Quays Project Pix

Paddy@CIRL

If it goes ahead, I don't envy the poor B*stards that have to dig out that hill !

Fajitas!

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

If it goes ahead, I don't envy the poor B*stards that have to dig out that hill !

Robots, Paddy, robots.

Robots and flying cars.

mike65

We should not be denied our silver and brushed aluminium future!

Fajitas!

mike65 wrote: »

brushed aluminium future!

Pronounced A-Loo-minum. Because we all talk like Americans in the future.

mike65

I've dropped in the Bilberry site project

Elle Victorine

Would be nice to see that side of the river developed but I do love the view of the mills despite the hazards....would make a nice lookin museum/gallery if it was ever called for. The Ard Ri could do with being knocked however.


The first image posted is absolutely disgusting.

Green Hornet

Elle Victorine wrote: »

Would be nice to see that side of the river developed but I do love the view of the mills despite the hazards....would make a nice lookin museum/gallery if it was ever called for. The Ard Ri could do with being knocked however.


The first image posted is absolutely disgusting.

I think the mills are a real eyesore as they are at the moment. Looks terrible when coming into the town from the Wexford side. It would be great if they would do something like you suggest.

The Bilberry development seems to have stalled as well. Hopefully something will be done there too.

RobitTV

he planned redevelopment of the Ard Ri site in Ferrybank in Waterford City has been refused permission
by Waterford City Council.

Planning permission had been sought by TRM developments for a 400 million complex which which the company says would have created 500 jobs in the construiction phase.

The City Quay project includes plans for a new hotel and 40,000 square feet of residential, retail and commercial space on the former Ard Ri site which is currently lying in a semi-derelict state overlooking the city.

The application for the site was made in June last year, with further information submitted in May.

In refusing permission, the city council planning department said the development would be a gross
overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework.

The report also said the development would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity, and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area and would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the City Development Plan.

The City Council also said it was not satisfied that the development would not have an inhibiting effect on the redevelopment potential of the North Quays.

The decision may be appealed to An Bord Pleanala, with TRM Developments labelling the refusal a "bolt from the blue" in the Irish Examiner :mad::mad:

mike65

Typical, the north quays deverlopment is all moribund and yet they are trying to protect it?

Professey Chin

RobitTV wrote: »

In refusing permission, the city council planning department said the development would be a gross
overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework.

Looking at the development id agree with this

The report also said the development would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity, and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area and would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the City Development Plan.

I would like to know what these are specifically though

mike65

Indeed esp as the development is on the North quays and the shadows cast will therefore be over county Kilkenny not the city. Or is it simply a question of "well it can be seen from across the river, so its a problem"

here is the direct reason from the waterfordcity.ie site

Reasons
1. Having regard to the provisions of the Waterford City Development Plan and to the Waterford North Quays Urban Design Framework it is considered that due to its scale, volume building height and layout the proposed development would represent a gross overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Design Framework; would be seriously injurious to the character and setting of Protected Structures in the vicinity and of the South Quays Architectural Conservation Area; would have an unduly detrimental impact on trees designated as of Special Amenity Value in the Waterford City Development Plan; and as such would materially contravene provisions of the Waterford City Development Plan and the Waterford North Quays Urban Design Framework. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The Planning Authority are not satisfied that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the quantum and mix of development proposed would not have an inhibiting effect on the redevelopment potential of the North Quays, whose redevelopment is an objective of the National Development Plan, the South East Regional Planning Guidelines and the Waterford City Development Plan.

Waynecarr

May as well all up stakes and leave at this stage. Has the feeling of someone just running a car\city into the ground at this stage.....the mentality seems to be its all buggered so why try and fix it anyway.

ziedth

words fail me, am i only only one who thinks that at this moment the most important thing is to get people back to work and spending money helping other businesses. The mind boggles.

Professey Chin

Ok ive read those reasons about 15 times now. WTF do they actually mean

Sully

I have yet to read up on this but as I have always said;
1) You cant just accept a large development for the sake of cleaning up an area,
2) As above, just because you want to create jobs.

