Waterford Stanley Bilberry Development

Green Hornet

Any update on the Waterford Stanley site in Bilberry?
Haven't heard anything about it for a while and wondering if the downturn will put paid to it.

Anything is better than whats there at the moment.

Jambo

From todays Irish Times

€380m Waterford project gets green light

PLANNING PERMISSION has been granted by Waterford City Council for a €380 million waterside hotel, leisure, office and residential development which is expected to create 400 jobs during construction and a similar number on completion.



The Water Haven development will be situated on a 13-acre site beside the river Suir at Bilberry in the city, which was formerly the old location of the Waterford Stanley iron foundry.
The scheme - proposed by local developer William Bolster - will feature an iconic 33-storey tower with 23 floors of apartments and 10 floors of offices.
The building will also house a bar and restaurant offering unprecedented views of Waterford city, east Co Waterford and south Co Kilkenny.
The brownfield lands, identified as an opportunity site in the Waterford City Development Plan 2007-2013, will also accommodate a 15-storey, 150-bedroom hotel along with underground parking, restaurants, smaller office units and duplex apartments.
The hotel, it is proposed, will have a large conference centre capable of accommodating 750 delegates - helping to make Waterford a more attractive venue for off-season business tourism.
A leisure and fitness centre will include a gymnasium, spa and swimming pool, while the scheme also includes provision for a marina with 60 berths.
Meanwhile, an extension of the Waterford and Suir Valley railway to allow the train run to the site of the former Waterford South railway station at Bilberry is also being facilitated by the design team led by Waterford-based CJ Falconer and Associates Chartered Architects.
The residential component of the development includes 420 apartments that will be pitched at families as well as couples, sharers and sole occupants.
Mr Bolster of the Tramore-based Bolster Group said he was delighted to have received planning permission from the Waterford council and hoped to proceed to the first construction phase of the development as early as possible in 2009.
"I would also like to thank the city manager, planning department and all the various departments of the authority along with all the local councillors who gave great support throughout the process. It is an example of how working together can create very exciting projects for the future of Waterford city and county," he said.
"In the current economic climate, it is a massive boost to Waterford and I would appeal to people's better judgment not to appeal the decision to An Bord Pleanála, which will allow us start real negotiations with hotel operators and companies wishing to relocate to Waterford.
"This will, in turn, create long-term jobs for the people of Waterford."
Mr Bolster said that, in the future, there will be opportunities to develop art galleries and appropriate retail, educational and ecclesiastical facilities in this urban quarter.

mike65

Well the developer better have deep pockets as I imagine credit could be hard to come by. That said he'll get much better value for the investment over the next couple of years.

old gregg

[quote
"In the current economic climate, it is a massive boost to Waterford and I would appeal to people's better judgment not to appeal the decision to An Bord Pleanála, which will allow us start real negotiations with hotel operators and companies wishing to relocate to Waterford.
[/quote]
what makes anyone think that someone would appeal a planning decision down these parts

Jambo

old gregg wrote: »

"In the current economic climate, it is a massive boost to Waterford and I would appeal to people's better judgment not to appeal the decision to An Bord Pleanála, which will allow us start real negotiations with hotel operators and companies wishing to relocate to Waterford.

what makes anyone think that someone would appeal a planning decision down these parts

I would pity that individuals family as as this project will no doubt form his sole interest and focal point over the festive period .

IMO I know the Bolster Group stated the development would be carried out over 10 years or so , but I half wonder with the current climate and current glut of properties on the market in 10 years will we require these extra appartments ?

And for the Hotel I dont think this end of town will have a requirement for more Guest Accom well into the new year and beyond !

Typewriter

It looks class!!!

Sully

Are they going to locate beside the halting site? Ha, best of luck getting people to stay in that hotel :P

(Im assuming tho, they bought them out - if you can even do that)

mike65

I imagine the cost of buying off a couple of traveller families is but a drop in the ocean of the budget.

Sully

mike65 wrote: »

I imagine the cost of buying off a couple of traveller families is but a drop in the ocean of the budget.

I doubt it. Cost the council somewhere up the country a lot of money. These guys may just milk the development team.

lugha

I would guess that the gang behind this development made the decision to push on with the planning application once they had begun it ( wasn’t the tiger roaring when this plan was first proposed?). In the current climate I wouldn’t be surprised if they, having secured planning permission, simply parked the whole think until a more opportune time. (Does planning permission for a development like this have time scale conditions attached?) Where on earth would they get the money to develop it? On the other hand, if they do have the money, then the probably could save a few quid on constructions costs if they cracked on next year.

