TK Maxx "flouting planning laws"

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

waterford city isn't.

longshanks

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

waterford city isn't.

isn't what squire?

j walsh

Freddie59 wrote: »

Do ya know what?

I'm just sitting here at the minute thinking of the lunacy of all this.

* We're in a recession - heading for a depression.

* Almost for 400,000 unemployed.

* We have a council and planning authority arguing over what a shop can sell (bulky or non-bulky items).

* We have the IDA spending a fortune offering incentives for businesses to locate here.

* We have people using the planning process as a plaything from the security of a State Job.

* And now we want to throw 60 people on the dole.

* Two people who are not even FROM Waterford are 'exercising their democratic right' in frustrating development.

In the name of all that's Holy - what are they thinking of?

WHAT kind of message is this sending out to retailers thinking of locating here???

Well said Freddie59.

Freddie59

j walsh wrote: »

Well said Freddie59.

Thanks J.

It is truly nuts.:mad::mad:

Niamh78

Intersting 'debate!'

It was touched on earlier but how can someone from wexford object to a development in Waterford anyway? The guy and his wife who objected own their own shopping centre in Wexford and got refused planning for a few tenants so are now on a rant. Serious bit of toddler foot stamping, if we aren't allowed to do it then no-one is. So one man from Wexford's personal crusade could lead to the loss of jobs ijn Waterford? Aside from the plannign issues involved surely the motive of this appeal should have been taken into account? Can he keep objecting to every such example around the country???

Stan Nangle

Niamh78 wrote: »

Intersting 'debate!'

It was touched on earlier but how can someone from wexford object to a development in Waterford anyway? The guy and his wife who objected own their own shopping centre in Wexford and got refused planning for a few tenants so are now on a rant. Serious bit of toddler foot stamping, if we aren't allowed to do it then no-one is. So one man from Wexford's personal crusade could lead to the loss of jobs ijn Waterford? Aside from the plannign issues involved surely the motive of this appeal should have been taken into account?

Not really.

The Law states that the Councillors are the ones who decide what zoning to give a piece of land, not the landowner.

In this case the TK Maxx product offering is contrary to the zoning given by the Councillors.

This has been affirmed by the County Council and An Bord Pleanala.



Look at the issue in a different context:

I have a business competitor called Johnny.

I see Johnny killing somebody and I tell the Gardai. Johnny ends up in Court charged with murder.

Should Johnny be allowed to get off because I may have had an ulterior motive?


Yep, that's an extreme example, but the point is the same: The Law is the Law.

If we start turning a blind eye to the Law, where do we draw the line?

Niamh78

legally you are normally required to have 'locus standi' to make such an application, obviously doesn't apply in planning matters....

longshanks

Stan Nangle wrote: »

Not really.


The Law is the Law.

If we start turning a blind eye to the Law, where do we draw the line?

what are you, sheep or shepherd?
how about a councillor with the balls, or even the common sense, to stand up to or challenge bullsh*t laws, such as those mentioned above, or the ridiculously low speed limits on the outer ring road, the high rates shop owners pay, the price of parking in the city?
are you really content to just blindly follow the herd, or will you actually campaign for noticeable change?
as a voter i'd gladly give my vote to someone i thought would cut through the bullsh*t and not just blindly and pathetically follow the status quo

edit i know your based in tramore but the point remains

ec18

anywho when do they have to close by or stop selling clothes by?

Stan Nangle

longshanks wrote: »

what are you, sheep or shepherd?
how about a councillor with the balls, or even the common sense, to stand up to or challenge bullsh*t laws, such as those mentioned above, or the ridiculously low speed limits on the outer ring road, the high rates shop owners pay, the price of parking in the city?
are you really content to just blindly follow the herd, or will you actually campaign for noticeable change?
as a voter i'd gladly give my vote to someone i thought would cut through the bullsh*t and not just blindly and pathetically follow the status quo

edit i know your based in tramore but the point remains

I was at a County Council meeting recently (to hand in the petition I collected over the state of the Tramore Road) and there was a debate on Planning. One of the Officials pointed out that the reason for the decision in question (not TK Maxx, but the same applies) was because of the County Development Plan which the Councillors voted into existence a couple of years ago.

There was a chorus of "I never voted for that".

