentioned earlier of building on the park-n-ride car park struck me as the most assinine, brain-dead notion I'd heard of in recent years).

In terms of the community facilities the fact remains that government regularly fails to provide community facilities when and where they are needed.

Which is precisely why the above plan is a bad one - because it depends on the government spending money providing those facilities which they have consistently failed to demonstrate any interest in providing before now.

What I fail to see is why the deal regarding the recycling centre was not pressed for for the Garda Station and School as well.

In this case the provision of facilities appears to have been given a head start.

Appearances can be deceptive; in this case they certainly are.

Incidentally Greystones Garda station will, if relocated, be in the centre of the Garda district which also serves Kilcoole, Delgany etc. It is not only a Greystones station.

Which will make no odds to any resident of Greystones who currently enjoys the facility of having the station within a short distance. If having it here is a bad arrangement for the rest of the district, the solution is to build more stations, not take ours away. And this plan won't help because it will either take ours away or not give one to the rest of the district.

tomflynn

Sparks wrote:

This is a farce if this is how you've planned this out.
.
.
.
.
(Which is why the plan mentioned earlier of building on the park-n-ride car park struck me as the most assinine, brain-dead notion I'd heard of in recent years).
.
.
Which is precisely why the above plan is a bad one - because it depends on the government spending money providing those facilities which they have consistently failed to demonstrate any interest in providing before now.
.
.
Which will make no odds to any resident of Greystones who currently enjoys the facility of having the station within a short distance. .

You appear to have absolutely nothing positive to say, perhaps you should take up residence in your own desert oasis where you control the surrounding desert, drive where you want when you want and contribute nothing localy except consider yourself.

Sparks

You appear to have absolutely nothing positive to say

Sometimes Tom, there really isn't anything positive you can say.
And right now, with the degree of effort that the council put into involving the locals in the development process, you might as well be in a desert oasis...


By the way, nice example of playing the man and not the ball.

tomflynn

Sparks wrote:

Sometimes Tom, there really isn't anything positive you can say.
And right now, with the degree of effort that the council put into involving the locals in the development process, you might as well be in a desert oasis...


By the way, nice example of playing the man and not the ball.

Apologies. I'm not saying you're a bad person. Desert comparison more by way of a metaphorical example, thought it was quite good. By the way.....I am not entirely happy with the transparency of the whote process but trying to fine the positive (i think there is some). Unfortunately the existing planning process is the one we find ourselves within. We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act.....by 2056.

Sparks

We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act

No, but there's no law against sending out information to those who are affected by it...

tomflynn

Sparks wrote:

No, but there's no law against sending out information to those who are affected by it...

Agree, that would be a very positive thing to do

Wineman

Marcais wrote:

Obviously the views of the combined residents of Charlesland which opposed the development meant nothing to Cllrs Jones, Mitchell or Kelleher.

Wouldnt you say it was a tad pretentious for you to speak on behalf of the 3000+ residents of the Charlesland estate, you most certainly do not speak for me. In fact your rants are becoming tiresome, arent you the same person who tried to sell the Greystones harbour on Ebay and was mentioned in the Wicklow Times as living in Charlesland?

Marcais

Jonege wrote:

The usual Marcais outburtst
Are you a member of the Green Party , the vote yesterday is a real gain for Charleslands and Greystones and it is not any slap in the face!!
IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.
Will outline gains if required asa I did your committee

Jonege, you really need to address your paranoia, you use the same method of attack on individuals who objected to the Marina branding them as left wing Socialist agitators. Not all who have concerns about the unrestricted overdevelopment in their local communities are socialists and not everybody who disagrees with you thinks you have "horns" as you suggest in your introductory post.

I am not a member of any political party, I am a resident who, like many of my neighbours, is very concerned about this unsustainable development which is surplus to requirement and totally opposed by the town planners. And, as you are also well aware, opposed by Charlesland Residents Committee who, as you also know, considered all of the so called benefits to Charlesland carefully and jointly before reaching agreement.

I obviously do not claim that my views represent all of Charlesland but, unlike the proponents of this developmnet and of the Marina I and my neighbours did actually ask people their opinions and as you know there were several submissions against these proposals. You and your fellow councillors chose not to mention these objections in any of your press releases and summarily dismissed our concerns. This came as no surprise as we stated back in June that if you could discount the views of 6,000 objections to the Marina proposal, we should not expect our views to be considered on this issue.

