Greystones Marina - Permission GRANTED

Dapper

well i think the area needs a revamp not nessacarily a big development but the area has been completly neglected by the co/co...like most of the county of wicklow the county council demand loads of money off developers for improvments and for infastructer but spends nothing on them

Sparks

Ah, the "The CoCo won't spend money, so lets sell public land of enormous value to a few rich fellows who'll make even more money off it, in the oft-vain hope that we'll get back something we should have been demanding as a basic service in the first place" argument.
For such a long-winded name, you hear it far too often...

Hammiepeters

Does anyone moderate the moderaters? Sparks, I am neither vehemently pro or anti in the marina debate, but I think your posts reek of condescension and bitterness.

Sparks

Does anyone moderate the moderaters?

Does anyone check to see who moderates what???
<---- hint, look over here...

(BTW, was that hammiepeters calling the kettle black?)

fishdog

Does it piss you off that people have bigger houses and more money than you? If so, work harder or win the lotto!

I diagree with your point of view, dont try to make it something personal. You do not know how much money or how big a house I have. This is not relevent anyway to the propossed development!

The marina isn't going to be high!

True, but the appartments are and they are part of the same development. You will not have one without the other.

Of course its going to look out of sync with the rest of the town, what do you expect them to build delapidated looking roads with potholes and sunken speed ramps? Do you expect them to use crumbling red brick for the buldings?

Perhaps I have an unfair advantage over you here. I have alot of experience working in the construction industry and I have been lucky enough to work with some very talented designers and architechts. Modern and well built appartments/houses/shops etc. can also look fantastic. This is a fact.

I agree, they're minging,

Now you have hit the nail on the head! You see most of us dont want "minging" buildings. That is our whole point! Why not have them looking great????

I know you want a place for your boat, but as a boat owner you represent (I would guess) less than 1% of the people that live here and to get your way you think it is ok for the rest of us to have to put up with "minging" buildings!

People need places to live,

I kow they do, but if they can afford these they can afford to buy almost anywhere. Get real these are not going to be homless people that will have nowhere else to live!

Hammiepeters

Sparks wrote:

Does anyone check to see who moderates what???
<---- hint, look over here...

(BTW, was that hammiepeters calling the kettle black?)

What? You moderate the shooting forum? Thats reassureing. And no I am neither bitter nor condescending.

Sparks

Hammiepeters wrote:

What? You moderate the shooting forum? Thats reassureing.

What? You live in the county in Ireland that has the highest number of issued firearms licences and the largest number of target shooting clubs and gun clubs? That's interesting.

And no I am neither bitter nor condescending.

You might not think you are, but if the cap fits...

westtip

Irish Times Letters page today wrote:

I see the impact of the decision is keeping the debate alive on the IT letters page today:

GREYSTONES HARBOUR PLAN


Madam, - Ciaran Hayden (August 16th) claims that the two general election candidates in Wicklow for Fianna Gael and Fianna Fáil increased their support in Greystones. As far as I am aware there is no public declaration of counts on a town-by-town basis, so it is difficult to see how he can prove his point.

I presume Evelyn Cawley's vote of 2,246 first preferences would have come almost entirely from the Greystones electorate. To achieve the vote she did as a new candidate working almost entirely from a local base says a lot for her.

The acid test at the ballot box will be at the next local elections when, I, hope the county and town councillors from Greystones who supported the redevelopment scheme will face the music, just as Dublin county councillors did after their decision on Wood Quay. - Yours, etc,

JOAN QUINN, Heather Vue, Greystones, Co Wicklow.

..

This is an excellent response to the incredibly weak arguments and quite simplistic views put forward in the letter referred to by Ciaran Hayden a letter which dispalyed very little analytical ability, this letter has torn Mr. Haydens view to shreds.

mikedragon32

mikedragon32 wrote:

Everyone needs to tone down the language here.

Every thread on this subject has spiralled out of reason and this one is heading the same way.