Sully

Same company has plans for a hotel out in Garrus.. Got like 200 objections and is before An Board Pleanála. They have done a few housing estates also.

Cill Chainnigh

There are also plans to build a road from the bridge to link up with the relief road that was built between Genzyme and Grace Deau. The aim is to direct all traffic bound for Cork to the right hand side as it crosses the bridge.

Green Hornet

Cill Chainnigh wrote: »

There are also plans to build a road from the bridge to link up with the relief road that was built between Genzyme and Grace Deau. The aim is to direct all traffic bound for Cork to the right hand side as it crosses the bridge.

Surely thats unlikely seeing as the new road/bridge will already bypass the town anyway?

I wonder if the developer will actually start the development for a good while in any case given the changed cicumstances since the plans were submitted. That said, the road and area along the quay are getting dirtier every day and every time you travel along there you encounter those childish boy racers in their toy cars with dustbin exhausts.

Sully

This has been objected to An Bord Pleanála by:
* Bowefield Residents Association (Appellant) (Active)
* Brendan McCann (Appellant) (Active)
* Gracedieu Residents Group (Appellant) (Active)

Case is due to be decided by 27-05-2009

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/232507.htm

sunnysoutheast

I think it's clear that this project will never see the light of day in its proposed form given current and future economic conditions. Pity as that side of the City is an underused asset.

I can understand the objections though - apart from the one from Viewmount. I'm not sure what effect this proposal would have on that side of the City.

SSE

Professey Chin

Sully wrote: »

This has been objected to An Bord Pleanála by:
* Bowefield Residents Association (Appellant) (Active)
* Brendan McCann (Appellant) (Active)
* Gracedieu Residents Group (Appellant) (Active)

Case is due to be decided by 27-05-2009

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/232507.htm

Jaysus ive never seen that name on a planning objection before:rolleyes:

merlante

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I think it's clear that this project will never see the light of day in its proposed form given current and future economic conditions. Pity as that side of the City is an underused asset.

I can understand the objections though - apart from the one from Viewmount. I'm not sure what effect this proposal would have on that side of the City.

SSE

It might never be built, but I actually can't see why ABP would reject it. Bearing in mind that 'ruining my view' is not a valid objection.

Bards

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Jaysus ive never seen that name on a planning objection before:rolleyes:

...and he helped the Bowfield Residents lodge their objection - Is this fair to have one man efectively lodging multiple objections by way of proxy

Professey Chin

Bards wrote: »

...and he helped the Bowfield Residents lodge their objection - Is this fair to have one man efectively lodging multiple objections by way of proxy

Not really. It is well known we have a terrible planning system in this country though....just like everything else really

Green Hornet

To be honest, I can understand the Bowefield residents objections.

In all honesty, I think a smaller development would have been more suitable as well. Waterford does not need a 32 storey hotel and certainly doesn't need all those apartments.

If they had put together a more reasonable plan I'd imagine there would have been less objections. After all, that Stanley place must be an eyesore from anywhere in that area.

Bards

Green Hornet wrote: »

To be honest, I can understand the Bowefield residents objections.

In all honesty, I think a smaller development would have been more suitable as well. Waterford does not need a 32 storey hotel and certainly doesn't need all those apartments.

If they had put together a more reasonable plan I'd imagine there would have been less objections. After all, that Stanley place must be an eyesore from anywhere in that area.

no matter what was put in there BmC would find a reason to object

merlante

Green Hornet wrote: »

To be honest, I can understand the Bowefield residents objections.

In all honesty, I think a smaller development would have been more suitable as well. Waterford does not need a 32 storey hotel and certainly doesn't need all those apartments.

If they had put together a more reasonable plan I'd imagine there would have been less objections. After all, that Stanley place must be an eyesore from anywhere in that area.

There are lots of things we don't 'need need' that people like to build. I think a lot of people would like this building and a lot of people would dislike it, it's a matter of opinion. At the end of the day, if somebody wants to build something, there has to actually be something wrong with the plan before it can be stopped. The council have earmarked the site for something significant/iconic, and this building certainly would be that.