It is important that whatever changes we make within our city and county are done with a proper mindset ensuring the development is approrpaite for the area. Sure it might remove an eye sort but you may be adding another eye sore and problem which will have another negative effect. It needs to be done right and fair - not just for the sake of it.

robtri

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Ok ive read those reasons about 15 times now. WTF do they actually mean

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

Professey Chin

robtri wrote: »

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

On this point,does that mean its partly a case of "since we cant get our asses in gear nobody else is allowed"

gscully

Well, I think we can all agree that the planned development was horrid to look at. By all means, redevelop that area, but not with that monstrosity!

That said, I imagine corks are popping and champagne is being poured into recycleable paper cups in the McCann household :rolleyes:

ziedth

Sully wrote: »

I have yet to read up on this but as I have always said;
1) You cant just accept a large development for the sake of cleaning up an area,
2) As above, just because you want to create jobs.

It is important that whatever changes we make within our city and county are done with a proper mindset ensuring the development is approrpaite for the area. Sure it might remove an eye sort but you may be adding another eye sore and problem which will have another negative effect. It needs to be done right and fair - not just for the sake of it.

As much as I see your point and agree with it too a point surely an "Eye Sore" doesn't really matter, Granted I haven't seen a pic of the development anyone got one? I'm just talking as someone who knows allot of people out of work (myself included) and we are all having to look for work outside of waterford (myself included).

robtri wrote: »

having a quick read of the stuff,
I believe they are refusing permission on the basis that

1. they are trying to squeeze to many house's/apartments and hotel onto to small an area, it will be over popualted for the area.

2. the prosposed development if it got the go ahead would be built before the north Quay project and as a result would have a depremental effect on that project... wouldn't be a big uptake on that as most people/business would have bought already in the ard ri development...

3. they would have to cut down too many trees in the area to complete the ard ri development.

TBF this is a fairly good reason to block the development IMO.

Cabaal

ziedth wrote: »

As much as I see your point and agree with it too a point surely an "Eye Sore" doesn't really matter, Granted I haven't seen a pic of the development anyone got one? I'm just talking as someone who knows allot of people out of work (myself included) and we are all having to look for work outside of waterford (myself included).

Eye sore does matter though, while I get where your coming from making awful mistakes that will affect generations to come is not ok just to create jobs in any town or city.

Its extremely shortsighted to do so, I for one am also happy this did not go ahead it is not in anyway in keeping with the rest of waterford

RobitTV

Sorry my bad

mike65

RobitTV thats the Bilberry proposal

edit

Sorry my bad

heh! So many flashy designs and none of them will ever see the light of day.

Here the the earlier thread about this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055548613

Asmodean

it is not in anyway in keeping with the rest of waterford

Yeah because its something new and shiny not run down with peeling paint and broken windows. Graffitti and tumble-weeds optional.

wellbutty

Here's some images of the development:

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10004

I'm hugely in favour of much needed development in the city but it must be complimentary...the Ard Ri in its current state on a grassy hill looks better I think!

Asmodean

It is a bit ott alright but it is modern and thats the sign of the times most big city developments are looking similar, all glass and steel.
And no, nothing could look any worse than the state of the ard-ri at the moment. The place is a ****ing disgrace with the surrounding land etc. You wouldn't see as bad in a shanty town let alone the main focal point for one of the busiest entrances to the city.

Jor

I think every major development in the city liiking for planning permission should have a "Plan B" in place. If the original application fails, then the secondary one can be given immediate consideration.
It has taken over a year to get this plan through the council, only to be rejected. Is it no wonder nothing sets built around here, apart from giant corrugated sheds.
The Tall Ships last visited Waterford in 2005. When they return after 6 years, the place will look just the same.

Is it any wonder she looks so miserable.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/224390/84266.jpg

JohnC.

Are they finally doing something with the Ard Ri? I see a big crane there now.

Sully

They were refused planning, so iv no idea what the crane is about. Lot of lights on the last few nights also.

JohnC.

It just occured to me that they may just be setting up fireworks on the roof for Spraoi.

mike65

They could just burn it down, that would add to the spectacle.