If the discussion can't be kept civil, I won't just lock the thread, it will be deleted and any further threads on development closed immediately or moved elsewhere, probably the Recycle Bin under Sys.

Hammie & Sparks,

I don't give a toss who moderates what. I moderate here and that's all that you need to worry about when you post here.

You're both making this a personal arguement.

Everyone needs to remember my warning earlier in this thread, quoted for your convenience. You can both consider yourselves warned. Next step is a nice temp ban.

Grovey

I'm really angry about this. How could Derek Mitchell and George Jones do this without meting with locals first. they are the most arrogant people I have ever experienced as concillors. I dont know how any one can say that this is good for Greystones. every single person I talk to is against this. How could Jones Mitchell and the planning board all ignore what Greystones residents want. :mad: it will be like having Fairways apartments all crammed in to the harbour. picture that. they are ruining Greystones.

Listen to this local politicians, Fiana Fail or Fine Gael will not be getting my vote in the local elections. disgraceful people.

Cheeky Chops

Just my opinion but I think we have to accept that the marina decision and other such planning decisions are our own fault.

County Councillors have a scary amount of power. WE vote them in. Or more importantly we don't vote them in.

How many people actually bother to vote in their local elections?

Having worked closely with Wicklow councillors in the last few years I was shocked firstly at the amount of power they have and secondly how unqualified they are to do the job. There are a few that actually care and are able. On the whole they are not a bright, switched on bunch of people at the top of their game. They go to the opening of an envelope ( and have a few gasses of the old vino). They have no concept (or interest) of the long term consequences of their planning decisions.

The next local elections will be exactly the same. Voter apathy and a bunch of middle aged men, with the odd woman councillor thrown in.

THESE PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS ON OUR FUTURES and yet we vote them in by not voting..

Cheeky Chops

For all those that are in the know..

I'm worried about the impact of the new development on St Patricks. It is very close to the harbour and my child is only in Senior Infants. I'm concerned on many levels - environmental, traffic etc. Anyone have any insight?

On a personal note - we drive to school via the harbour every morning. When we have time, we stop off and have a few minutes on the beach. I can't imagine what it is going to be like over the next few years. She said to me the other day" Mummy, why are they taking our harbour away". What on earth do you say to that?!

Thanks

Ossie

An Bord Pleanala Inspector’s Report on dated May 2007 by James Carroll on the Greystones Harbour and North Beach development contained 17 conditions. However by the time the Board had issued their decision in August 2007 the conditions had been whittled down to only 12.

As expected the Bord Pleanala overruled a number of the more onerous conditions. These conditions would have made it more difficult and expensive for the developer. Everything that the Board have done in making their outrageous decision to approve this monstrosity has displayed a total distain for the ordinary people of Greystones.:eek:

But what are these five ‘missing’ conditions?

1. Inspector condition 3: Prior to the commencement of development, Wicklow County Council shall make an application for a Foreshore Licence to the Department of the Marine, Communications and Natural Resources, to provide the necessary beach nourishment material from the Codling Bank. Beach nourishment, from this source, if available, shall be pumped from ship to shore, in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of the sustainment of the beach in a satisfactory condition.

2. Inspector condition 6: Boat maintenance and/or storage shall not be undertaken on either breakwater.
Reason: In order to maintain the breakwaters for public use.

3. Inspector condition 11: The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the commencement of the construction of dwellings. Materials shall be trucked to a berth at the north breakwater, for shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall comply with the requirements of the authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

4. Inspector condition 13: The marina control building shall be reduced in height to one-storey. Details of compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the planning authority.

5. Inspector condition 15: Nautical hazard lights shall be placed in the harbour, as required by the Department of Marine, Communications and Natural Resources.

Another condition made by the Inspector was amended to make life even easier for the developer:

6. Inspector condition 10: Demolition and construction works shall be confined between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 16.30 on Saturdays. Construction shall not take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity during the course of the works.