Green Hornet

merlante wrote: »

There are lots of things we don't 'need need' that people like to build. I think a lot of people would like this building and a lot of people would dislike it, it's a matter of opinion. At the end of the day, if somebody wants to build something, there has to actually be something wrong with the plan before it can be stopped. The council have earmarked the site for something significant/iconic, and this building certainly would be that.

I understand that. It is an opportunity to put something significant and iconic alright. I dont think that a whole bunch of apartments and a 32 storey building are iconic though.

Even a small hotel with ancillary facilities and a nice marina would be nicer than a 32 storey hotel and apartments?

merlante

Green Hornet wrote: »

I understand that. It is an opportunity to put something significant and iconic alright. I dont think that a whole bunch of apartments and a 32 storey building are iconic though.

Even a small hotel with ancillary facilities and a nice marina would be nicer than a 32 storey hotel and apartments?

As I understand it, there is a lot more than just that, including possible linkages with Waterford Suir Valley Railway, and a possible rail link to the new WIT campus in carriganore. There may well be a marina in there too, and there are a number of buildings as part of the plan. I'm sure the plan can be dug up easily enough online.

Partizan

merlante wrote: »

As I understand it, there is a lot more than just that, including possible linkages with Waterford Suir Valley Railway, and a possible rail link to the new WIT campus in carriganore. There may well be a marina in there too, and there are a number of buildings as part of the plan. I'm sure the plan can be dug up easily enough online.

Exactly, there is talk of reopening the Waterford to Dungarvan rail line. The potential is there as there used to be a train station where the old Foundry is now. Indeed up to the late 1970s a rail line connected the factory to the Waterford-Ballinacourty line which closed in 1982.

The Waterford & Suir Valley heritage railway are keen to expand and no doubt have their eyes on the Foundry site. It would be great if either that or Irish Rail (IE) reopened part of the line. The city would have 2 railway stations.

sunnysoutheast

I believe the proposal included a park and ride facility in Kilmeaden running light rail into a new station within the development, following the route of the W&SVR.

I remember reading somewhere that the Waterford-Dungarvan line can never be reopened, even if the money was there, as certain sections have been specifically built over to prevent it ever happening.

It's be great if the W&SVR got some proper trains. Many preserved railways in the UK carry commuters as well as day trippers.

SSE

JohnC.

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that the Waterford-Dungarvan line can never be reopened, even if the money was there, as certain sections have been specifically built over to prevent it ever happening.

Doesn't stop them moving people and business when they want to build a new road. Surely it could happen with a railway too?

sunnysoutheast

Kahless wrote: »

Doesn't stop them moving people and business when they want to build a new road. Surely it could happen with a railway too?

Yep, in theory. Generally, though, the acquisition costs will make the whole project uneconomic. That's why it's vital to preserve the original alignments.

When lines were closed in the UK councils were instructed to relax planning rules to allow building on lines thus preventing reopening. The stupidity of that policy is now being revealed as some closed lines, such as Oxford-Cambridge, can only be reopened at great cost as small new sections of line are required and the land purchase costs are astronomical.

Remember spending on roads is classed as an investment while spending on the railways is a subsidy.

I agree it would be fantastic to have commuter rail lines from Waterford to Dungarvan (and on to Cork?) and New Ross (on to Dublin?). Can't see it happening though, sadly.

SSE

bootsy11

where can i get the development plan?

Bards

bootsy11 wrote: »

where can i get the development plan?

http://www.bolstergroup.com/bolster-properties/latest-news/plans-unveiled-for-380m-iconic-riverside-development-in-waterford.html

merlante

Bards wrote: »

http://www.bolstergroup.com/bolster-properties/latest-news/plans-unveiled-for-380m-iconic-riverside-development-in-waterford.html

Looking at the plan again, it looks brilliant. Yes it's ambitious, yes it might not be utilised to its full capacity for years, but it would be great for Waterford. The conference centre is key for Waterford. It could easily become one of the main conference centres nationally.

chrism2007

if everythings being rejected planning why would anyone bother trying to develop here.

and its the government that gets the blame for leaving waterford behind

nkay1985

I think this would look absolutely class. And imagine it lit up at night.

I'd love to know on what basis the objections are being raised.

Green Hornet

nkay1985 wrote: »

I think this would look absolutely class. And imagine it lit up at night.

I'd love to know on what basis the objections are being raised.

