News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

BigGeorge

The land is held by an special purpose vehicle ( SPV) until such time as it is sold off an individual units. The SPV has a contract with WCC which it is required to fulfill - these terms are extremely clear.

The reason why WCC are reticent are fully enforce the terms of that contract with Sisk & the SPV and to allow such latitude remains a mystery to many.

Buenaventura Durruti

BigGeorge wrote: »

The land is held by an special purpose vehicle ( SPV) until such time as it is sold off an individual units. The SPV has a contract with WCC which it is required to fulfill - these terms are extremely clear.

The reason why WCC are reticent are fully enforce the terms of that contract with Sisk & the SPV and to allow such latitude remains a mystery to many.

BG, "held" and "owned" are quite distinct.

My point is the title to the land lies with WCC until such time as the project is entirely completed. Thus it is still public property, vested in the Council, and — here we are in complete agreement — this is a powerful weapon which WCC could and should use to persuade Sisk to do one of three things:

1. Complete the project forthwith or be held in breach of contract
2. Landscape the derelict site and provide the improvements listed in the Community Plan, in exchange for any further latitude in finding an investor/partner to join in completion
3. Vacate the site and withdraw from the project, thus allowing WCC to seek a different partner in the PPP, in the meantime using the forfeited €5m bond to remediate the site and end the disastrous effect on community life, on local small businesses, and on tourism in Greystones

Buenaventura Durruti

That microlight flight over the harbour — best seen from five miles out at sea or else high in the air.

Avoid close contact at all costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkRTC1RVO88

Buenaventura Durruti

Visual comparison of what the Sisk spokesmen presented to the Town Council meeting on 24 September 2013, and what Tom Fortune CC and Stephen Donnelly TD presented on behalf of the Greystones community







See also: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.575600752475414&type=1

youknowwho

Regardless of what the contract says and what changes have or have not been made the Derilict Sites Act 1990 not only provide the local authority with various powers in relation to such sites but also imposes a duty on them to act Part 2 of the Act is quite relevant to the current pcircumstances and provides the following:


General duty of owner and occupier of land.

9.—It shall be the duty of every owner and occupier of land, including a statutory body and a State authority, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the land does not become or does not continue to be a derelict site.


Duty of local authority.

10.—It shall be the duty of a local authority to take all reasonable steps (including the exercise of any appropriate statutory powers) to ensure that any land situate in their functional area does not become or continue to be a derelict site.

Power of local authority to require measures to be taken in relation to derelict sites.

11.—(1) Where—

(a) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site, or

(b) a local authority have been directed to do so by the Minister under section 12 ,

they shall serve a notice in writing on any person who appears to them to be the owner or occupier of the said land.

(2) A notice under this section shall—

(a) specify the measures which the local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, consider to be necessary in order to prevent the land from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

(b) direct the person on whom the notice is being served to take such measures as may be specified in the notice, and

(c) specify a period (being not less than one month) within which such measures are to be taken; provided, however, the notice shall not have effect until—

(i) the expiration of fourteen days from the date of service of the notice, or

(ii) if any representations are made under subsection (3), the date on which the local authority notify the person making such representations that they have considered the said representations.

(3) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section may, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice, make such representations in writing as he thinks fit to the local authority concerning the terms of the notice and the said authority, having considered such representations, may amend or revoke the notice.

(4) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section shall, within the period specified in the notice, comply with the requirements of the notice, or, as the case may be, the notice as amended.

(5) Where a person on whom a notice under this section has been served does not, within the period specified in the notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, comply with the requirements of the notice, the local authority who served the notice may take such steps (including entry on land by authorised persons in accordance with section 30 ) as they consider reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, and may recover any expense thereby incurred from the person on whom the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, was served and who is the owner or occupier as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) The carrying out of any works, within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1983, which are specified in a notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section shall be exempted development for the purposes of those Acts.

(7) Any person served with a notice or with the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section who is the owner of the land in respect of which a notice has been served, and his servants or agents, may enter the land and undertake the measures required to be done under the notice.

Power of Minister to give a direction.


12.—The Minister may—

(a) direct a local authority to serve a notice under section 11 (1), in relation to a derelict site which is included in the register, or

(b) direct a local authority to take such steps as he considers reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of a notice served under section 11 (1), or

(c) direct a local authority to take such steps as may be specified by him so as to prevent any land owned or occupied by them from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the direction within such period as may be specified by the Minister.



A “derelict site” is defined as any land which detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of the neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or any structures on the land in question.

Does this sound like the harbour?

youknowwho

Regardless of what the contract says and what changes have or have not been made, the Derilict Sites Act 1990 not only provides the local authority with various powers in relation to such sites but also imposes a duty on them to act. Part 2 of the Act is quite relevant to the current circumstances and provides the following:


General duty of owner and occupier of land.