The Board gave no reason as to why they rejected these conditions.

Is it any wonder the Irish planning system in now in a state of complete and utter disrepute in the eyes of the people of Ireland.:mad:

Ossie

Inspector condition number 11.

The dump will remain at Greystones harbour. :eek: The developers will dig up part of the dump and re-deposit it on currently uncontaminated land in Darcy's field. They will then build new houses on the dump land.

The Inspectors condition of completely removing the dump (by sea borne transport) was overruled by the Board. :mad:

The letter dated 8th August 2007 sent by the Board stated the following:

"In deciding not to attach the Inspector’s condition number 11 which would have required the total removal of the landfill material from the site, the Board had particular regard to the submissions made in response to the section 175 letter which included an assessment of the nature and present state of the landfill material and considered that the works proposed would not be prejudicial to public health. On balance the Board considered that retention on site in accordance with the details submitted with the said response was more sustainable than total removal off site and redeposition at another location with associated traffic and environmental impacts."

Detailed reasons given by the inspector in his report of May 2007 stated the following:

"The evidence produced at the reopened oral hearing by the objectors is to the effect that the old dump should either remain undisturbed or should be entirely removed from the site, by sea.

While the developers have carried out testing of the landfill, I find myself in agreement with the objectors that, having regard to the variety of materials, which was deposited in old landfills, both legally and illegally, removing part of the landfill for deposition elsewhere on the site, does not constitute an acceptable solution. It should be noted that the developers do not consider that a waste licence is required for this activity. On the other hand the objectors consider that if legislation currently in the pipeline is implemented such activity would be licensable.

Condition 14 of my report of July 2006 was as follows:

“The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation of any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the northern breakwater, being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall comply with the requirements of the authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on-site is dealt with in accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term adverse environmental impact is avoided.”

If the landfill remains undisturbed, it would result in a loss of a number of houses, at the northern part of the residential development.

I do not consider that removal of material for deposition on another part of the site, constitutes an acceptable approach. I furthermore do not consider that the examples given by the developers, at Fairview, Pottery Road /Johnstown Road and the N11 at Bromley, are in any way comparable to what is proposed on the subject site. In none of those cases was it proposed to build on land which had been stripped of landfill. None of the sites immediately adjoin residential accommodation. The Fairview site is located some distance from residential accommodation. The Pottery Road site is an industrial development and does not relate to residential accommodation in any way. The Bromley site is located on the eastern side of the N11 and again does not relate in any way to residential accommodation. It is removal of landfill for the provision of a road interchange.

I consider that the landfill requires removal from the site in full. This can best be achieved by seaborne transport. It could be done in the immediate period following the provision of the harbour and a berth development which would have the dual usage of not only providing for the removal of the landfill by sea but also, if required, the importation of beach nourishment material. This is referred to below.

I do not consider that the arguments put forward by the developers in relation to the landfill are in any way convincing. While it would be possible to retain the landfill on site I consider its removal would be far preferable having regard to the fact that residential accommodation would be constructed immediately adjoining it. It is also of some importance that any danger of erosion of the landfill, by the sea, is obviated. Removal is, in my opinion, required. I know of no other site where it has been proposed to retain a landfill, reposition part of it and build residential accommodation on an original part of the landfill which has been removed to another position on the same site. The proposed development provides an ideal opportunity to comprehensively deal with a landfill, the contents of which are largely unknown and which is located immediately on a coastline.

The developers statement that if the landfill was removed a similar amount of material would be required to provide the existing land shape/contours that exist as a result of the landfill, is not in my opinion, a requirement. Removal of the landfill will result in reversion to the original contours. It would also result in the possibility of archaeological investigation of this part of the site, which would otherwise remain under the landfill.

