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

tennisplayer

Yes and Yes. Meeting is open to public and the Council offices are beside the South Beach Car Park

F3

Fiachra2 wrote: »

There is one very interesting part in that article

The resulting delays meant targets were not met and the(Polish) roads authority called in performance bonds as a matter of course.

Sisk says this impinged on bond negotiations with insurance companies for projects in other countries

As we know Wicklow County Council returned a €5M bond to Sisk a couple of years ago. The Bond was for completion of the harbour which clearly is not complete yet and certainly wasn't complete then. The above piece cast a little light on how this event occurred. Any contractor can only get so much bonding. So if their bonds were being (rightly or wrongly) called in in Poland Sisk would be in a spot of bother. So it would appear that they turned to their good friends in WCC and asked for their bond back even though the work to which the bond related was incomplete. WCC -with no regard to the residents of Greystones-duly complied

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/us-poland-roads-specialreport-idUSBRE99N05920131024

They are not alone with their Polish problems. Contractors all over Europe have suffered similarly to Sisk. I have sympathy for all affected Contractors including Sisk, but this is "Contracting". The Polish authorities have most likely gone to the extreme left, Wicklow I fear, have gone to the extreme right. But the common thread between Wicklow & Polish authorities, is that they have both done so out of greed, arrogance and naivety. In this respect the Community of Greystones is the affected party.

Moreover: Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done"

F3

What is deeply worrying here, is this Contract has no Independent Certifier or Contract administrator looking after the interests of parties that are affected. It appears to me that when any problem arises on this PPP, it is fixed, regardless of where the consequence falls. That in my book is wrong. What is more troubling, is when a community such as Greystones, stands up for itself as the affected party, it is shot down with obfuscation and red-tape, with double talk and transparency issues. Have we not learnt anything from recent Irish history?

bertbliss

F3 wrote: »

What is deeply worrying here, is this Contract has no Independent Certifier or Contract administrator looking after the interests of parties that are affected. It appears to me that when any problem arises on this PPP, it is fixed, regardless of where the consequence falls. That in my book is wrong. What is more troubling, is when a community such as Greystones, stands up for itself as the affected party, it is shot down with obfuscation and red-tape, with double talk and transparency issues. Have we not learnt anything from recent Irish history?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. There is a clear inappropriately close relationship between The Sisk Group and Wicklow County Council in this PPP which has always been wrong. The public interest has been usurped by the cosy commercial relationship between these two parties. This must be against EU legislation?

F3

bertbliss wrote: »

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. There is a clear inappropriately close relationship between The Sisk Group and Wicklow County Council in this PPP which has always been wrong. The public interest has been usurped by the cosy commercial relationship between these two parties. This must be against EU legislation?

Personally, I've NEVER wanted to stop the completion of this project. I always wanted (and still do) an acceptable interim solution that gives proper amenity to the Community. By being persistent has brought about much criticsm of our group. I've no axe to grind, I've no business to protect. If a higher authority comes in now, I fear the entire project will grind to a halt, which is not what I want. I just can't understand why Sisk cannot see the immense trouble ahead by not appeasing the Community. The Community is about to explode!!

tennisplayer

This is so tiring and doesn't appear to be going anywhere except in circles. Why is there no push by the community to actually do anything about the state of affairs surrounding this? Can a legal action be taken against the council? ...yawn

F3

tennisplayer wrote: »

This is so tiring and doesn't appear to be going anywhere except in circles. Why is there no push by the community to actually do anything about the state of affairs surrounding this? Can a legal action be taken against the council? ...yawn

Nope. Where is the cause of action? And who takes it? Are you going tomorrow night? (sorry for boring you)

tennisplayer

I will be there as I was at the last council meeting too but is everyone just calling WOLF if as you say no action can be taken? Its ok don't answer, I shouldn't ask. Sorry

F3

tennisplayer wrote: »

