Brendan McCann

Minfadlek

valdonican wrote:

I'm delighted to read that you deal in facts bards, obviously this means you base your assertion that BMcC has a problem akin to streakers a sporting events on extensive psychological analysis and it's not just casual and thoughtless character assasination.

Don't think you did read the thread very well - it was Trotter who I believe simply 'compared' him to a streaker :eek:
Also if it is "character assination", I'm sure your, I mean his, legal counsel could deal with it !

Quigs Snr

I think this clown has gotten enough attention now lads and we should just do what the electorate did on election day and forget about him.

valdonican

Minfadlek wrote:

Don't think you did read the thread very well - it was Trotter who I believe simply 'compared' him to a streaker :eek:
Also if it is "character assination", I'm sure your, I mean his, legal counsel could deal with it !

My bad, I'll pull out the door on me way out.

Trotter

Ok for the record I never said Brendan McCann ever did or intends to run across a football pitch. :rolleyes:

I said some people do that to attract attention.. Which is true.

Brendan McCann seems to me to be objecting in order to raise his public profile.. Maybe I'm wrong.. but thats how I see it.

Ostrom

Interesting how most of you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that many of McCann's objections are drafted and lodged at the request of/in consultation with local residents, or those who would otherwise have neither the time nor experience to work through a proper objection or appeal (egans redevelopment, railway square, and farran park shop for example were with local residents).

As for 'developers avoiding us because of him', I doubt it would matter. What does tend to happen (such as with the proposed brewery redevelopment, or the airport road retail park) is that the interested parties will submit an excessive proposal to test the minimum reductions they need to make. It is a disgraceful waste of paperwork for an already understaffed planning department, and he has taken significant steps toward making it a less attractive option for developers. Whatever about favouring WIT, their plans for the wind turbine (aesthetics aside) seem pretty sound. And the woodstown site objections were led by NUIM academics and Dublin archaeologists, you may as well tag them with 'blow in' aswell.

You really think an average person without at least some experience of the formalities of appeal-drafting would have the first idea of how to proceed? If you're curious, check it out for yourselves. Oh, and stop reading the news and star.

meldrew

deisemum wrote:

When, where and what happened

McCann called the shopowner a liar on wlr when the shopowner said that Mccann stood up at a public meeting and stated that no matter what plans were put up for the shop he would be objecting to them , when this was put to Mccann he denied saying it and called the shopowner a liar but he must obviously have threatened Mccann with bringing it further because McCann actually came down to the shop and worded an absolutely grovelling apology which is printed and signed and posted up all over the shop

Bards

efla wrote:

Interesting how most of you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that many of McCann's objections are drafted and lodged at the request of/in consultation with local residents, or those who would otherwise have neither the time nor experience to work through a proper objection or appeal (egans redevelopment, railway square, and farran park shop for example were with local residents).

As for 'developers avoiding us because of him', I doubt it would matter. What does tend to happen (such as with the proposed brewery redevelopment, or the airport road retail park) is that the interested parties will submit an excessive proposal to test the minimum reductions they need to make. It is a disgraceful waste of paperwork for an already understaffed planning department, and he has taken significant steps toward making it a less attractive option for developers. Whatever about favouring WIT, their plans for the wind turbine (aesthetics aside) seem pretty sound. And the woodstown site objections were led by NUIM academics and Dublin archaeologists, you may as well tag them with 'blow in' aswell.

You really think an average person without at least some experience of the formalities of appeal-drafting would have the first idea of how to proceed? If you're curious, check it out for yourselves. Oh, and stop reading the news and star.

where did I or other posters label Brendan McCann a "Blow in".. I should hope that people would not stoop to these kind of parochial divisions.

NUIM were professional archeologists.. Mr. McCann is a maths lecturer, in other words just like you and me when it comes to planning... A Layman.

What is the point in having a staff of professional Planners and elected City Councillors when nealry everything is vetoed by Brendan McCann and the lottery that is An Bord Pleanala.

you could have two idential plans submitted to APB and two very different inspectors will take a look at these plans and one could block it while the other one could give it the go ahead.

I would comapre Mr McCann's planning submissions and his success rate with ABP like shooting a large elephant with a double barrell shot gun at a distance of less than 100 feet by an ametuer marksman.

some of the shot will hit the animal but a lot will miss the mark.

Ostrom

Whatever about his professional origins, the fact is he is better placed than anyone now to work through appeals and objections. As for the 'inspector lottery', the customary procedure in many cases (if not most) is to hold an oral hearing with representatives of the Bord (like the 8 month hearings in Dublin at the moment over incineration), professionals (from both sides if possible), the outcome of which will likely determine the recommended amendments to any particular proposal. I hardly consider that a 'lottery'. If you're referring to submissions made to the courts under the 2004 national monuments amendment or critical infrastructure, then yes I would consdier that a (costly and impossibly bureaucratic) lottery.