I'd imagine the local residents cant be too happy with the thoughts of a huge hotel and the noise, light etc that would have been appearing on their doorsteps.

In all honesty, I can't really blame them. I wouldn't be too happy either.

The development looks good alright though. There's no way in hell that it will go ahead in the current climate though. Maybe a scaled down version. Something is needed on that side of the town to clean up that area.

KingLoser

Green Hornet wrote: »

I'd imagine the local residents cant be too happy with the thoughts of a huge hotel and the noise, light etc that would have been appearing on their doorsteps.

But like... their doorstep is just off city centre. They can stop this, but something else will eventually have to be built there. If they don't want noise, then they should move out the country and stop being such pretentious middle-class wannabes.

Anyway, I think it's a silly plan at a silly time in a silly town. :pac:

merlante

KingLoser wrote: »

But like... their doorstep is just off city centre. They can stop this, but something else will eventually have to be built there. If they don't want noise, then they should move out the country and stop being such pretentious middle-class wannabes.

Anyway, I think it's a silly plan at a silly time in a silly town. :pac:

Exactly, and anyway, there are no residents -- just those people living a good way off overlooking the Suir.

Are we supposed to stop building in case somebody somewhere is put out? These "residents" are nothing more than NIMBYs, pure and simple, harming Waterford not even because they know it will have a negative affect on them, but because Brendan McCann has convinced them that change is bad. And also, they seem to think they bought a view. The fact is, they didn't.

It's this sort of NIMBY mentality that put the planning for the Newgate development -- which is direly needed -- in jeopardy. The local residents, etc. Jesus, any local residents should not be too shocked that things are built in a city centre. Bilberry doesn't even have residents in any sane sense to think about. Even city square had one or two individuals that held up development there for a decade or two. *shame* on anyone who engages in raw and ignorant NIMBYism. *shame* on you.

rant over...

Asmodean

The city needs developments like this (albeit not at this large scale given current times) if the rest of the country are going to start taking us seriously! The City is dying on its feet because of the grouchy elite who are obstructing every bit of development that's trying to get established. I swear you wouldn't see as much cribbin' in any other large town or City.

robtri

Asmodean wrote: »

The city needs developments like this (albeit not at this large scale given current times) if the rest of the country are going to start taking us seriously! The City is dying on its feet because of the grouchy elite who are obstructing every bit of development that's trying to get established. I swear you wouldn't see as much cribbin' in any other large town or City.

Actually everyother city and town, suffers from the same whining and cribbin' in relation to planning as Waterford does, they all have the Mr.McCann's....

This is IMO a fantastic development and hopefully it will go ahead in full....

Psychedelic

There's no way in hell that it will go ahead in the current climate though

well the developers are doing their best to get this approved so it looks to me like they are committed to building it should they get approval from An Bord Pleanala.

merlante

robtri wrote: »

Actually everyother city and town, suffers from the same whining and cribbin' in relation to planning as Waterford does, they all have the Mr.McCann's....

This is IMO a fantastic development and hopefully it will go ahead in full....

Statistically, actually, they don't. Somebody posted statistics about numbers of ABP objections before, and McCann was near the top of the list. The only entities above him were organisations, like An Taisce. So you have national organisations, objecting countrywide, being matched by McCann, only objecting within the legal Waterford city boundary. Amazing if you think about it.

Not to mention the fact that McCann has become an expert in drafting objections and observations, and is aiding other interest groups in drafting theirs.

Green Hornet

What about the old grain store in Ferrybank? Is anything happening there? Big site.

Truly horrible on the way into the town from the Wexford side.

Sully

Planning permission granted for this with 22 conditions. It has been appealed by;
* Bowefield Residents Association (Appellant) (Active)
* Brendan McCann (Appellant) (Active)
* Gracedieu Residents Group (Appellant) (Active)

Decision due the end of the month.

CONDITION
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application on 1st May 2008 and 28th October 2008, except as may otherwise be required to comply with the following conditions. The mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Impact Statement shall be implemented in full by the developer.
REASON
1. In the interest of clarifying the nature and extent of the permitted development.

CONDITION
2. The proposed helipad shall be omitted from the development.
REASON
2. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, having regard to the submitted plans and particulars that the proposed helipad can be constructed and operated in a manner which is consistent with the protection of public safety.