I will be there as I was at the last council meeting too but is everyone just calling WOLF if as you say no action can be taken? Its ok don't answer, I shouldn't ask. Sorry

Don't misunderstand, a legal action is only one route but you need an injured party. Who is that injured party? If I owned a business which was suffering as a result of a three year overrun, them I'd have a cause of Action, and damage

F3

F3 wrote: »

Don't misunderstand, a legal action is only one route but you need an injured party. Who is that injured party? If I owned a business which was suffering as a result of a three year overrun, them I'd have a cause of Action, and damage

Whereas a town taking and Action. I really don't know how that works ?

recedite

F3 wrote: »

Whereas a town taking and Action. I really don't know how that works ?

It works through democratic representation of the people at political level.
The Greystones Town Councillors are soon to be axed permanently, and anyway they have never had any power or influence over this PPP. So I would rule them out.
Wicklow County Council is one of the partners in the PPP along with Sisk, so they are hardly going to make any adverse judgement against their own behaviour.
There are 5 Wicklow TD's, of which 2 have their power base in Greystones; Harris and Donnelly. The former must have some influence at govt. level, but has chosen not to use it. The latter has no influence at govt. level but is actively involved in the community plan proposals to resolve the harbour issue at local level.

So there you have it, we have only a very tiny effective political representation working on our behalf.

Back in the days of Dick Roche, he was always sticking his oar in whatever the issue, and had plenty of influence, although for whose benefit, that may be another matter :pac:

Fiachra2

The object of the exercise is to persuade the county councillors and TD's to take action here. I don't think it will require legal action by anyone. It requires that those with the power to instruct the county Manager to start doing his job and protecting the interests of the community as opposed to the interests of Sisk

Taltos

Fiachra2 wrote: »

The object of the exercise is to persuade the county councillors and TD's to take action here. I don't think it will require legal action by anyone. It requires that those with the power to instruct the county Manager to start doing his job and protecting the interests of the community as opposed to the interests of Sisk

I disagree here - a large group have been stating for quite some time action needs to be taken. They have been ignored.
I have noticed that it is only when folk are threatened with legal action - even better with personal liability that they sit up and take notice.

All through this thread there have been insinuations of different activities, I would love if any of those could be proven for the gardai to investigate and bring charges of corruption against any individual or group that proved to be guilty. To be frank I am sick to death of what has happened and I for one don't see an easy or fast resolution here. The officials in charge just seem content to push out and push out waiting for another report or more time to review - by the time this is finished the 2nd marina will be back on the cards and we will all be screaming for our medical cards and bus passes.

Sorry if I am negative here - just sick to death of the ineffectivity of those who are meant to have the best of the community at the forefront of their minds.

F3

Taltos wrote: »

I disagree here - a large group have been stating for quite some time action needs to be taken. They have been ignored.
I have noticed that it is only when folk are threatened with legal action - even better with personal liability that they sit up and take notice.

All through this thread there have been insinuations of different activities, I would love if any of those could be proven for the gardai to investigate and bring charges of corruption against any individual or group that proved to be guilty. To be frank I am sick to death of what has happened and I for one don't see an easy or fast resolution here. The officials in charge just seem content to push out and push out waiting for another report or more time to review - by the time this is finished the 2nd marina will be back on the cards and we will all be screaming for our medical cards and bus passes.

Sorry if I am negative here - just sick to death of the ineffectivity of those who are meant to have the best of the community at the forefront of their minds.

If it where as easy as bringing such 'circumstances' to the Gardai we would be all the better for it. However, we do not use the "F-word" in court or with the Gardai unless we have a smoking gun. [The F-word by the way is FRAUD] The Gardai or fraud squad tend not to get involved in commercial disputes.

This is simple.

WCC and Sisk are partners on sharing profits and or revenue on the sale of units on a PPP project that has been fraught with difficulty. WCC will do anything to bring this project to a finish whether it takes another 22years!