In another one of your personal attacks on a member of the Harbour Residents Association, you accused him of having a conflict of interest in that he owns a shop in Greystones (which sells specialty Italian foods etc.) and that was the reason he objected to the proposals for a shopping center in Charlesland. A ridiculous suggestion in so many ways but typical of the all too common "shoot the messenger" approach. Reds under the bed and Greens in the seams.

I also have to mention (seeing as you incorrectly state without clarification that "FF/FG/Lab/Ind supported this") that an Independent and Tom Fortune of Labour did not support this. (Oh, and I'm not a member of the Labour Party).

MuffinsDa

Jonege wrote:

IN the vote yesterdat FF/FG/Lab/Ind voted in favour of progess for Greystones.

Based on what Marcais said, LAB and IND did NOT vote in favour of this (at least some of them).

Seeing that in your position you could hardly have said the above by mistake, could you please explain why did you LIE to the community deliberately? Is that part of your care for How can we trust any other word you say when it is so easy for you to lie and twist the truth?

Fiachra2

tomflynn wrote:

). Unfortunately the existing planning process is the one we find ourselves within. We can't stop everything (not ref to this devt) whilst we wait for another planning act.....by 2056.

Tho whole point though tom is that the Planning Process was not adhered to. The law may not have been broken but the councillors drove a coach and horses through the spirit of the law.

The process should be to produce a draft plan, listen to the communities views on it, modify accordingly and then finalise. What happend here was that a draft plan was produced, then radically revised and comments from the community ignored. I think we can all agree that this should not be allowed happen. Specifically we can agree that the planning process should not include private negotiations between developers and councillors thrashing out their views of the future of Greystones.

future_plans

If the facilities are delivered as the councillor says, then I would be in favour of this. I am assuming that the process (rezoning) will not be reversed? My family needs a school within walking distance. Personally, the garda station makes no difference to me. I think, providing there are a number of high profile anchor tenants, the shopping centre would be a success. Although, I would certainly think this would have a major impact on existing businesses - Meridian Point for definite. The number of houses (210) is fairly irrelevant in the grander scheme.

My main concern is the lack of transparency and how all this was apparently agreed upon by developers and councillors without little consultation. This is the 2006 - 2012 Local Area Plan, but how many more developer driven ammendments can we expect before 2012? How long before the golf club (according to the plan objective "to preserve and enhance private open space". This provate open space is owned by developers and it certainly is not in their interest to preserve that...

Sparks

If the facilities are delivered as the councillor says

Thing is, from what I can see, the councillor isn't saying the facilities will be delivered; he's saying that they're going to offer the DoE and DoJ the opportunity to purchase the sites on which to build the facilities. There's no mention of what the DoE or DoJ are saying about this.

Ossie

There is a damming letter in the Irish Times today (7/12/06) from an eye witness to the shenanigans which occurred at the council meeting last Monday.

It appears that by pushing through unsustainable development and ignoring the views of the people the councillors are even in breach of the code of conduct for councillors as let out in legislation.

This is a scandalous abuse of the power given to the councillors by the people.

future_plans

For those of you who do not have a copy or cannot view:

--- Letter to Irish Times 7th December 2006

---

DEVELOPMENT OF GREYSTONES AND DELGANY


Madam, - I attended the Wicklow County Council meeting on Monday, December 4th, and witnessed the significant developer-led rezonings made by the councillors referred to in The Irish Times(December 5th). I was very surprised that a large number of these rezonings were totally at variance with the recommendations of the county manager, council planners and external consultants who regarded them as being "unsustainable development in the context of the settlement of Greystones and Delgany".

Indeed the manager in his report had recommended their removal from the plan which he reiterated to the councillors during the meeting.

The councillors' decisions were also made without proper public consultation and were at variance with submissions from the public. One councillor stated that the "silent majority" who did not make any submission on the plan were in favour of the rezonings.

The Local Government Act 2001 Code of Conduct for Councillors issued in July, 2004, states that "key decisions on planning matters such as the making of development plans are vested in the elected council as representatives of the local community acting in the interests of the common good and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area".

These rezonings were neither in the common good nor in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development.