CONDITION
3. The road reservation line indicated on the attached map no. W08105-01 shall be reserved free from development in order to facilitate future road improvements. A revised site layout plan indicating compliance with the above shall be submitted for the written consent of the Planning Authority prior to commencement.
REASON
3. In order to facilitate the future improvement and realignment of Bilberry Road in accordance with the objectives of the Waterford City Development Plan.

CONDITION
4. a) Where there is a level difference between the proposed Bilberry Road Improvement Scheme and the internal access road to the Waterhaven Development the proposed retaining wall structure shall be designed to meet the requirements of a surcharge load from the proposed road design. Full design details and certification from a fully qualified Chartered Consultant Engineer should be agreed in writing prior to construction of this structure.
b) All retaining wall structures, boundary treatments and traffic containment barriers are to be positioned behind the proposed reservation line as identified on Drawing W08105-01 – WCC Reservation Line.
c) The proposed 2m wide footpath is to be installed by the developer to levels agreed with WCC prior to the construction of the footpath.
d) The proposed entrance locations and levels are to be agreed with Waterford City Council prior to commencement of the works on site.





e) A Stage 2&3 Road Safety Audit shall be carried out at the appropriate stages. This Audit should be carried out by an independent road safety audit team with stage 2 submitted and agreed with the Planning Authority prior to any junction works starting on site. Stage 3 to be undertaken and agreed with the Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development. This audit shall address inter alia details of containment of the traffic, particularly in relation to an errant vehicle leaving the existing public road and entering into the development site at low level. Should this audit demonstrate that a containment barrier is required, this is to be installed by the applicant.
f) A Mobility Management Plan shall be prepared and published for the site to include measures to reduce the reliance of for both staff and customers on the motor car. A position of Mobility Manager shall be included in Management committee to co-ordinate this plan. The plan shall include modal targets that shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development.
g) The development shall not interfere with the roadside drainage and shall not discharge any storm water onto the public road.
h) The developer shall submit details of any temporary construction entrance for approval to the Roads Section, Waterford City Council.
i) The developer shall submit plans showing road lining and signing for the entire development for approval by the Planning Authority
j) The developer shall submit plans showing public lighting for the entire development for approval by the Planning Authority. Public lighting along the internal access road which runs parallel to the public road shall be cowled in such a way as not to cause any interference to drivers on the public road.
k) All works carried out on the public footpath or the public road shall require a Road Opening Licence and Hoarding Licence (if applicable). These licences are available from the Waterford City Roads Inspector.
l) Any interference with or a damage to the public footpath or road caused during the construction of the development shall be made good by the developer to the satisfaction of the Waterford City Roads Inspector.
m) Adequate drainage shall be provided to ensure that freestanding water is not formed on the roadway or footpaths. All road gully’s within residential areas shall be of a lockable variety.
REASON
4. In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development of the area

CONDITION
5. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit details showing proposals for the provision of an appropriate level of broadband service infrastructure on an open access basis to each unit within the development for approval of the Planning Authority. Realisable options showing the feasibility for connection of the units within the development to an exterior broadband service provider(s) and backhaul network shall be included and demonstrated in the proposals. Ducting and chambers for such service shall be installed concurrent with the initial construction and infrastructure installation with the development. Any land and way-leaves required for above and/or below ground infrastructure within the development shall be made available for such apparatus. All of the above proposals shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources.
REASON
5. In the interest of proper planning and development of the area.

CONDITION
6. All external wall, roof and surface finishes and details of all roof mounted plant and equipment shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Sample panels of these materials shall be erected on site, where deemed necessary to facilitate such agreement.
REASON
6. In the interest of visual amenity.

CONDITION
7. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, communal television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site. In this regard, ducting shall be provided to facilitate the provision of broadband infrastructure within the proposed development.

REASON
7. In the interests of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area.

CONDITION
8. Prior to commencement of development, a method statement for the management of the construction phase of the proposed development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The method statement shall address the following:
a) Location of site and materials compound(s) including area(s) identified for the storage of construction refuse.
b) Location of areas for construction site offices and staff facilities.
c) Details of site security fencing and hoardings.
d) Details of on-site car parking facilities for site workers during the course of construction.
e) Details of the timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the construction site and associated directional signage, to include proposals to facilitate the delivery of abnormal loads to the site.
f) Measures to obviate queuing of construction traffic on the adjoining road network.
g) Measures to prevent the spillage or deposit of clay, rubble or other debris on the public road network.
h) Alternative arrangements to be put in place for pedestrians and vehicles in the case of the closure of any public road or footpath during the course of site development works.
i) Details of appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring of levels of airborne dust arising during the overall construction phase.
j) Details of appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring of noise levels.
k) Details of appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring of vibration levels.
REASON
8. In the interests of orderly development and traffic safety.