Someone then pointed out "well if none of ye voted for it, how did it get passed?"

The same applies with regard to the Outer Ring Road: An Official told the Councillors that they couldn't vote for a higher limit because it would leave them personally liable in the event of an accident.

An Official told me that they asked the Gardai about the 60k limit on the Tramore Road from Ballindud to Superquinn and the Gardai told them it was okay - well they would say that, wouldn't they: Fish; Barrel; Shooting!

To answer your other points I'd have to go too far off topic, but I have form for campaigning for change and cutting through the bull - including on the ORR, and on Rates.

But on this topic - the Councillors made the Rules, and the Rules they made are the Law.

Sully

Stan Nangle wrote: »

An Official told me that they asked the Gardai about the 60k limit on the Tramore Road from Ballindud to Superquinn and the Gardai told them it was okay - well they would say that, wouldn't they: Fish; Barrel; Shooting!

Thats a very unfair generalisation against members of the AGS. I travel that road every day and I very rarely see any speed checks done on that stretch. That bugs me when people make those comments about people doing their job and claims of "revenue" being shouted.

I believe there are plans in motion to decrease the speed limit even further after the planned (I assume with cutbacks its out the window now) roadworks and I think this was proposed by a councillor.

Your also never going to hit Cullen's votes in Waterford. People will always vote for him as long as he remains a minister as his work for Waterford is appreciated on all sides.

Stan Nangle

Sully wrote: »

Thats a very unfair generalisation against members of the AGS. I travel that road every day and I very rarely see any speed checks done on that stretch. That bugs me when people make those comments about people doing their job and claims of "revenue" being shouted.

I'm pretty sure the Official was referring to someone who was a former member of the AGSI.

I believe there are plans in motion to decrease the speed limit even further after the planned (I assume with cutbacks its out the window now) roadworks and I think this was proposed by a councillor.

No, there are plans in motion to modify the road to make it unfit for a higher limit. This is a policy decision by Waterford City Council.

I would love if this work was cancelled due to the cutbacks! It is a ridiculous idea in many respects.

Your also never going to hit Cullen's votes in Waterford. People will always vote for him as long as he remains a minister as his work for Waterford is appreciated on all sides.

I wasn't trying to "hit" Cullen's votes, I was pointing out that I have a track record for getting stuck into issues, and fighting to the end. Minister Cullen was badly advised by his Officials, and he took their word over the word of numerous and assorted IT Experts - including the Irish Computer Society whom he described as "anti-Globalisation protesters".

Freddie59

At the risk of repeating myself:

Do ya know what?

I'm just sitting here at the minute thinking of the lunacy of all this.

* We're in a recession - heading for a depression.

* Almost 400,000 unemployed.

* We have a council and planning authority arguing over what a shop can sell (bulky or non-bulky items).

* We have the IDA spending a fortune offering incentives for businesses to locate here.

* We have people using the planning process as a plaything from the security of a State Job.

* And now we want to throw 60 people on the dole.

* Two people who are not even FROM Waterford are 'exercising their democratic right' in frustrating development.

In the name of all that's Holy - what are they thinking of?

WHAT kind of message is this sending out to retailers thinking of locating here???

durrus

Freddie59 wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself:

Do ya know what?

I'm just sitting here at the minute thinking of the lunacy of all this.

* We're in a recession - heading for a depression.

* Almost 400,000 unemployed.

* We have a council and planning authority arguing over what a shop can sell (bulky or non-bulky items).

* We have the IDA spending a fortune offering incentives for businesses to locate here.

* We have people using the planning process as a plaything from the security of a State Job.

* And now we want to throw 60 people on the dole.

* Two people who are not even FROM Waterford are 'exercising their democratic right' in frustrating development.

In the name of all that's Holy - what are they thinking of?

WHAT kind of message is this sending out to retailers thinking of locating here???