The Difficulties have been:

1. AIB ran out of money and Sisk had to put in €14m to complete the breakwaters.

2. Parks went into NAMA and Sisk had no option but to buy them out due to SICON giving a parent company guarantee to the Sispar JV [which was joint and several]

3. Sisk were forgiven directly or indirectly debt by NAMA, but no-body knows the detail [which is concerning as its tax payers money]

4. Sisk went back for new planning and got permission for a PCC and were gifted by WCC 3 acres to build a further 34 houses.


5. Sisk have a contingent liability each year on maintaining the infrastructure which they are not doing. e.g. beach replenishment up to €150,000 p.a.

5. Sisk have decided to essentially to walk away and offload this entire project to investors and remain only in name.

6. The investors want to change the planning again, and I would guess WCC have agreed to it. It now has to be rubber stamped by going through the process again before the investors become known.

7. The Community want proper amenity in the meantime while Sisk sort out their problems.

8. Sisk don't want to meet the Community and have alleged it would cost €8-13million.

9. The Community have had the matter reviewed by professionals and it will cost Sisk a net €300k.

WCC doesn't care about Greystones, Sisk cannot afford to care about Greystones. Only Greystones can care about Greystones and thats what we do here, and there [facebook] and here [petitions] and there [Leinster house] and here [the news papers] and there [perhaps primetime] as something on the face of it is very very wrong, and we've had no transparency. We have unfortunately endured many public reps that are not qualified or experienced enough in such matters to make the right choices for the Community. WCC cannot be a judge in its own case, which is exactly what is wrong here.

legrand

F3 wrote: »

6. The investors want to change the planning again, and I would guess WCC have agreed to it. It now has to be rubber stamped by going through the process again before the investors become known.

They do and they have? In what way (or did I miss detail in previous post)?

F3

legrand wrote: »

They do and they have? In what way (or did I miss detail in previous post)?

No you haven't, but logically speaking they have stated in thier letter to the TC's dated 16th October, received on 26th October, the PCC is now not going ahead [something about not finding a "workable funding strategy", which I believe is horse s**t as its known fact that 200 PCC are planned for towns with a population of more than 10,000 and if the devloper can get a group of local practicioneers together, the HSE will lease over 25 years 75% of the building at upto €18/sqfoot in rent and upto €5 / sqft for management fees which for any bank is a certain blue chip for lending, one would have thought, I think they could get the doctors together] anyway i'm told they want 40 apartments in its place, so planing is definitely on the cards again.

Honestly!

The people's plan has been dismissed outright by the "developer" and ridiculed by Fine Gael's Derek Mitchell, the main proponent for the horrendous marina. Simon Harris who was strongly opposed to the Marina now toes the party line as he does on all issues. Only the new independents, Sinn Fein and a Labour minority want to force action on this construction site.

http://www.thejournal.ie/greystones-harbour-sisk-building-site-1136058-Oct2013/

The only way to ensure action is to pressurise councillors. June 2014 locals are not that far away. Greystones Marina, has looked like Gitmo or the Maze for years now with its concrete and cages. The "Greystones Marina" anagram "I got NAMA eyesore" sums it up!

Fiachra2

Well. There have numerous requests on this thread about how councillors voted in the past and for whom the public should vote in the local elections. We got some useful information last night on the matter as Fine Gael Councillors voted in a block to reject the Community Plan for the harbour.

The meeting began with Councillor Stokes expressing his support for the Community Plan. Tom Fortune followed this up with an impassioned plea to all councillors to "get behind the community plan". He furthermore went on to demolish the critique of the community plan presented by Sisk. Councillor Fortunes motion went to a vote and was defeated 4:3 with two abstentions. The four Fine Gael councillors voted against it.

What was interesting was that this seemed to be an agreed plan prepared by these councillors in advance as their contributions were rather vague and frequently failed to address the motion suggesting that they couldn't really find that much wrong with it but had agreed-or been instructed- not to support it.

