Deparment of the Environment oppose the "Brewery" complex

mad man

http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=26449&cat=news


The minister of the Environment is a member of the Green Party.A local Green Party activist and self styled planning watchdog has been opposing this project for the last two years.

Is this a co-incidence or does anyone else like myself suspect political interference?

Sully

He isnt elected, so I cant see any TD taking much notice of him. Id be a bit concerned if the government started objecting - there must be SOMETHING wrong about it if its such an issue that others keep objecting also!

mad man

Sully wrote:

He isnt elected, so I cant see any TD taking much notice of him. Id be a bit concerned if the government started objecting - there must be SOMETHING wrong about it if its such an issue that others keep objecting also!

The problem is the minister for the environment is a Green TD and the Green Party leader.I'm not saying BMC rang up John Gormly and asked him for a favour.Perhaps he did or perhaps he lobbied though the grass routes.Either way the fact that this hasn't happened anywhere else in the country to my knowledge and that one of the objectors previously publicly stated he was going to lobby John Gormley raises my suspicions.But I think the most telling thiing is that there are six objections so far.One each from WASICD,Brendan McCann and WCTU which lets face it are one and the same.The same could be said for the traders and the owner of the outdoor store.The Department of the Environment is the anomaly here. Even more so since An Taisce and The Irish Georgian Society has not objected so far where previously they did.
Also look at the quotes from the DOE's objection.They are remarkably similar to previous quotes by Brendan McCann.

If it is a case of a Government Department objecting to an important piece of infrastructure simply because of their ministers political links to an activist with no mandate,then this is as corrupt as anything Liam Lawlor did.

Bards

maybe an e-mail to Conor Kane in the Irish examiner to investigate might be in order?:D

mad man

Bards wrote:

maybe an e-mail to Conor Kane in the Irish examiner to investigate might be in order?:D

Maybe not a bad idea.Who is he?

the leader 64

look lads once again mccann has held up the brewery development until november the 19th when bord pleanala gives it decision.

the city needs it badly as other towns and cities in the country have new shopping centres getting planning permission with out anh hold up.

example is athlone.

the city needs it.

Ostrom

However important it may be, the EIS for the site is incomplete.

Objection doesnt mean complete abondonment, just a proper and deserved review. McCann et al are absolutely right

mad man

efla wrote:

However important it may be, the EIS for the site is incomplete.

Objection doesnt mean complete abondonment, just a proper and deserved review. McCann et al are absolutely right

Funny that because a prominent member of WASICD and SVWAG had previously stated that the EIS on the site was the best they had ever scene.This is an archaeologist with a doctorate.Despite the "incomplete" EIS the DOE is able to state there is likely to be graves,buildings and a lot of other stuff there.

But that is not the real issue.On the surface the DOE objection is unorthodox because it is not common practice for the DOE to do this.There is good reason to suspect that the DOE objection has only happened to give muscle or add gravitas to the objections of "McCann et al".This is a tactic that was already attempted by WCTU by trying to create the impression that the unions were behind McCann.They weren't and as far as WCTU are concerned they have been exposed as nothing more than a few people attempting a major bluff.WCTU still has not answered the public calls in the media to show where they gained there mandate to act as they were doing by a ballot. There is a link to the Environment Minister via the party he shares membership with McCann.Bearing in mind that McCann's philosopy was rejected by 99% of the population in the election for him to be able to influence a government department like that would be corrupt in the extreme.

As for "McCann et all" not wanting abandonment.I doubt that.If you actually spoke to some of them you would realise this is not the case.

IMO this is completely dishonest and it is probably being justified for the usual "greater good".WCTU demanding a micro brewery and a labour museum is ludicrous in the extreme.You'd think that an organisation with their huge "grassroots" support would buy the site themselves with all their union dues and build the museum themselves;)

Let's be honest though this is probably just "No logo" politics. Politics a person is entitled to hold but not entitled to force on anyone else.They might get their way.Then everyone will just go to McDonagh Juncton,Mahon Point.Atlone Town Centre and Dundrum in their cars for their logos.Denying the local economy of revenue and Tax for thier precious Parks and amenities they so desperately want.

BBM77

I am just wondering, does anybody take the objects to the Michaels St shopping centre seriously. I have read pretty much all of them and frankly, I think they are nonsense. I am surprised the WCTU haven’t claimed there is a pyramid somewhere on the site.

navalus

How many more shopping centres do we need in the city centre? The traffic is bad enough as it is.

ex_infantry man

*snip*

Bards

*snip*

ex_infantry man

*snip*

Trotter

I'll leave the moderating to the moderators but... seriously.. stop.

ex_infantry man

Trotter wrote:

I'll leave the moderating to the moderators but... seriously.. stop.

sorry trotter just cud,nt resist!!

fricatus

navalus wrote:

How many more shopping centres do we need in the city centre? The traffic is bad enough as it is.