Working through Enironmental impact assesments, and presenting a valid objection is well beyond reach of most residents, in terms of both time and education, in that respect, you are absolutely correct, the system is very arbitrary (in the sense that very few will have the resolve to work through complete proposals), which makes it all the more critical that people like McCann make themselves available to work through proposals in consultation with concerned parties, or at the very least highlight how easily a defective proposal can make it to planning permission. And if, as you suggest, he holds the ultimate veto, then selective rulings from inspectors should'nt really matter should they?

'when nearly everything is vetoed by Brendan McCann......you could have two idential plans submitted to APB and two very different inspectors will take a look at these plans and one could block it while the other one could give it the go ahead'

Why not ask why proposals are rejected at all? If the critical infrastructure bill passes, it wont really matter, as all mandatory public consultation will be done away with for 'public works projects'.

Ostrom

Sorry, the 'blow in' reference was not specific to this thread, but it is something I see quite a lot in discussions of McCann (and it was mentioned earlier), and something which was fired out often throughout the save viking waterford campaign, by coucillors Wilkinson, Kenneally, and News and Star's phoenix amongst others. Nothing parochial implied, seems to be within city council mandate anyway

Minfadlek

efla wrote:

McCann's objections are drafted and lodged at the request of/in consultation with local residents, or those who would otherwise have neither the time nor experience to work through a proper objection or appeal

Well I never knew such a service existed :rolleyes: We recently had to lodge an objection to a neighbour's invasive proposed extension (because it concerned us), and I have to say I found the process a little daunting, but with the kind help & guidance of a 'civil servent' (I now like that title), got it done just fine.... !
Should I require Mr McCann's services, how does 'one' go about employing them
People have been objecting/appealing for years (usually to what concerns them), why suddenly do we/they need his 'guidence/assistence/whatever' ?

Bards

efla wrote:

Whatever about his professional origins, the fact is he is better placed than anyone now to work through appeals and objections. As for the 'inspector lottery', the customary procedure in many cases (if not most) is to hold an oral hearing with representatives of the Bord (like the 8 month hearings in Dublin at the moment over incineration), professionals (from both sides if possible), the outcome of which will likely determine the recommended amendments to any particular proposal. I hardly consider that a 'lottery'. If you're referring to submissions made to the courts under the 2004 national monuments amendment or critical infrastructure, then yes I would consdier that a (costly and impossibly bureaucratic) lottery.

Working through Enironmental impact assesments, and presenting a valid objection is well beyond reach of most residents, in terms of both time and education, in that respect, you are absolutely correct, the system is very arbitrary (in the sense that very few will have the resolve to work through complete proposals), which makes it all the more critical that people like McCann make themselves available to work through proposals in consultation with concerned parties, or at the very least highlight how easily a defective proposal can make it to planning permission. And if, as you suggest, he holds the ultimate veto, then selective rulings from inspectors should'nt really matter should they?

'when nearly everything is vetoed by Brendan McCann......you could have two idential plans submitted to APB and two very different inspectors will take a look at these plans and one could block it while the other one could give it the go ahead'

Why not ask why proposals are rejected at all? If the critical infrastructure bill passes, it wont really matter, as all mandatory public consultation will be done away with for 'public works projects'.

I wonder have you grasped at all what Brendan McCann is about. he is only interested in stopping Waterford City Develop. his actions speak louder than words. why else would he not object to developments happing on the fringes of our City which are car dependent by their very nature, and only objects to developments within the City Boundary.

Critical Infrastrucutre bills has no bearing on the Shop in Farren Park or on any development in the City Centre, no oral hearing is required it is at the discretion of one person from ABP whether or not this shop can compete with a british chain store (Tesco) witihin a few hundred metres.

I for one hope that the Farran park shop goes ahead as it is within walking distance of an awful lot of houses and will have a much larger selection than it currenlty does now.

surely we should be supporting local business and not foreign owned ones

Ostrom

I'm sure you can summon him on the green party hotline, although they may be busy dealing with Dick Roche's fallout for a few months

You certainly dont need any guidance or assistance for appeals such as domestic improvements, or the farran park shop. Something larger like the penny's - egan's development (4 residents attended the oral hearing with McCann, Penny's brought an engineer, architect, and solicitor), or the brewery developments require some knowledge of EIS/land tenure law to properly assess. For those of us not as well versed, I'm sure it is welcome.