I'm sorry, I can hear the frustration in your voice and I can understand where you are coming from but what you seem to be suggesting is the suspension or abolition of laws because of the current economic situation. If that is the case then really we will just have a free for all and where will the line be drawn. Don't get me wrong, I work in retail, and my job depends on as many people as possible being IN work, not out of it. I'm not a personal fan of TKMaxx and would rather it were in town so that the rest of us might benefit from its footfall BUT I don't want it to close. Nonetheless, planning laws are planning laws and they must be applied to all. TKMaxx would have a big enough legal department that they must have known what they were getting in to and the staff there have no one to blame but their own company for this mess. Trying to paint anyone else as the villain in this ridiculous situation is just a decoy. IMHO.

gscully

durrus wrote: »

I'm sorry, I can hear the frustration in your voice and I can understand where you are coming from but what you seem to be suggesting is the suspension or abolition of laws because of the current economic situation. If that is the case then really we will just have a free for all and where will the line be drawn. Don't get me wrong, I work in retail, and my job depends on as many people as possible being IN work, not out of it. I'm not a personal fan of TKMaxx and would rather it were in town so that the rest of us might benefit from its footfall BUT I don't want it to close. Nonetheless, planning laws are planning laws and they must be applied to all. TKMaxx would have a big enough legal department that they must have known what they were getting in to and the staff there have no one to blame but their own company for this mess. Trying to paint anyone else as the villain in this ridiculous situation is just a decoy. IMHO.

True, but some blame should also be apportioned to the body who approved TK Maxx for that retail unit. Did it not occur to them that they planned to sell clothes? Obviously the initial fault is with TK Maxx, but the approving body should've used some common sense and queried their submission. Then, we wouldn't have this mess.

Stan Nangle

Freddie59 wrote: »

WHAT kind of message is this sending out to retailers thinking of locating here???

That they should make sure the planning permission for the building they are renting is appropriate.

Stan Nangle

gscully wrote: »

True, but some blame should also be apportioned to the body who approved TK Maxx for that retail unit. Did it not occur to them that they planned to sell clothes? Obviously the initial fault is with TK Maxx, but the approving body should've used some common sense and queried their submission. Then, we wouldn't have this mess.

There is no "approving body". The owner of the building sought and received written clarification from the County Council of what as permitted under the zoning.

It was then up to him to make sure anybody signing a Lease complied with the zoning (I'd be very surprised it it wasn't a condition of the Lease that TK Maxx undertook to comply with the zoning/PP. That is a standard condition in most Leases).

gscully

Stan Nangle wrote: »

There is no "approving body". The owner of the building sought and received written clarification from the County Council of what as permitted under the zoning.

It was then up to him to make sure anybody signing a Lease complied with the zoning (I'd be very surprised it it wasn't a condition of the Lease that TK Maxx undertook to comply with the zoning/PP. That is a standard condition in most Leases).

Ok, so for want of a better term, the owner of the building is the 'approving body'. I wasn't using the term to suggest a govermental department or anything like that.

You can be damn sure that someone who owns such a large development would know exactly what TK Maxx is all about, so they had a duty to refuse the lease but for some reason chose not to!

Laying the blame at the feet of TK Maxx solely is plain wrong.

durrus

If laying the blame at the feet of TKMaxx solely turns out to be wrong I am sure we can expect a lawsuit between the company and the owner of the retail park who leased them the premises under false pretences. Allegedly.

robtri

gscully wrote: »

Ok, so for want of a better term, the owner of the building is the 'approving body'. I wasn't using the term to suggest a govermental department or anything like that.

You can be damn sure that someone who owns such a large development would know exactly what TK Maxx is all about, so they had a duty to refuse the lease but for some reason chose not to!

Laying the blame at the feet of TK Maxx solely is plain wrong.

No its not, it is right to lay the blame at the feet of TKMAxx... it is there responsibility to ensure that the planning permission is correct.
The landlord couldn't and rightly so, give two flying F%$ks, a lot of companies like TK Maxx will take a lease for a premises and seek to change the planning on the property afterwards... Thats what a "change of use" form from the council is for... changing the planning permission...

Stan Nangle

durrus wrote: »

If laying the blame at the feet of TKMaxx solely turns out to be wrong I am sure we can expect a lawsuit between the company and the owner of the retail park who leased them the premises under false pretences. Allegedly.

If there is a lawsuit it will be between TK Maxx and their own solicitors. The solicitors should have checked all of the legal stuff when they were reviewing the Lease - you wouldn't believe the minutiae solicitors pick up on when reviewing contracts.

My guess is that they knew the score and decided to chance it anyway.

ziedth

Stan Nangle wrote: »

My guess is that they knew the score and decided to chance it anyway.