In relation to the position regarding any necessary waste licenses, I consider that this has been correctly outlined by the developers as not being required in relation to the repositioning of 9,000 cubic metres from one part of the site to another. The Environmental Protection Agency has been requested to comment to various aspects by both the developers and by the objectors. I do not consider that the position adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency lends any weight to the developers argument for repositioning of waste material on site."

Grovey

Ossie wrote:

Inspector condition number 11.

The dump will remain at Greystones harbour. :eek: The developers will dig up part of the dump and re-deposit it on currently uncontaminated land in Darcy's field. They will then build new houses on the dump land.

The Inspectors condition of completely removing the dump (by sea borne transport) was overruled by the Board. :mad:

The letter dated 8th August 2007 sent by the Board stated the following:

"In deciding not to attach the Inspector’s condition number 11 which would have required the total removal of the landfill material from the site, the Board had particular regard to the submissions made in response to the section 175 letter which included an assessment of the nature and present state of the landfill material and considered that the works proposed would not be prejudicial to public health. On balance the Board considered that retention on site in accordance with the details submitted with the said response was more sustainable than total removal off site and redeposition at another location with associated traffic and environmental impacts."

Detailed reasons given by the inspector in his report of May 2007 stated the following:

"The evidence produced at the reopened oral hearing by the objectors is to the effect that the old dump should either remain undisturbed or should be entirely removed from the site, by sea.

While the developers have carried out testing of the landfill, I find myself in agreement with the objectors that, having regard to the variety of materials, which was deposited in old landfills, both legally and illegally, removing part of the landfill for deposition elsewhere on the site, does not constitute an acceptable solution. It should be noted that the developers do not consider that a waste licence is required for this activity. On the other hand the objectors consider that if legislation currently in the pipeline is implemented such activity would be licensable.

Condition 14 of my report of July 2006 was as follows:

“The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation of any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the northern breakwater, being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall comply with the requirements of the authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on-site is dealt with in accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term adverse environmental impact is avoided.”

If the landfill remains undisturbed, it would result in a loss of a number of houses, at the northern part of the residential development.

I do not consider that removal of material for deposition on another part of the site, constitutes an acceptable approach. I furthermore do not consider that the examples given by the developers, at Fairview, Pottery Road /Johnstown Road and the N11 at Bromley, are in any way comparable to what is proposed on the subject site. In none of those cases was it proposed to build on land which had been stripped of landfill. None of the sites immediately adjoin residential accommodation. The Fairview site is located some distance from residential accommodation. The Pottery Road site is an industrial development and does not relate to residential accommodation in any way. The Bromley site is located on the eastern side of the N11 and again does not relate in any way to residential accommodation. It is removal of landfill for the provision of a road interchange.

I consider that the landfill requires removal from the site in full. This can best be achieved by seaborne transport. It could be done in the immediate period following the provision of the harbour and a berth development which would have the dual usage of not only providing for the removal of the landfill by sea but also, if required, the importation of beach nourishment material. This is referred to below.

I do not consider that the arguments put forward by the developers in relation to the landfill are in any way convincing. While it would be possible to retain the landfill on site I consider its removal would be far preferable having regard to the fact that residential accommodation would be constructed immediately adjoining it. It is also of some importance that any danger of erosion of the landfill, by the sea, is obviated. Removal is, in my opinion, required. I know of no other site where it has been proposed to retain a landfill, reposition part of it and build residential accommodation on an original part of the landfill which has been removed to another position on the same site. The proposed development provides an ideal opportunity to comprehensively deal with a landfill, the contents of which are largely unknown and which is located immediately on a coastline.

The developers statement that if the landfill was removed a similar amount of material would be required to provide the existing land shape/contours that exist as a result of the landfill, is not in my opinion, a requirement. Removal of the landfill will result in reversion to the original contours. It would also result in the possibility of archaeological investigation of this part of the site, which would otherwise remain under the landfill.