Councillor Mitchell (FG) produce his own plan which was essentially the same as Sisk's. He spoke at great length about erosion (which is not in the Community Plan) and about topics such as the depth of water in the harbour mouth.

Councillor O'Sullivan (FG) commended the Community Plan but said he couldn't vote for it because it would result in WCC ending up in court. Quite how this bizarre outcome would come to pass he did not explain.

Councillor Jones (FG) engaged in what appeared to be a lengthy attack on facebook and other social media (including boards) without explaining however what this had to do with the motion. He appeared to be attacking the community in general at one point but I may have misunderstood what he was saying as that would be out of character. He certainly stated that the Community Plan had no support. Hence presumably his refusal to vote for it.

Cllr McLaughlin (FG) was the only one who really addressed the motion. She stated (I think) that she believed everyone in Greystones would support the community plan. However she then went on to state that the Sisk plan was acceptable (or rather not unacceptable) and voted against Tom's motion.

In a further interesting twist Billy Norman (FF) voted in favour of the motion. This is a departure from previous FF policy which has been to oppose any community efforts to get improvements in the harbour area. His support is to be welcomed. Like wise his party colleague Kathleen Kelleher abstained on the vote. Kathleen has been a loyal champion of Sisk in the past. Now she didn't actually speak in favour of the motion. I couldn't hear her very well but she seemed to be mainly talking about moorings and bye-laws for the harbour but she did not oppose Toms motion. A change of heart perhaps?

cuddlycavies

it was cllr McGloughlin who having met with WCC and Eddie Sheehy raised the possibility of Sisk sueing WCC for €60-80m if they weren't allowed to follow their own plan. All the appeasement)(and it is that) to the Sisk is based on their assertion that building will commence in the second quarter of 2014. Whatever housing recovery is underway in Dublin. It is that, a house recovery. Not an apartment recovery. 3 bed family homes are in some demand again. Sisk will not have started building this time next year.
I am not anti development at all. What I am anti is appalling corporate responsibility and behaviour. We've got that is spades here.

Tabnabs

Councillor Mitchell (FG) produce his own plan which was essentially the same as Sisk's. He spoke at great length about erosion (which is not in the Community Plan) and about topics such as the depth of water in the harbour mouth.

Is the harbour mouth silting up already?

Also, the new moorings laid recently, who are they for?

legrand

I believe Cllr McLaughlin and Billy Norman actually abstained and Kathleen Kelleher voted against the community plan (open to correction here).

In any event hugely disappointing.

Cllr McLaughlin stated she met a solicitor at the time (in the same meeting I wonder) when she meet the county manager who opined Wicklow Co Co could be sued if the bond was called in. All a bit of a coincidence no? Surprised (given her experience) she 'fell for that' - therefore I can only assume she is part of the scare mongering.

recedite

legrand wrote: »

Cllr McLaughlin stated she met a solicitor at the time (in the same meeting I wonder) when she meet the county manager who opined Wicklow Co Co could be sued if the bond was called in.

Any idea what Sisk would be to sueing WCC over?
It seems far fetched.

cuddlycavies

recedite wrote: »

Any idea what Sisk would be to sueing WCC over?
It seems far fetched.

The apartment project would become un viable(with the return of the bond) and they would chase the amount expended on the harbour construction. Whilst tendering for important projects which will come about in the recovery with their EISs and reputation for all to see. I don't think so!

Langerland

legrand wrote: »

I believe Cllr McLaughlin and Billy Norman actually abstained and Kathleen Kelleher voted against the community plan (open to correction here).

In any event hugely disappointing.

Cllr McLaughlin stated she met a solicitor at the time (in the same meeting I wonder) when she meet the county manager who opined Wicklow Co Co could be sued if the bond was called in. All a bit of a coincidence no? Surprised (given her experience) she 'fell for that' - therefore I can only assume she is part of the scare mongering.