CONDITION
9. Site development and building works shall only be carried out between 0800 hours and 1900 hours, Monday to Friday inclusive, between 0800 hours and 1400 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Deviation from these times shall only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where the prior written agreement of the Planning Authority has been received.
REASON
9. In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers.

CONDITION
10. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit, and obtain the written agreement of the Planning Authority to, a plan containing details for the management of waste (and, in particular, recyclable materials) within the development, including the provision of facilities for the storage, separation and collection of the waste and, in particular, recyclable materials, and for the ongoing operation of these facilities.
REASON
10. In the interest of orderly development and sustainable waste management.





CONDITION
11. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit a construction and demolition waste management plan to the Planning Authority for agreement prepared in accordance with the Best Practice Guidelines on the Preparation of Waste Management Plans for Construction and Demolition Projects published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in July 2006. This shall include details of wastes to be generated during site clearance and construction phases and details of the methods and locations to be employed for the prevention, minimisation, recovery and disposal of this material in accordance with the provisions of the Waste Management Plan covering the Waterford Region.
REASON
11. In the interests of orderly development and sustainable waste management.

CONDITION
12. Prior to commencement of development, a management scheme providing adequate measures relating to the future maintenance of private open spaces, roads and communal areas in satisfactory manner shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for agreement.
REASON
12. To ensure the adequate future maintenance of this private development in the interest of residential amenity.

CONDITION
13. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscaping scheme, including external lighting, street furniture and paving shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The developer shall fund, at his own expense, the proposed landscape plan and improvements including paving to the public domain. Trees which are removed in order to facilitate the construction of the propose development shall be replaced with suitable specimens at locations to be agreed with the Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include a timetable for completion and a subsequent maintenance programme. Any trees or shrubs that die during this maintenance period shall be replaced in the next available planting season.
REASON
13. In the interests of visual amenity, in order to enhance the immediate public domain and in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITION
14. Prior to commencement of development, proposals for a name and numbering scheme and associated signage shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for agreement.
REASON
14. In the interest of orderly development.

CONDITION
15. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant or other person with an interest in the land to which the application relates shall enter into an agreement in writing with the Planning Authority in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 96 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, unless an exemption certificate shall have been applied for and been granted under section 97 of the Act, as amended.
REASON
15. To comply with the requirements of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and of the housing strategy in the development plan of the area.





CONDITION
16. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed at least to the construction standards set out in the Planning Authority’s Residential Site Development Standards document. Following completion, the development shall be maintained by the developer, in compliance with these standards.
REASON
16. To ensure that the development is carried out and completed to an acceptable standard of construction.

CONDITION
17. The foul and surface water drainage network shall be in accordance with details as submitted with the following amendment:

The overall design of foul and surface water drainage and connections to public foul and surface drainage sewers shall be in strict accordance with details as agreed following consultation with the Supervising Engineer (Drainage) prior to commencement of development or within an agreed timeframe with the Water Services Section.
REASON
17. In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development of the area.



CONDITION
18. The water supply network shall be in accordance with details as submitted with the following amendment:

The overall design of the water supply network and metering arrangement with connections to public watermains shall be in strict accordance with details as agreed following consultation with the Supervising Engineer (Drainage) prior to commencement of development or within an agreed timeframe with the Water Services Section.
REASON
18. In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITION
19. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit a Bond from an Insurance Corporation or other financial institution acceptable to the Planning Authority in the sum of €1,000,000.00 to secure the proper completion and maintenance of all roads, footpaths, open spaces, services and other development works within this site and authorised by this permission until such time as they may be taken in charge by Waterford City Council. Where they are to be taken in charge the ownership of all areas of public open space and services within the development shall be legally transferred and registered to Waterford City Council.
REASON
19. To secure the proper completion and maintenance of the development works authorised by this permission.