In relation to the position regarding any necessary waste licenses, I consider that this has been correctly outlined by the developers as not being required in relation to the repositioning of 9,000 cubic metres from one part of the site to another. The Environmental Protection Agency has been requested to comment to various aspects by both the developers and by the objectors. I do not consider that the position adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency lends any weight to the developers argument for repositioning of waste material on site."

:eek: :eek:

what goes on behind the scenes at bord pleanala . it looks like when fine gael councillors and big developers want something done it will happen even if all the people are against it. very worrying. :mad:

Ossie

DEPOSITION OF RETIRED GARDA SEAMUS FALLON REGARDING THE OLD DUMP AT GREYSTONES HARBOUR

While serving in the Garda Siochana I was stationed at Greystones between 1967 and 1984. The nature of my work caused me to pay regular visits to the town dump which was located at the North Beach on the site which forms part of the development proposal of Sispar and Wicklow County Council.

The purpose of my visits included:
• Searching for lost property
• Searching for stolen property
• Engaging in regular patrols of all parts of the town as part of my duties.

As a result when visiting the dump I often had cause to examine its contents closely. I can confirm that the dump contained large quantities of domestic refuse of all kinds as well as a considerable quantity of commercial refuse. Included among these would be:
• Car batteries
• Dry cell batteries
• Whole cars (From which oil on occasion leaked)
• Garden waste
• Food, cooked and uncooked
• Household chemicals (bleach, polish, cleaning agents)
• Bulbs
• Cosmetics (Shampoo, hair cream, soaps, sun cream)
• Shoe polish
• Broken electrical equipment (radios, TV’s tools)
• Kitchen appliances (Fridges, cookers, vaccum cleaners)
• Old toys

Among the commercial refuse deposited there was.
• Paints
• Oil cans
• Pharmacy products

In addition I recall observing various containers, (boxes, cans, drums) whose contents I did not investigate but which were unlikely to have contained domestic waste and were more likely to have contained commercial waste.

I believe that all of the above items were to be found in substantial quantities. There were no restrictions, that I am aware of, on the material that could be deposited in the dump. Much of the material was deposited by the employees of Wicklow County Council however private individuals and local businesses also had access to the dump to deposit waste. I frequently visited the dump to find the gate open and no one checking the entry of vehicles. It was common practice for locals when servicing their cars to drive to the dump and drain the oil into the ground as well as disposing of engine parts being replaced.

Indeed there was no awareness in those times that certain waste ought not to be disposed of in a landfill of this kind. It was generally perceived that it was a disposal site available to all for all kinds of waste.


Seamus Fallon
Retired Garda


[MOD] No need for huge fonts within a thread, bold text is as effective [/MOD]

mikedragon32

I've edited several posts merely to drop down the size of some of the huge fonts being used. No wording has been altered.

Sparks

Pity you didn't alter the text Mike, I'm sure that the poster didn't mean to say "Retried Garda"

Cheeky Chops

To my questiion re St Patricks? Anyone know?

Fiachra2

Cheeky Chops wrote:

To my questiion re St Patricks? Anyone know?

In 2003, traffic consultants retained by the Council claimed that the area was ill suited to any significant additional traffic and definitely could not handle the traffic associated with more than 250 apartments. They are building 340.

During construction (5 years) there will be a huge volumn of truck movements in that area. There will be traffic calming measures extending back to St Kevins so the traffic probabably wont be moving very quickly. In fact if the above consultants are right it may not be moving at all!

Cheeky Chops

Thanks :eek:

cheers

Any idea when the building is starting?

Honestly!

matt-dublin wrote: »

personally, all arguements aside, i think it looks quote well,

here's a photomontage of what it will look like from the junction of cliff and beach road (where the triangle thingy is)
(attached file)

i got this from here (huge file, 65MB) http://www.wicklow.ie/specialprojects/Greystones%20Additional%20Information/Volume%202/AMENDMENTS%20TO%20THE%20EIS/6_greystones%20HI%20RES%20v1.pdf

Yeah, super!

LEIN

Seriously, this thread is 7 years old!!