Farcical decision making of this kind has created a planning mess in Ireland and has undermined public confidence and trust in the integrity and fairness in the planning system. - Yours, etc,

---

MuffinsDa

future_plans wrote:

For those of you who do not have a copy or cannot view:

--- Letter to Irish Times 7th December 2006

---

DEVELOPMENT OF GREYSTONES AND DELGANY


Madam, - I attended the Wicklow County Council meeting on Monday, December 4th, and witnessed the significant developer-led rezonings made by the councillors referred to in The Irish Times(December 5th). I was very surprised that a large number of these rezonings were totally at variance with the recommendations of the county manager, council planners and external consultants who regarded them as being "unsustainable development in the context of the settlement of Greystones and Delgany".

Indeed the manager in his report had recommended their removal from the plan which he reiterated to the councillors during the meeting.

The councillors' decisions were also made without proper public consultation and were at variance with submissions from the public. One councillor stated that the "silent majority" who did not make any submission on the plan were in favour of the rezonings.

The Local Government Act 2001 Code of Conduct for Councillors issued in July, 2004, states that "key decisions on planning matters such as the making of development plans are vested in the elected council as representatives of the local community acting in the interests of the common good and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area".

These rezonings were neither in the common good nor in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development.

Farcical decision making of this kind has created a planning mess in Ireland and has undermined public confidence and trust in the integrity and fairness in the planning system. - Yours, etc,

---

Good stuff. Has anyone thought of bringing this to attention of Radio Shows such as Matt Cooper or Joe Duffy?

Sparks115

Excellent letter. I wonder would any of the councillers who have commented before, like to make a comment now in regard to this letter....and yes I think Newstalk or Today FM or Gerry Ryan would love a story like this.

Marcais

INCH wrote:

Excellent letter. I wonder would any of the councillers who have commented before, like to make a comment now in regard to this letter....and yes I think Newstalk or Today FM or Gerry Ryan would love a story like this.

Great letter, e-mail addresses for RTE and Newstalk programs can be found on their websites, so get working!!

loyatemu

one councillor stated that the "silent majority" who did not make any submission on the plan were in favour of the rezonings.

who exactly said this? Its a ridiculous statement for any elected official to make - whats the point of democracy if so-called representatives can dismiss those who actually make their views known in favour of some nebulous "silent majority"

I don't really have a position on this plan as I haven't seen the details, but once again (as with the harbour development) the arrogance of the councillors in dismissing any public opposition is breathtaking.

MuffinsDa

loyatemu wrote:

I don't really have a position on this plan as I haven't seen the details, but once again (as with the harbour development) the arrogance of the councillors in dismissing any public opposition is breathtaking.

same. I wasn't too sure if I'm for or against it but I certainly am against lack of transparency and abundance of arrogance shown by councillors on this matter!

Fiachra2

loyatemu wrote:

one councillor stated that the "silent majority" who did not make any submission on the plan were in favour of the rezonings.

who exactly said this? Its a ridiculous statement for any elected official to make - whats the point of democracy if so-called representatives can dismiss those who actually make their views known in favour of some nebulous "silent majority"

It is actually quite often used by public representatives promoting developments for which there is widespread opposition. They have used it for the marina for years.

It would be interesting if they were to apply the same logic to themselves. For example significanatly less than half the electorate of Greystones voted in the last local elections, and only a tiny minority of that electorate voted for any individual councillor. So if the councillors applied the same logic to themselves thay should resign as clearly the vast majority of the populace dont want them.

iknowitall

It would be good if the legal agreement and all pertaining details (minutes etc) were placed on public display in the library/town council so we could properly inform ourselves of what developments may be taking place and assess the deal that was made...on our behalf.

Votethemout

The silent majority quip came almost certainly from either George Jones or Derek Mitchell of Fine Gael; it reflects their mindset, esp Jones. If you feel they do not speak for you, Google Fine Gael, find their email addresses and zapp them your views, with a cc to Enda Kenny.

I repeat my view: the only way these people will ever get the message is through the ballot box. That starts in June '07 (probably) and no, contrary to someone the other day, I'm not confused about the elections. A general election rebuff will freak them and wll result in party HQ coming down hard on their councillors. Local elections later will be an opportunity to turf them out and put in representatives who act in the interesst of the community, not the developers and their own puffed up notions of their importance.

To the barricades!

anniec

Could not believe planning was given roll on next June just confirmed I can vote so I now know who will not get my vote!

With all this new development would new schools etc George Jones would you mind advising me when we in Charlesland will get the basic necessities such as a decent bus service ie CIE and even a post box nearest one is in the village or should I say Greystones City cause thats what it will look like with all the new developments!

Does anyone know where we can access the plans yet? nothing on wicklow.ie but then again nothing surprises me!