CONDITION
20. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall pay a contribution to Waterford City Council in respect of the infrastructure and facilities detailed below that have been provided, or that it is intended will be provided by, or on behalf of, the local authority. The contribution is levied in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme adopted by City Council on 20th May 2002. The present value of the contributions are stated below. The rate of contribution shall be adjusted annually from the date of adoption of the Scheme using the Wholesale Price Indices-Building and Construction (Capital Goods) published by the Central Statistics Office.


Infrastructure and facilities Rate of contribution €
• WATER € 716,081.00
• MAIN DRAINAGE € 716,081.00
• ROADS € 805,458.00
• CAR PARKING
• TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT € 105,642.00
• RECREATION/AMENITY/COMMUNITY € 559,828.00
• TOTAL AT PRESENT RATES €2,903,090.00
REASON
20. The infrastructure and facilities that have been provided, or that it is intended will be provided by, or on behalf of, the local authority will benefit development in the area and it is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute to such provision, in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme.

CONDITION
21. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall pay a special
contribution in accordance with Section 48 (2) (c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to Waterford City Council in respect of specific exceptional costs which will be incurred by the local authority in respect of improvement to and upgrading of the public water supply network to facilitate the proposed development. The contribution will be subject to the provision for refund set down in Section 48(12) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Special Contributions Rate of contribution €
 Public Water supply - Bilberry €98,013.00
REASON
21. It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the exceptional costs to be incurred in the provision of infrastructure, which will facilitate the development.


CONDITION
22. The developer shall provide for a civic artwork on or in the vicinity of the site. The cost of providing the artwork shall not be less than €44,000. The artwork shall be conceived and installed subject to the approval of the Planning Authority, or, the developer shall make a contribution in the sum of €44,000 toward the provision by the Planning Authority of civic artworks. Details of how it is intended to comply with this condition shall be submitted for the consent of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.

REASON
22. It is considered reasonable, given the scale and the proposed development, that an appropriate provision for artworks associated with the development should be made.

JohnC.

Sully wrote: »

Planning permission granted for this with 22 conditions. It has been appealed by;
* Bowefield Residents Association (Appellant) (Active)
* Brendan McCann (Appellant) (Active)
* Gracedieu Residents Group (Appellant) (Active)

Decision due the end of the month.

I'm confused, aren't this thread and the other one about the same project, but with one saying rejected and this saying approved?

Sully

Kahless wrote: »

I'm confused, aren't this thread and the other one about the same project, but with one saying rejected and this saying approved?

Different developments. One is the Ard Ri development and down there by the clock tower, this is the opposite side of the bridge by the Guiness Brewery.

JohnC.

Sully wrote: »

Different developments. One is the Ard Ri development and down there by the clock tower, this is the opposite side of the bridge by the Guiness Brewery.

Oh, but this thread is also about the Ard Ri project. There is a different one for the Bilbery project.

Sully

Kahless wrote: »

Oh, but this thread is also about the Ard Ri project. There is a different one for the Bilbery project.

I blame Mike.

(Posts merged to correct topic)

Green Hornet

Sully wrote: »

Planning permission granted for this with 22 conditions. It has been appealed by;
* Bowefield Residents Association (Appellant) (Active)
* Brendan McCann (Appellant) (Active)
* Gracedieu Residents Group (Appellant) (Active)

Decision due the end of the month.

What does that mean?

Does that not mean that it has not been approved yet if a decision won't be due until the end of the month? Maybe the appeals never work I guess?

Sully

Green Hornet wrote: »

What does that mean?

Does that not mean that it has not been approved yet if a decision won't be due until the end of the month? Maybe the appeals never work I guess?

I listed the three who appealed (two groups, one individual) the City Councils decession to grant the application. They brought their concerns to the board who have said a decession will be reached July 30th - though, that could be extended.

mike65

Bump (and as referenced in the Whats the Paper Say thread)

http://www.bolstergroup.com/bolster-properties/latest-news/planning-permission-granted-for-380m-iconic-water-haven-riverside-development-in-waterford.html

O Riain

Personally I think this is great news, absolutely loving the light rail potential of the suit valley railway extending into the city!

Psychedelic

O Riain wrote: »

Personally I think this is great news, absolutely loving the light rail potential of the suit valley railway extending into the city!

I read on Ciara Conway's or Paudie Coffey's Twitter page last week that funding has been secured for the extension of the WSVR into the city centre.