To Bards: He has lodged extensive objections to 'car dependent' deveopments on the city fringes, gracedieu, and others along the N25 outer ring road (as have many others). Could someone maybe elaborate on this 'holding back Waterford' sentiment? Things seem pretty good at the moment (for gods sake dont ask for statistics). I'm not wholesale defending the man himself, the objection to the shop in Farran park was totally out of order.

(I mentioned the CIB in relation to larger proposals that require EIS and arch reports). Please, more comments. Issues like this deserve much wider debate than here.

Bards

efla wrote:

I'm sure you can summon him on the green party hotline, although they may be busy dealing with Dick Roche's fallout for a few months

You certainly dont need any guidance or assistance for appeals such as domestic improvements, or the farran park shop. Something larger like the penny's - egan's development (4 residents attended the oral hearing with McCann, Penny's brought an engineer, architect, and solicitor), or the brewery developments require some knowledge of EIS/land tenure law to properly assess. For those of us not as well versed, I'm sure it is welcome.

To Bards: He has lodged extensive objections to 'car dependent' deveopments on the city fringes, gracedieu, and others along the N25 outer ring road (as have many others). Could someone maybe elaborate on this 'holding back Waterford' sentiment? Things seem pretty good at the moment (for gods sake dont ask for statistics). I'm not wholesale defending the man himself, the objection to the shop in Farran park was totally out of order.

(I mentioned the CIB in relation to larger proposals that require EIS and arch reports). Please, more comments. Issues like this deserve much wider debate than here.

He lodged objections to houses in Gracedieu, the northwest suburbs. This was within the City Development Plan. He DID NOT object to car developments on the fringes of this City which are under construction as I write.

Minfadlek

Bards wrote:

He DID NOT object to car developments on the fringes of this City which are under construction as I write.

Maybe the local people there aren't capable of objecting themselves, and didn't know that Mr McCann could be available to do this for/with them...

It may sound 'flippent', but according to a previous post, he objects "at the request of/in consultation with local people" :rolleyes:

Ostrom

Minfadlek wrote:

Maybe the local people there aren't capable of objecting themselves, and didn't know that Mr McCann could be available to do this for/with them...

It may sound 'flippent', but according to a previous post, he objects "at the request of/in consultation with local people" :rolleyes:

'Many' not all. At least those that make it to local media seem to omit the fact that there are other interested parties involved. I'm sure they are quite capable of doing it themselves, and some of his objections are totally unnecessary. I wasn't trying to argue that his intentions are totally misrepresented, just that there are many notable exceptions. And that the argument against him isn't as black and white as many of you make it out to be.

Bards

efla wrote:

'Many' not all. At least those that make it to local media seem to omit the fact that there are other interested parties involved. I'm sure they are quite capable of doing it themselves, and some of his objections are totally unnecessary. I wasn't trying to argue that his intentions are totally misrepresented, just that there are many notable exceptions. And that the argument against him isn't as black and white as many of you make it out to be.

there will always people be discomoded by development. Build it anywhere except "Not in my back yard" springs to mind

if this was the case there would be many McCanns in every City/county in Ireland. Fortunatley for Ireland Inc. there isn't otherwise we would all be on the DOle for no multinational would be able to operate here.

Sully

efla wrote:

'Many' not all. At least those that make it to local media seem to omit the fact that there are other interested parties involved. I'm sure they are quite capable of doing it themselves, and some of his objections are totally unnecessary. I wasn't trying to argue that his intentions are totally misrepresented, just that there are many notable exceptions. And that the argument against him isn't as black and white as many of you make it out to be.

Sorry, but I disagree. The press mostly state if its him on his own, or with others. Comments such as those made to local shop owners are inappropriate.

Ostrom

Bards wrote:

there will always people be discomoded by development. Build it anywhere except "Not in my back yard" springs to mind

if this was the case there would be many McCanns in every City/county in Ireland. Fortunatley for Ireland Inc. there isn't otherwise we would all be on the DOle for no multinational would be able to operate here.

Which raises the issue of our dependence upon multinational investment, (which is'nt as extensive as our local media/chamber/I.T./cabinet minister would have us believe). Whatever about Green policy, the fact is our economy at present is almost totally reliant upon easy credit/energy and cheap foreign service labour. Construction generates massive private wealth, to developer and investor, so if that is part of your stunted 'Ireland INC', i really dont see the harm. Neither should the point be a wholesale putdown.

Again (for the third time, if you would just read my previous posts), actions like those of McCann should be seen as a much needed critique of the nature of planning in Ireland at present. (Its just a shame he misses the mark as often as he does).

You will always have NIMBY's, just not the space for inclusive public debate

Ostrom

Bards wrote:

there will always people be discomoded by development. Build it anywhere except "Not in my back yard" springs to mind

if this was the case there would be many McCanns in every City/county in Ireland. Fortunatley for Ireland Inc. there isn't otherwise we would all be on the DOle for no multinational would be able to operate here.