9.—It shall be the duty of every owner and occupier of land, including a statutory body and a State authority, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the land does not become or does not continue to be a derelict site.


Duty of local authority.

10.—It shall be the duty of a local authority to take all reasonable steps (including the exercise of any appropriate statutory powers) to ensure that any land situate in their functional area does not become or continue to be a derelict site.

Power of local authority to require measures to be taken in relation to derelict sites.

11.—(1) Where—

(a) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site, or

(b) a local authority have been directed to do so by the Minister under section 12 ,

they shall serve a notice in writing on any person who appears to them to be the owner or occupier of the said land.

(2) A notice under this section shall—

(a) specify the measures which the local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, consider to be necessary in order to prevent the land from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

(b) direct the person on whom the notice is being served to take such measures as may be specified in the notice, and

(c) specify a period (being not less than one month) within which such measures are to be taken; provided, however, the notice shall not have effect until—

(i) the expiration of fourteen days from the date of service of the notice, or

(ii) if any representations are made under subsection (3), the date on which the local authority notify the person making such representations that they have considered the said representations.

(3) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section may, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice, make such representations in writing as he thinks fit to the local authority concerning the terms of the notice and the said authority, having considered such representations, may amend or revoke the notice.

(4) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section shall, within the period specified in the notice, comply with the requirements of the notice, or, as the case may be, the notice as amended.

(5) Where a person on whom a notice under this section has been served does not, within the period specified in the notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, comply with the requirements of the notice, the local authority who served the notice may take such steps (including entry on land by authorised persons in accordance with section 30 ) as they consider reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, and may recover any expense thereby incurred from the person on whom the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, was served and who is the owner or occupier as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) The carrying out of any works, within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1983, which are specified in a notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section shall be exempted development for the purposes of those Acts.

(7) Any person served with a notice or with the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section who is the owner of the land in respect of which a notice has been served, and his servants or agents, may enter the land and undertake the measures required to be done under the notice.

Power of Minister to give a direction.


12.—The Minister may—

(a) direct a local authority to serve a notice under section 11 (1), in relation to a derelict site which is included in the register, or

(b) direct a local authority to take such steps as he considers reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of a notice served under section 11 (1), or

(c) direct a local authority to take such steps as may be specified by him so as to prevent any land owned or occupied by them from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the direction within such period as may be specified by the Minister.



A “derelict site” is defined as any land which detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of the neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or any structures on the land in question.

Does this sound like the harbour?

Buenaventura Durruti

youknowwho wrote: »

Regardless of what the contract says and what changes have or have not been made, the Derilict Sites Act 1990 not only provides the local authority with various powers in relation to such sites but also imposes a duty on them to act. Part 2 of the Act is quite relevant to the current circumstances and provides the following:


General duty of owner and occupier of land.

9.—It shall be the duty of every owner and occupier of land, including a statutory body and a State authority, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the land does not become or does not continue to be a derelict site.


Duty of local authority.

10.—It shall be the duty of a local authority to take all reasonable steps (including the exercise of any appropriate statutory powers) to ensure that any land situate in their functional area does not become or continue to be a derelict site.

Power of local authority to require measures to be taken in relation to derelict sites.

11.—(1) Where—

(a) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site, or

(b) a local authority have been directed to do so by the Minister under section 12 ,

they shall serve a notice in writing on any person who appears to them to be the owner or occupier of the said land.

(2) A notice under this section shall—

(a) specify the measures which the local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, consider to be necessary in order to prevent the land from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

(b) direct the person on whom the notice is being served to take such measures as may be specified in the notice, and

(c) specify a period (being not less than one month) within which such measures are to be taken;

..... etc

Power of Minister to give a direction.


12.—The Minister may—

(a) direct a local authority to serve a notice under section 11 (1), in relation to a derelict site which is included in the register, or

(b) direct a local authority to take such steps as he considers reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of a notice served under section 11 (1), or

(c) direct a local authority to take such steps as may be specified by him so as to prevent any land owned or occupied by them from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,

and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the direction within such period as may be specified by the Minister.



A “derelict site” is defined as any land which detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of the neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or any structures on the land in question.

Does this sound like the harbour?

It sure does! I will lodge a complaint. Anyone care to join me?

But I warn you — these things take time. Remember that burnt-out house in Kilcoole? Years after the complaints until anything was done. This is WCC, after all.

Cheeky Chops

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they're named at length within this very thread.

Well I can't find it. It's been going on so long now. I want to be absolutely clear who agreed this. Anyone?

Fiachra2

People are reluctant to name politicians because it achieves nothing. The local politicians who voted (and indeed campaigned) for this development do not regret their decision. They will staunchly defend it and will not in any way be "shamed".
If you want to do something about this why don't you email all of them individually and ask them what their position was and what it is now? You can then publish that information if you feel it will help get the harbour sorted.