This all just proves that local government does not work. It doesn't matter how close you push governance to the people, party politics will always prevent proper democracy. How can we have a situation when the whole town knows the harbour is a complete sh*thole now and yet the local politicians/councillors are just ignoring the public interests ahead of their own agendas? If it's true that Billy abstained, then this is even more disheartening to know that even the next generation are just the same.

cuddlycavies

Billy voted with Mayor Stokes for Tom Fortunes proposal

clocha_liatha

So i went along last night as an interested observer to see at first hand democracy in practice.
I wont dwell on voting as it has been outlined quite well above and accurately enough except to clarify that i believe grainne mcloughlin abstained on the tom fortune proposal re the community project.
i was very dissapointed to see FG using a block vote to defeat this motion, their 4 members did so. Most at the table seem to expouse the view that they have the good of Greystones and the community at heart. If this is to be taken at value then they should have put party politics aside and used their vote to back a well thought out community proposal.
Very dissapointed in G mcloughlin abstaining on some spurious claim that wicklow county council could be sued by sisk for breach of contract, i would like to see the Legal advise for this.
Can i state i am not anti development even though i initially opposed the harbour development because it was just too ambitious. Anyone could have seen that at the time and a lot of people made their feelings known about it but were not listened to.
claims of jobs and much needed investement for greystones at the time i think blinded a lot of our local politicians into agreeing to what is now one of the celtic tiger years biggest white elephants.
Greystones is a large town but quite a small welcoming community. as someone who moved here 20 years or so ago, to see the harbour area in its current state is so depressing.
Many people i know who visit are simply amazed that there is not more pressure put on by Locals to at least have an interim solution to the project.
This i believe has been done with the Community proposal but once again politicians speak one way and vote another.

Annasopra

clocha_liatha wrote: »

So i went along last night as an interested observer to see at first hand democracy in practice.
I wont dwell on voting as it has been outlined quite well above and accurately enough except to clarify that i believe grainne mcloughlin abstained on the tom fortune proposal re the community project.
i was very dissapointed to see FG using a block vote to defeat this motion, their 4 members did so. Most at the table seem to expouse the view that they have the good of Greystones and the community at heart. If this is to be taken at value then they should have put party politics aside and used their vote to back a well thought out community proposal.
Very dissapointed in G mcloughlin abstaining on some spurious claim that wicklow county council could be sued by sisk for breach of contract, i would like to see the Legal advise for this.
Can i state i am not anti development even though i initially opposed the harbour development because it was just too ambitious. Anyone could have seen that at the time and a lot of people made their feelings known about it but were not listened to.
claims of jobs and much needed investement for greystones at the time i think blinded a lot of our local politicians into agreeing to what is now one of the celtic tiger years biggest white elephants.
Greystones is a large town but quite a small welcoming community. as someone who moved here 20 years or so ago, to see the harbour area in its current state is so depressing.
Many people i know who visit are simply amazed that there is not more pressure put on by Locals to at least have an interim solution to the project.
This i believe has been done with the Community proposal but once again politicians speak one way and vote another.

The part in bold is not consistent - Grainne is an FG member

Cerco

There appears to be a lot of confusion as to who supported, abstained and voted against the proposal. Will the minutes of the TC meeting clarify this or will it simply present the result?

recedite

cuddlycavies wrote: »

The apartment project would become un viable(with the return of the bond) and they would chase the amount expended on the harbour construction.

That makes no sense to me. Selling apartments is what will give them payback for building the harbour. Viability depends on the property market rising. If they are forced to pay the bond, it will be just another associated cost to them, like building the harbour was.

cuddlycavies

recedite wrote: »

That makes no sense to me. Selling apartments is what will give them payback for building the harbour. Viability depends on the property market rising. If they are forced to pay the bond, it will be just another associated cost to them, like building the harbour was.

It would be unviable if a penalty of €5m was imposed! This is the angle being presented. It is not necessarily the truth!