Which raises the issue of our dependence upon multinational investment, (which is'nt as extensive as our local media/chamber/I.T./cabinet minister would have us believe). Whatever about Green policy, the fact is our economy at present is almost totally reliant upon easy credit/energy and cheap foreign service labour. Construction generates massive private wealth, to developer and investor, so if that is part of your stunted 'Ireland INC', i really dont see the harm. Neither should the point be a wholesale putdown.

Again (for the third time, if you would just read my previous posts), actions like those of McCann should be seen as a much needed critique of the nature of planning in Ireland at present. (Its just a shame he misses the mark as often as he does).

You will always have NIMBY's, just not the space for inclusive public debate

Minfadlek

efla wrote:

the fact is our economy at present is almost totally reliant upon easy credit/energy and cheap foreign service labour. Construction generates massive private wealth, to developer and investor, so if that is part of your stunted 'Ireland INC', i really dont see the harm. Neither should the point be a wholesale putdown.

Sure if it's working in the rest of the country, what's wrong with 'developing' Waterford... ?
Also, if he feels so strongly about developing/building/investment, whatever - Why stop at Waterford

Ostrom

Minfadlek wrote:

Sure if it's working in the rest of the country, what's wrong with 'developing' Waterford... ?
Also, if he feels so strongly about developing/building/investment, whatever - Why stop at Waterford

Again, the point is to make provisions for suitable, sustainable development. Gracedieu, the airport road retail and residential, the brewery area (sorry, I'm not sure what the area's proper name is) and the new train station are excellent examples of ad hoc, poorly integrated proposals (check out the old plans for a north quays terminal with footbridge connecting the bus station, which were excellent). One of his main areas of contention has always been the lack of any provision for social impact assesments in typical EIS' (conditions for which still only exist as guideline), which again is what you get with a system that facilitates developer led planning at every stage, such as ours.

Having lived in the greater Dublin area for the past three years; there are no shortage of opposition movements, though perhaps with less local sentiment than is possible in a place such as Waterford. The best way to challenge it is from McCanns position (before you say anything, I have said many times I am not in favour of his methods wholesale). You cant realistically challenge frameworks such as the spatial strategy, or conditions of planning review without significant political power, which makes local initiatives all the more essential.

Ostrom

Minfadlek wrote:

Sure if it's working in the rest of the country, what's wrong with 'developing' Waterford... ?
Also, if he feels so strongly about developing/building/investment, whatever - Why stop at Waterford

Again, the point is to make provisions for suitable, sustainable development. Gracedieu, the airport road retail and residential, the brewery area (sorry, I'm not sure what the area's proper name is) and the new train station are excellent examples of ad hoc, poorly integrated proposals (check out the old plans for a north quays terminal with footbridge connecting the bus station, which were excellent). One of his main areas of contention has always been the lack of any provision for social impact assesments in typical EIS' (conditions for which still only exist as guideline), which again is what you get with a system that facilitates developer led planning at every stage, such as ours.

Having lived in the greater Dublin area for the past three years; there are no shortage of opposition movements, though perhaps with less local sentiment than is possible in a place such as Waterford. The best way to challenge it is from McCanns position (before you say anything, I have said many times I am not in favour of his methods wholesale). You cant realistically challenge frameworks such as the spatial strategy, or conditions of planning review without significant political power, which makes local initiatives all the more essential.

Bards

efla wrote:

Again, the point is to make provisions for suitable, sustainable development. Gracedieu, the airport road retail and residential, the brewery area (sorry, I'm not sure what the area's proper name is) and the new train station are excellent examples of ad hoc, poorly integrated proposals (check out the old plans for a north quays terminal with footbridge connecting the bus station, which were excellent). One of his main areas of contention has always been the lack of any provision for social impact assesments in typical EIS' (conditions for which still only exist as guideline), which again is what you get with a system that facilitates developer led planning at every stage, such as ours.

Having lived in the greater Dublin area for the past three years; there are no shortage of opposition movements, though perhaps with less local sentiment than is possible in a place such as Waterford. The best way to challenge it is from McCanns position (before you say anything, I have said many times I am not in favour of his methods wholesale). You cant realistically challenge frameworks such as the spatial strategy, or conditions of planning review without significant political power, which makes local initiatives all the more essential.