What I can tell you is that Tom Fortune and Stephen Donnelly who are promoting the current community plan were strongly opposed to the scale and nature of the current failed development.

BigGeorge

Would have to agree with Fiachra2. All of our energies - for the moment - should be focused on pushing Sisk & WCC for an real interim ( 5-10 year) plan for reducing the impact of the site on the town. This means letting our TDs & councillors know our opinion, be that on the street, at a meeting or via email, of our happiness ( or unhappiness) with the state of the Harbour & North Beach.

Perhaps, for the moment anyways, there is little that can be achieved by a witchhunt. However....those who you might hear rubbishing or denigrating the community plan on the radio, pressreleases or newspapers - from whatever walk of life - are likely to be those with a keen interest in preserving the status quo between WCC & Sisk. Would have no idea why......

Cheeky Chops

Witch hunt? I want to know who voted for this purely so they never make public office again. Come on now boys, we are singing off the same songsheet ... let's keep it transparent. Always.

Macy0161

How is holding councillor's accountable for their voting record a witch hunt? It'd be more apt to call it democracy! Most of the prominent supporters from the start are, bizarrely, happy to stand over the project anyway.

Fiachra2

If you want to influence the next election then find out whether they will support the community plan to restore the harbour area and publicise that information.

The public will be much more concerned about what they are doing now than how they voted 7 years ago.

Cheeky Chops

Fiachra2 wrote: »

If you want to influence the next election then find out whether they will support the community plan to restore the harbour area and publicise that information.

The public will be much more concerned about what they are doing now than how they voted 7 years ago.

erm, I am the public and I want to know!

Anyway let's move on.

Buzkashi

I can't believe it!

I'm just back from Afghanistan, kicked around a few goat heads and so forth, did a little waterboarding, you know how it is there.

And still the same arguments about the harbour as when I left to go in-country two years back. And it's still the same mess — worse, in fact. WTF?

A bit of direct action would do no harm now. Yis have been waiting for Sisk/Sispar/WCC to landscape, make good, prettify — exactly how long? Those assh@les are not going to do that there. So, you know, a couple of JCBs and such around 3.00am, and that building site and the piers and so would be wide open.

I need red meat. Back later with more comments.

(One good thing I notice on Greystones Guide and elsewhere — not a dicky bird out of Ciaran Hayden for over a year. Has he moved away? Is he dead, or what?)

F3

Buzkashi wrote: »

I can't believe it!

I'm just back from Afghanistan, kicked around a few goat heads and so forth, did a little waterboarding, you know how it is there.

And still the same arguments about the harbour as when I left to go in-country two years back. And it's still the same mess — worse, in fact. WTF?

A bit of direct action would do no harm now. Yis have been waiting for Sisk/Sispar/WCC to landscape, make good, prettify — exactly how long? Those assh@les are not going to do that there. So, you know, a couple of JCBs and such around 3.00am, and that building site and the piers and so would be wide open.

I need red meat. Back later with more comments.

(One good thing I notice on Greystones Guide and elsewhere — not a dicky bird out of Ciaran Hayden for over a year. Has he moved away? Is he dead, or what?)

who is Ciaran Hayden?

Buzkashi

F3 wrote: »

who is Ciaran Hayden?

Oh. He is that GONE, right?

Annasopra

The post above naming people as liars has been infracted. If there are similar posts again the mods will start giving out 1 week bans. As usual queries/feedback on moderation should be done by PMing mods

recedite

Buzkashi wrote: »

One good thing I notice on Greystones Guide and elsewhere — not a dicky bird out of Ciaran Hayden for over a year. Has he moved away? Is he dead, or what?)

Just after the Great Recession hit, all the FF councillors were banished from the town council, including this guy, the one most associated with welcoming the new harbour. He was given/inherited the job of Station Chief in the Greystones Fire Brigade instead.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Just after the Great Recession hit, all the FF councillors were banished from the town council, including this guy, the one most associated with welcoming the new harbour. He was given/inherited the job of Station Chief in the Greystones Fire Brigade instead.

There are still two FF Cllrs on GTC

recedite

I stand corrected; it was the FF TD's who were all wiped out in Wicklow.

BigGeorge

Where did it all go astray?