If the traffic is the problem then implement a traffic-management plan. In any case, we'll have the bypass in three years. The fact is that Waterford city centre's retail "portfolio" is miles behind that of Galway and Limerick.

I had a friend down from Dublin lately and we went around the place shopping on Saturday. Now she was delighted with all the little boutiques and found something she loved.

However, she was looking for something else for office wear and was asking me "Do you have a Brown Thomas/Zara/H&M/Esprit/M&S/Karen Millen/TK Maxx?" and the answer was no to all of these.

Now, she lives in Dublin and has all of these shops, and you expect shopping in Dublin to be better than in Waterford, because it's 20 times bigger and the capital.

Get this though: apart from BT and TK Maxx, all of the above shops are available in Newbridge. Yes, read that last sentence again: Newbridge. Not Cork or Galway... fcuking Newbridge! :mad:

No offence to the people of Newbridge (I have a good mate there), but they're not even supposed to be in the same league as Waterford in these matters. Yet they're ahead of us. The people who are sort of humming and hawing and sort of agreeing with Brendan McCann and his build-nothing band of wasters need to WAKE UP and understand that our city is sinking commercially.

The problems of urban attractiveness, inward investment and social life that we are creating for ourselves by not grabbing each and every retail opportunity that comes our way are the most serious threat facing this city.

The traffic is nothing compared to that, nothing.

navalus

so do you think it was right for "glass boxes" to be built along side the Watch Tower in Railway Square? it would not have been allowed to be built in the Forum in Rome. And im sure there are pleanty of "wasters" who disagree with McCann too.

fricatus

navalus wrote:

so do you think it was right for "glass boxes" to be built along side the Watch Tower in Railway Square? it would not have been allowed to be built in the Forum in Rome. And im sure there are pleanty of "wasters" who disagree with McCann too.

Yes I do, navalus, I do. I'm sure a prettier building could have been put there, but we could have had a derelict site there for the past three years while we debated what sort of building should have been built there.

What's there now is a fine modern building, not outstanding architecturally or anything, but you know something? It's opened up the Watch Tower. You can actually cross the little bridge, walk in around there and see the tower and the wall from all angles. It gives an urban context to the river, better than Michael Crowe's, the car park and the back ends of houses on the other side.

If that building hadn't been built, what would we have? No new cinema. Plus a dead park, full of ken-acker drinkers, plus a few old rundown houses built up against the city wall, cutting it off from the citizens, that's what. Now we have apartments full of people, and a bit of city-type scale on Manor St.

Much as I'm proud of my city's heritage, it's not Rome. Planeloads of tourists are not coming to visit. There are no glossy guidebooks in Russian and Japanese about Waterford's walls. The comparison is unfair. The best thing we can do is put our heritage right in the midst of what we do. That's why I'm quite happy to see apartments and shops up next to our well presented city walls. People will walk by on their daily business and see them.

On the subject of Rome, look at the size of the Colosseum and where it's located, right down at the end of the Forum. Imagine if McCann had been around in Titus's time? Nothing over three stories!

navalus wrote:

And im sure there are pleanty of "wasters" who disagree with McCann too.

Not sure I fully understand that sentence, but maybe I'm one of them

Van

We should remember that the main reason that the Michael Street Development has been delayed is not because of any objector but because the first design sent in by the developer was totally unacceptable to the planners. Does anyone know why that was?

mad man

Van wrote:

We should remember that the main reason that the Michael Street Development has been delayed is not because of any objector but because the first design sent in by the developer was totally unacceptable to the planners. Does anyone know why that was?

Do you know why that was?

Do you see nothing wrong with an individual receiving special treatment (if that is the case) from a government minister and associated dept. just because they are members of the same party?I'm sure if John Gormley was in Fianna Fáil and KRM were members of FF and the thing was passed this is exactly what you would be saying.

Van

mad man wrote:

Do you know why that was?

Do you see nothing wrong with an individual receiving special treatment (if that is the case) from a government minister and associated dept. just because they are members of the same party?I'm sure if John Gormley was in Fianna Fáil and KRM were members of FF and the thing was passed this is exactly what you would be saying.

Of course I do. Now to come back to my question does anyone know why the original plan was unacceptable to the planners?

Sully

Van wrote:

Of course I do. Now to come back to my question does anyone know why the original plan was unacceptable to the planners?

He asked you did you know what it was..

I'm confused if this is supposed to be "Ha, well I do!" or "I don't, care to fill me in?" type of question.

Lets tone it down lads, no need to get at each other throats (virtually!)

mad man

Van wrote:

Of course I do. Now to come back to my question does anyone know why the original plan was unacceptable to the planners?

Yes of course you do.That's why you're asking the question because you know the answer:rolleyes:

Your probably happy to put up with political cronyism and subterfuge as long as long as its one of your "guys" who is doing it.

This is the ORIGINAL question.Did the DOE object simply because Brendan McCann pulled a few strings? Their objection seems to be unorthodox.Especially when they seem to be so impotent on the hill of Tara issue.