As a member of the Green Party and his collegue John Gormley now in residnece in Customs House, I would presume this would be enough political power to influence the planning process

Ostrom

Bards wrote:

As a member of the Green Party and his collegue John Gormley now in residnece in Customs House, I would presume this would be enough political power to influence the planning process

To be fair, I dont think it's that simple. Gormley does'nt have that kind of influence with BP, and if you want to get technical, it would take a long legislative review to effect any real procedural change, since institutions such as BP are legally bound to conditions of operation (unlike the NSS and NDP, which exist only as suggested best practice guidelines).

Furthermore, I dont think a minority partner in a tripartite coalition is in any position to challenge (my own biased 'assumption' here) a heavily clientalist (FF?) community of developers. Gormley is, however, in an excellent position to bring public lobby groups' concerns to the wider cabinet (and department), which have thus far been excluded from any public private partnership consultation debates, (along with any NGO's of any colour), including spatial planning. Again, in my opinion (although I hope you are correct r.e. Gormley's influence), the main criticism has to come from the electorate. - (again, thinking outside of Waterford for a moment

mike65

Someone is NOT a happy camper!

http://upthedeise.com/waterfordmessageboard/viewtopic.php?t=770

Mike.

Ostrom

I'll handle this

Ostrom

Aw it's been deleted... His previous blaa post was funny

mad man

lostexpectation wrote:

he has standards and the people that complain about him only have greed

More ****e with nothing to back it up.There is more greedy bastards supporting Brendan McCann than opposing him.In particular greedy Bastards that are just trying to keep their own cosy busy positions in the city centre.Or what about the people in the alliance for inner city nimbys who are not from the city centre (but are willing to challenge the rights of others on the basis they are not fron the city centre) and who are well established in life and therefore don't need jobs.The peoplle who are quite happy to deny hundreds of jobs for the poorest communities in Waterford so they can force their three storey Utopia on the rest of us.

Leave the left wing pub politics where it belongs in the Freshman year.

mad man

There is a couple of myths here that need to be broken.First of all the idea that Brendan McCanns objections are lodged at the request of local residents is a false one.The fact is in most cases he has canvassed the residents of areas where developments are being proposed for support for his own objections.He is quite happy to ignore the concerns of local residents when they do not agree with him.I saw this personally at one of his meetings about KRM's proposal.Any requests to Brendan McCann for help has been a result of his activity and not the cause of it.

The only place Brendan McCann has been called a "blow in" is in the heads of his supporters.No one has.Ollie Wilkinson hasn't ,Brendan Keneally hasn't and the Phoenix hasn't much to the disapointment I'm sure to WASICD and WCTU.In fact most of the resentment towards "outsiders" being involved has emanated from supporters of BMC. The critical infrastructure bill will have no effect on people like Brendan McCann.The vast majority of Brendan McCanns objections have been in relation to private businesses.He will also be free to object to state projects if they are not deemed critical infrastrucure.He will also be free to do so if they are.Its just that the appeals process will be fast tracked.

Another false claim is the planning dept. is overworked and understaffed.This is nothing more than an opinion of Brendan McCann and co.In all likelyhood it may not be even their opinion.It may be just a justification for his actions considering the amount of anger he has generated.Also the statement that developers submit the largest proposal to see what they can get away with is a nonsense.As it is a developer is extremely lucky if his proposal gets through the planning system within a year.In a country where large scale development in city centres are few and far between particularly where they involve height,this tactic would be commercial suicide.Another fallacy is that Brendan McCann is in a better position than most to work through objections.He isn't.It doesn't matter how many books he read, forums he attended or "chin wags" he's had with planners,the fact is he is not qualified in planning matters and therefore is in no position to dictate planning policy the way he is.Just as it is unacceptable for someone to walk in off the street and start lecturing maths at WIT.There is a lot of inconsistency in his activity that suggests he doesn't know what he is doing or else he has a comletely different agenda.The latter is the most likely.

.

Ostrom

mad man wrote:

There is a couple of myths here that need to be broken.First of all the idea that Brendan McCanns objections are lodged at the request of local residents is a false one.The fact is in most cases he has canvassed the residents of areas where developments are being proposed for support for his own objections.He is quite happy to ignore the concerns of local residents when they do not agree with him.I saw this personally at one of his meetings about KRM's proposal.Any requests to Brendan McCann for help has been a result of his activity and not the cause of it.

The only place Brendan McCann has been called a "blow in" is in the heads of his supporters.No one has.Ollie Wilkinson hasn't ,Brendan Keneally hasn't and the Phoenix hasn't much to the disapointment I'm sure to WASICD and WCTU.In fact most of the resentment towards "outsiders" being involved has emanated from supporters of BMC. The critical infrastructure bill will have no effect on people like Brendan McCann.The vast majority of Brendan McCanns objections have been in relation to private businesses.He will also be free to object to state projects if they are not deemed critical infrastrucure.He will also be free to do so if they are.Its just that the appeals process will be fast tracked.