So many expensive professionals involved, so much potential, so much promised.......so very very little achieved on the ground


OMP Architects :
http://omparchitects.com/en/projects/graystones-marina/

Sisk:
http://www.siskgroup.com/construction/civils/greystones-marina-wicklow

KMD Architects:
http://www.kmd.ie/projects/master/mas3.htm

Arup Engineers:
http://www.arup.com/Projects/Greystones_Harbour.aspx

Norfolk marine:
http://www.norfolkmarine.ie/expertise/

Philip Lee Solicitors:
http://www.philiplee.ie/gns/services/overview/projects-and-construction.aspx

Goodbody
http://www.goodbody.ie/cf_trackrecord01.html

http://www.slideshare.net/ExSite/greystones-harbour-presentation

http://www.slideshare.net/Maggie57/greystones-presentation1-3

BigGeorge

slide-4-728.jpg

slide-5-728.jpg

slide-7-728.jpg

slide-8-728.jpg

slide-9-728.jpg

BigGeorge

It took 3.5 years for an honest admission that the PCC was not going ahead.

The May 2010 newsletter ...would it win a prize for fact or fiction?

slide-1-728.jpg
slide-2-728.jpg
slide-3-728.jpg

Fiachra2

Can you imagine any other walk of life where you could publish something like that and then for three years keep saying "its happening next month" and get away with it?

• If you did it with your customers they would simply go elsewhere.
• If you did it with your staff they would be utterly demotivated
• If you did it with your boss you'd be (rightly) sacked

But do it to (some) Greystones public representatives and they say "ok that's grand. We trust you and will wait" Phenomenally naïve or clutching to straws?

But guess what? Sisk have said they are going to build apartments (yes apartments those things of that are lying empty in their thousands around the city) next year and we should wait for any landscaping until then.

Obviously the public wont believe them (based on track record) but I wonder what response they will get from the Town Council?

Annasopra

mango salsa wrote: »

The post above naming people as liars has been infracted. If there are similar posts again the mods will start giving out 1 week bans. As usual queries/feedback on moderation should be done by PMing mods

A poster has been permanently banned twice for ignoring post 1187

Another has been temporarily banned for ignoring post 1187

It is necessary to repeat post 1187



This is the final warning to some posters who are insisting on public naming and public bashing. The next post to do so will receive a months ban

As boards.ie is a private discussion website it is liable for remarks made by posters and therefore they are removed. Please keep this in mind when responding to a post.

Thanks,

Damo9090

Fiachra2

Please remember that most of us posting here want to solve the harbour problem. We are not here simply to score points over politicians. (Much as we might like to!)

You can name these people all you want. They will not be shamed. They firmly believe they are right. If you want the public to be aware of the extent to which these public representatives work against the wishes of the community then simply post their public statements here. The readers can figure out the rest.

Mitch Connor

Fiachra2 wrote: »

But guess what? Sisk have said they are going to build apartments (yes apartments those things of that are lying empty in their thousands around the city) next year and we should wait for any landscaping until then.

In fairness - most accomodation in greystones is readily snapped up. Very hard to rent an apartment in the area for example. The Apartments in Eden Gate/Eden Wood are gone within days of coming on the market.

Now, it may be harder for them to sell the apartments, but renting them out should be very easy. If they are a decent standard, given the location and views a lot of them would have they will get snapped up very quickly in the renters market.

That isn't to say I like the idea of a big aparment block or two, or more, being built in that area - or that I trust they will actually do it and then get on to the landscaping that they should already have done - but to cite empty apartment blocks in the Dublin area or around the country as a reason they couldn't or shouldn't be built is ignoring the actual situation with regards to accomodation in the Greystones area.

Macy0161

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Please remember that most of us posting here want to solve the harbour problem. We are not here simply to score points over politicians. (Much as we might like to!)

It's empowering the electorate to let them know how politicians have voted on this issue, particularly with local elections coming up. It doesn't have to go into the subjective issues - just their voting records on the issue (a matter of fact). People not voting on the record of politicians is how things never change in this state!

Langerland

Mitch Connor wrote: »

In fairness - most accomodation in greystones is readily snapped up. Very hard to rent an apartment in the area for example. The Apartments in Eden Gate/Eden Wood are gone within days of coming on the market.

Now, it may be harder for them to sell the apartments, but renting them out should be very easy. If they are a decent standard, given the location and views a lot of them would have they will get snapped up very quickly in the renters market.

That isn't to say I like the idea of a big aparment block or two, or more, being built in that area - or that I trust they will actually do it and then get on to the landscaping that they should already have done - but to cite empty apartment blocks in the Dublin area or around the country as a reason they couldn't or shouldn't be built is ignoring the actual situation with regards to accomodation in the Greystones area.

Either way at this stage, Greystones will be screwed by SISK. They only have their own interests at heart and why else wouldn't they?

Some prominent local politicians are refusing to engage with them in the way the public clearly want and seem happy to partake in the bluffs and charades delivered by SISK over the last number of years. Somebody mentioned bizarre above. It is. We may not know for years why these local politicians have acted in this way. We may never know. But something is for sure, some parties have come out the better for this disaster and it's not Greystones and the surrounding area. We just don't know enough to know who those parties are or know enough about the gigantic elephant in the room.