I would have to agree here,

TK Maxx are big business and I would assume that they have a full team looking over the contracts/papers when setting up a property.

Freddie59

Stan Nangle wrote: »

That they should make sure the planning permission for the building they are renting is appropriate.

Classic Green Party BS. Yep, let's worry about what this chap can sell (!). The jobs he's providing are dispensible in this current financial climate. FFS.

Get a grip Stan.:mad:

durrus

Anyway, this post has been running a while now and TKMaxx is still open so does anyone know what actually is the procedure from this point? I find it hard to believe that it will actually close.

Stan Nangle

Freddie59 wrote: »

Classic Green Party BS. Yep, let's worry about what this chap can sell (!). The jobs he's providing are dispensible in this current financial climate. FFS.

Get a grip Stan.:mad:

You are trying to mix two separate arguments now.

1) Is the zoning correct? : Take that up with the Green Party Councillors who voted in the Development Plan - or the Fine Gael Councillors, as the case may be


2) Should the Solicitors for TK Maxx have spotted the problem in advance? : Hell yeah! And they most likely DID! :shock:

Sully

Freddie59 wrote: »

Classic Green Party BS. Yep, let's worry about what this chap can sell (!). The jobs he's providing are dispensible in this current financial climate. FFS.

Get a grip Stan.:mad:

I'm with Stan on this one. I don't think its anything to do with being "Class Green Party BS" considering other party's in local council are enforcing this and im sure the law wasn't implemented by the greens. The law is there for a good reason and if one person breaks the law, then it will cause uproar. If the council did not enforce this, it would end up being enforced through another method.

The law is the law. If something is built illegally no "blind eye" should be turned because it creates employment in a crisis. The company should never have built or hired staff knowing the area was not zoned for that type of development - end of. Nobody can be blamed for the law being enforced.You cant turn a blind eye because it employs a handful of people either. Imagine the state of the country/county would be in if we took that decision with each development?

What concerns me is that another zoning mistake has been made. True the majority is held by FG but lets not lay the blame entirely on them. If the zoning had been correct, more jobs could have been created. Since its not, jobs can not be created and some have been lost. There are plenty of new FG candidates out there who can offer change and fresh faces to the council - don't forget that. Speak with the candidates on the door and see for yourself how the current council respond when you question the issues you read about here. Decide for yourself whether you trust their comment or not and if they can move away from the mistakes and improve helping Waterford County & City.

BlaasForRafa

Stan Nangle wrote: »

There is no "approving body". The owner of the building sought and received written clarification from the County Council of what as permitted under the zoning.

It was then up to him to make sure anybody signing a Lease complied with the zoning (I'd be very surprised it it wasn't a condition of the Lease that TK Maxx undertook to comply with the zoning/PP. That is a standard condition in most Leases).

Thats the craziness of having both a city council and a county council. The county want to maximise their rates revenue by allowing retail as close to the city as possible. The city council want retail in the city centre to maximise their rates revenue.

Sully

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats the craziness of having both a city council and a county council. The county want to maximise their rates revenue by allowing retail as close to the city as possible. The city council want retail in the city centre to maximise their rates revenue.

Not sure if I understand your post correctly, but we do need a county and city council. Dont think they should be merged or similar

robtri

Freddie59 wrote: »

Classic Green Party BS. Yep, let's worry about what this chap can sell (!). The jobs he's providing are dispensible in this current financial climate. FFS.

Get a grip Stan.:mad:

you really haven't got a clue do you????

gscully

robtri wrote: »

No its not, it is right to lay the blame at the feet of TKMAxx... it is there responsibility to ensure that the planning permission is correct.
The landlord couldn't and rightly so, give two flying F%$ks, a lot of companies like TK Maxx will take a lease for a premises and seek to change the planning on the property afterwards... Thats what a "change of use" form from the council is for... changing the planning permission...

I'll have to respectfully disagree. If a landlord knows that a tenant will using his property for illegal purposes, then he has a duty to stop it happening before the event. Maybe it's not a legal duty, but it is certainly a moral one!

This whole 'Fcuk you Jack...I've got my money!' attitude is what has the country in the mess it's in today. People of authority need to pull together, not in opposite directions (for their own personal gain).