Another false claim is the planning dept. is overworked and understaffed.This is nothing more than an opinion of Brendan McCann and co.In all likelyhood it may not be even their opinion.It may be just a justification for his actions considering the amount of anger he has generated.Also the statement that developers submit the largest proposal to see what they can get away with is a nonsense.As it is a developer is extremely lucky if his proposal gets through the planning system within a year.In a country where large scale development in city centres are few and far between particularly where they involve height,this tactic would be commercial suicide.Another fallacy is that Brendan McCann is in a better position than most to work through objections.He isn't.It doesn't matter how many books he read, forums he attended or "chin wags" he's had with planners,the fact is he is not qualified in planning matters and therefore is in no position to dictate planning policy the way he is.Just as it is unacceptable for someone to walk in off the street and start lecturing maths at WIT.There is a lot of inconsistency in his activity that suggests he doesn't know what he is doing or else he has a comletely different agenda.The latter is the most likely.

.

Considering the sheer falseness of the bulk of you're statement, anything I write here wont really matter will it? Just to clarify... 'Many', not all (residents appeals), and again, I dont think qualification should be any merit for suitability to submit planning objections. Phoenix, Kenneally and Wilkinson have spoken out many times over McCann, on record, and were particularly hostile (phoenix in particular) toward Cathy Swift and co during the campaign over Woodstown.

I get the impression that exclusionary planning is something you favour? I can think of few private citizens in a better position to navigate the planning process at the moment than McCann, qualifaction should be no merit, just informed concern.

Whether or not the CIB has any direct bearing on the kinds of submissions McCann deals with is'nt the point, it will set a serious precedent for further planning law reviews, I would imagine, similar to the development of the national monuments act amendments over the past decade. The remit of the CIB (infrastructural works) is the only thing standing between it and its application to wider planning law. There is no provision for 'fast tracked appeals' in the current CIB review, only high court appeal.

Ostrom

mad man wrote:

There is a couple of myths here that need to be broken.First of all the idea that Brendan McCanns objections are lodged at the request of local residents is a false one.The fact is in most cases he has canvassed the residents of areas where developments are being proposed for support for his own objections.He is quite happy to ignore the concerns of local residents when they do not agree with him.I saw this personally at one of his meetings about KRM's proposal.Any requests to Brendan McCann for help has been a result of his activity and not the cause of it.

The only place Brendan McCann has been called a "blow in" is in the heads of his supporters.No one has.Ollie Wilkinson hasn't ,Brendan Keneally hasn't and the Phoenix hasn't much to the disapointment I'm sure to WASICD and WCTU.In fact most of the resentment towards "outsiders" being involved has emanated from supporters of BMC. The critical infrastructure bill will have no effect on people like Brendan McCann.The vast majority of Brendan McCanns objections have been in relation to private businesses.He will also be free to object to state projects if they are not deemed critical infrastrucure.He will also be free to do so if they are.Its just that the appeals process will be fast tracked.

Another false claim is the planning dept. is overworked and understaffed.This is nothing more than an opinion of Brendan McCann and co.In all likelyhood it may not be even their opinion.It may be just a justification for his actions considering the amount of anger he has generated.Also the statement that developers submit the largest proposal to see what they can get away with is a nonsense.As it is a developer is extremely lucky if his proposal gets through the planning system within a year.In a country where large scale development in city centres are few and far between particularly where they involve height,this tactic would be commercial suicide.Another fallacy is that Brendan McCann is in a better position than most to work through objections.He isn't.It doesn't matter how many books he read, forums he attended or "chin wags" he's had with planners,the fact is he is not qualified in planning matters and therefore is in no position to dictate planning policy the way he is.Just as it is unacceptable for someone to walk in off the street and start lecturing maths at WIT.There is a lot of inconsistency in his activity that suggests he doesn't know what he is doing or else he has a comletely different agenda.The latter is the most likely.

.

Considering the sheer falseness of the bulk of you're statement, anything I write here wont really matter will it? Just to clarify... 'Many', not all (residents appeals), and again, I dont think qualification should be any merit for suitability to submit planning objections (as unfortunately necessary as it is). Phoenix, Kenneally and Wilkinson have spoken out many times over McCann, on record, and were particularly hostile (phoenix in particular) toward Cathy Swift and co during the campaign over Woodstown.

I get the impression that exclusionary planning is something you favour? I can think of few private citizens in a better position to navigate the planning process at the moment than McCann, qualifaction should be no merit, just informed concern.

Whether or not the CIB has any direct bearing on the kinds of submissions McCann deals with is'nt the point, it will set a serious precedent for further planning law reviews, I would imagine, similar to the development of the national monuments act amendments over the past decade. The remit of the CIB (infrastructural works) is the only thing standing between it and its application to wider planning law. There is no provision for 'fast tracked appeals' in the current CIB review, only high court appeal.

Again, I'm not defending his methods. I am trying to understand how local media, and others who have responded to this thread reduce the economic fortune of the city to one man every time.

BBM77

mad man wrote:

There is a couple of myths here that need to be broken.First of all the idea that Brendan McCanns objections are lodged at the request of local residents is a false one.The fact is in most cases he has canvassed the residents of areas where developments are being proposed for support for his own objections.He is quite happy to ignore the concerns of local residents when they do not agree with him.I saw this personally at one of his meetings about KRM's proposal.Any requests to Brendan McCann for help has been a result of his activity and not the cause of it.

The only place Brendan McCann has been called a "blow in" is in the heads of his supporters.No one has.Ollie Wilkinson hasn't ,Brendan Keneally hasn't and the Phoenix hasn't much to the disapointment I'm sure to WASICD and WCTU.In fact most of the resentment towards "outsiders" being involved has emanated from supporters of BMC. The critical infrastructure bill will have no effect on people like Brendan McCann.The vast majority of Brendan McCanns objections have been in relation to private businesses.He will also be free to object to state projects if they are not deemed critical infrastrucure.He will also be free to do so if they are.Its just that the appeals process will be fast tracked.

Another false claim is the planning dept. is overworked and understaffed.This is nothing more than an opinion of Brendan McCann and co.In all likelyhood it may not be even their opinion.It may be just a justification for his actions considering the amount of anger he has generated.Also the statement that developers submit the largest proposal to see what they can get away with is a nonsense.As it is a developer is extremely lucky if his proposal gets through the planning system within a year.In a country where large scale development in city centres are few and far between particularly where they involve height,this tactic would be commercial suicide.Another fallacy is that Brendan McCann is in a better position than most to work through objections.He isn't.It doesn't matter how many books he read, forums he attended or "chin wags" he's had with planners,the fact is he is not qualified in planning matters and therefore is in no position to dictate planning policy the way he is.Just as it is unacceptable for someone to walk in off the street and start lecturing maths at WIT.There is a lot of inconsistency in his activity that suggests he doesn't know what he is doing or else he has a comletely different agenda.The latter is the most likely.

Canvassed is one why of putting it, I would go as far as saying he stirs up objections from residents in areas were developments are planned and of course ignores the residents that are in favour of the development.

The “blow in” dig always seems to come out when McCann and his supporters are asked to justify his objection. To me the level of his interference in planning cannot be justified.

I find it worrying when developers are somehow seen as the enemy, you know, doing evil things like redeveloping derelict areas, investing money into a city, employing people, bring new companies into the city and the employment they create and a totally unqualified, attention seeking hindrance to progress is somehow seen by a disturbing number of people as a planning watchdog keeping developers in check. It would be interesting to know how many of McCann’s “supporter” are public sectors workers and not depending on private enterprise for their job security.

Bards

efla wrote:

Whether or not the CIB has any direct bearing on the kinds of submissions McCann deals with is'nt the point, it will set a serious precedent for further planning law reviews, .

Brendan McCann WILL set a precedent for planning law review.I.E the planning law review will make it harder for private citizen (aka McCann)to lodge a submission. In effect he is doing joe public no favours with the amount of appeals and submissions.

BBM77

efla wrote:

I dont think qualification should be any merit for suitability to submit planning objections....

That is true for the majority of people who may only object to something once or twice in their life in relation to a development in their neighborhood that they feel will have an effect on their quality of life or property. The above point cannot be applied to McCann, he is makes too many objections and always lodges submission to major developments. I think it is not unreasonable to expect the biggest appealer to An Bord Pleanala to have some qualifications in planning and not hold up important developments for his own reasons. If you look at McCann’s appeals to An Bord Pleanala, most of them he is the sole objector. What does that tell you about his so called grounds to object.

mad man

efla wrote:

Considering the sheer falseness of the bulk of you're statement, anything I write here wont really matter will it? Just to clarify... 'Many', not all (residents appeals), and again, I dont think qualification should be any merit for suitability to submit planning objections (as unfortunately necessary as it is). Phoenix, Kenneally and Wilkinson have spoken out many times over McCann, on record, and were particularly hostile (phoenix in particular) toward Cathy Swift and co during the campaign over Woodstown. .

The only one spreading falsehoods is yourself. You directly accused McCanns opponents and posters here of using the blow in language to describe him.

efla wrote:

Sorry, the 'blow in' reference was not specific to this thread, but it is something I see quite a lot in discussions of McCann (and it was mentioned earlier), and something which was fired out often throughout the save viking waterford campaign, by coucillors Wilkinson, Kenneally, and News and Star's phoenix amongst others. Nothing parochial implied, seems to be within city council mandate anyway .

Above is the direct quote.

The truth is most of Brendan McCanns opponents have went to great lenghts to avoid the "blow in" language. So Phoenix,Keneally and Wilkinson spoke out against McCann.Big Deal! So did the mayor,the previous mayor,most of the elected officials,the city manager,members of the business community and most important of all many members of the public.The fact is archeologists are looking at things through a narrower prism than the rest of us.The elected politicians ( with the exception of the one that aren't related to members of WASICD anyway) are responsible for the well being of the city and its residents and have other considerations to take into account.

efla wrote:

I get the impression that exclusionary planning is something you favour?..

Here we go next thing you'll be accusing me of having vested interests or being a "Fat Cat" or "a member of a heavily clientalist (FF?) community of developers" or some other tired clichéd mantra used by supporters of unelectable politicians and their ideologies.

efla wrote:

I can think of few private citizens in a better position to navigate the planning process at the moment than McCann, qualifaction should be no merit, just informed concern..

Well I can think of plenty.They just don't have the arrogance to tell other people how to do their job.

I'm sure there are plenty of unqualified people who "think" they are great electricians,plumbers.mechanics and various other vocations who would work for less than the going rate.WCTU might have something to say about it though.

efla wrote:

Whether or not the CIB has any direct bearing on the kinds of submissions McCann deals with is'nt the point, it will set a serious precedent for further planning law reviews, I would imagine, similar to the development of the national monuments act amendments over the past decade. The remit of the CIB (infrastructural works) is the only thing standing between it and its application to wider planning law. There is no provision for 'fast tracked appeals' in the current CIB review, only high court appeal..

Maybe you should ask yourself why the CIB is necessary in the first place.As it is the "pro developer" system that's in place has restricted many national projects like the port tunnel from 24 hour work.There is no way that we can bring our infrastructure standards up to that of the the most progressive countries in Europe like Holland with restrictions like that in place.

efla wrote:

Again, I'm not defending his methods. I am trying to understand how local media, and others who have responded to this thread reduce the economic fortune of the city to one man every time.

Well its certainly looks like you are defending him.Maybe you should take your self out of yourt politics for a minute and try and look at it objectively.However to answer your question McCann's objections are driven by politics and ideology rather than a "much needed critique" of developments.Its the same reason WCTU is supporting him.There is plenty of reasons to believe that his objections are more about anti globalisation and anti consumerism politics than any "environmental" concerns he has.His first meeting in the Manor School started off more like a socialist party ard fheis. He is entitled to hold his views but he isn't entitled to force them on the rest of us.You alluded to this yourself in one of your posts.Its been well established that Waterford has falllen behind the other cities and even some of the larger towns.Galway being the prime example but Sligo,Drogheda,Athlone and others being there as well.The economy was booming for five years and not a single development was built in the city.This was in complete contrast to the rest of the country.When things did start to happen every vital piece of economic infrastructure private or state has been objected to by Brendan McCann.The feeling is that the time for Waterford to make hay is now especially that the area is strong politically.Bendan McCann may have a lot of technical knowledge to lodge objections with but shows a complete lack of understanding of the cities economy and the dynamics of the region.He is happy to object to all and sundry within the city council area.He ignores completely car dependent developments just outside the boundary or in South Kilkenny.So not only is he denying the council rates to build the parks and amenities he wants but he also encourages a motor/doughnut city indirectly.If people can't get their designer labels in Waterford they will get in their car to Mahon Point or McDonagh Junction and all the "inconvenient truths" won't stop them. The KRM (in its proposed scale) proposal and much more is badly needed to consolidate the city centres proper function.Brendan McCann is adamantly against it and not just on the basis of poor design.He thinks we don't need it.He is on record as saying so.

But this has been said ad nauseum.It is interesting that the same ignorance that propogated the dock and clover meats strike and ruined the city's economy in the 80's is being repeated.The idiots then thought Waterford existed in a bubble and didn't realise that business would just go elswhere.The same people who where making speeches then are making the same ones now in support of BMC.

efla wrote:

As for 'developers avoiding us because of him', I doubt it would matter..

Unless you happen to work in the construction industry.

efla wrote:

Could someone maybe elaborate on this 'holding back Waterford' sentiment? Things seem pretty good at the moment

In other words "Ah sure everythings grand."

merlante

I think McCann is turning into yesterday's rebel. His peak has come and gone and he is just as unelectable as before. He will continue to object to everything, but hopefully Bord Planala will do what's right.