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

gibbon6

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Harbour hoist by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

This thing is a real eyesore but I suppose it adds to the horrible eyesore of a monstrosity that is already there. I don't remember any
mention of this contraption in the Environmental Impact Statement so it most certainly does not have any planning permission. What next I wonder?

Charlie-Bravo

I see it as a very functional piece of equipment for the harbour. What hoist is beautiful anyway? I'm sure things will change very much so for that area once the Coast Guard building gets built - out to tender at the moment AFAIR

loyatemu

whatever anyone thinks of the design of the harbour and the debacle of its construction, it is designed to be a working harbour, so complaining about hoists or moorings being ugly is pointless.

Jimjay

gibbon6 wrote: »

This thing is a real eyesore but I suppose it adds to the horrible eyesore of a monstrosity that is already there. I don't remember any
mention of this contraption in the Environmental Impact Statement so it most certainly does not have any planning permission. What next I wonder?

That area was always going to be a boat yard, and the section was originally built for that hoist. Why do you think there is no planning permission for it? Its on all the plans!

legrand

loyatemu wrote: »

whatever anyone thinks of the design of the harbour and the debacle of its construction, it is designed to be a working harbour, so complaining about hoists or moorings being ugly is pointless.

Maybe pointless complaining but it still looks like sh1t (so there, vented..)

Tabnabs

NIMBYism at its worst...

sommelier

I believe two local lads are involved in the boatyard, one a renowned boat repair specialist, the other a keeen sailor. Great to see these kind of facilities in a functional working harbour that has water in it. No doubt a few jobs will be provided with this great investment. It will look well when the yard is full of boats getting antifouled, repaired, etc,.

Fiachra2

Tabnabs wrote: »

NIMBYism at its worst...

NIMBY generally is used to refer to something which the objector agrees is unfortunately necessary...but Not in My Back Yard. (put it somewhere else)
Facilities for a handful of sailors could hardly fall into the category of "necessary".

To a non sailor it is utilitarian and ugly but same can be said of the whole harbour so the focus of WCC should be to complete the parts that will look OK and will provide amenities for the non-sailing community (ie Landscaping, removal of fencing etc).

With regard to the coastguard station. Like the PCC I wouldn't hold your breath.....

Tabnabs

Fiachra2 wrote: »

NIMBY generally is used to refer to something which the objector agrees is unfortunately necessary...but Not in My Back Yard. (put it somewhere else)
Facilities for a handful of sailors could hardly fall into the category of "necessary".

I would disagree with your understanding and I would also point out that a "working harbour" means employment for locals and money coming into the local economy. A vital point which is often overlooked in the anti-development onslaught.

DubOnHoliday

its like saying there should be no burgers in the McDonalds

Fiachra2

Tabnabs wrote: »

I would disagree with your understanding and I would also point out that a "working harbour" means employment for locals and money coming into the local economy. A vital point which is often overlooked in the anti-development onslaught.

Not sure that you can describe a community united in seeking landscaping of the harbour area as an "anti-development onslaught".

I clearly have a different interpretation of NIMBY but here's what Wikipedia thinks:

"Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away".

One thing we do know. When this project was being promoted the hoist was noticeably absent from glossy brochures distributed around the town. Nor at any point did its apologists say "Folks this is not really going to look great but it will create jobs so you will just have to put up with it"

However we digress. The hoist is here to stay whether we like it or not.

thecommander

Fiachra2 wrote: »

One thing we do know. When this project was being promoted the hoist was noticeably absent from glossy brochures distributed around the town. Nor at any point did its apologists say "Folks this is not really going to look great but it will create jobs so you will just have to put up with it"

Have you ever seen an actual working harbour/marina, or do you rely on glossy mockups to base what should and shouldn't be in a working harbour? No sign of dirty trawlers in the mockups either, will you be shocked when you see them using it?

sommelier

No sign of dirty trawlers in the mockups either, will you be shocked when you see them using it?[/QUOTE]

I understand the three local trawlers will be in very shortly. It will be great to see them back!

F3

Tabnabs wrote: »

the anti-development onslaught.

As a central committee member of GUBOH, I can assure you there is no, and never has been, any "anti development onslaught". We have only ever wanted an interim solution for the community whilst construction is delayed. What we despise is the lies, deceit and lack of transparency. So to whom do you aim your comments regarding anti-development onslaught toward?

sommelier

A very reliable source from Sherry Fitz tells me that Sisk are building 25 x 3 beds in the spring quickly followed by the 5 bed larger houses. This is great news - forget about fencing coming down now.:):D

F3

sommelier wrote: »

A very reliable source from Sherry Fitz tells me that Sisk are building 25 x 3 beds in the spring quickly followed by the 5 bed larger houses. This is great news - forget about fencing coming down now.:):D

Wow sommelier you've great insight into what going on since you've joined boards in October 2013 and only your 5th post! Can you find out where exactly are the 25 three beds apt on the site, from your reliable source [relative to the first block where the PCC was due to start and needs to go back for planning]

When are they starting the enabling works [sewage pumping, attenuation, etc etc] underneath the lawn that they've just committed to sow]

Doubleskipper

sommelier wrote: »

A very reliable source from Sherry Fitz tells me that Sisk are building 25 x 3 beds in the spring quickly followed by the 5 bed larger houses. This is great news - forget about fencing coming down now.:):D

We have heard it all so many times that Sisk will be starting to build this and that in the derelict harbour site. I no longer believe in their lies and spin. This is just another stalling tactic to give them more time to do nothing and to leave the harbour area in the disgraceful state it has been in since Sispar lost their banking facility. :mad:

sommelier

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

Doubleskipper

sommelier wrote: »

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

Sisks just can't build houses without first putting the services infrastructure in place as pointed out by F3.

Cerco

sommelier wrote: »

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

Of course everbody has a right to voice their opinions. It is open to others to comment on them. Personally I think your post regarding Sisk commencing a build in the Spring is naive.
Perhaps you have not been following the forum since you only joined recently. If you had followed you would be aware of the many broken promises and the diversionary tactics used.
I would be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that " there are many people in this town that don't support" the community plan as voiced by F3 and others on the forum.

F3

sommelier wrote: »

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

You have the characteristics of a 'plant' that's all, so I'll watch with great interest what you you are saying and test it accordingly. What we don't want is misinformation. By you saying "F3 there are many people in the town that don't support your opinion but allow you to speak" is also telling. So you must know me, which is good. And if I knew who you were.....even better. PM me please.

MyPerfectCousin

sommelier wrote: »

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

You didn't put forward an opinion (except for the "this is great news"), you put forward new facts.

Since there was no evidence to support the facts being true (only hearsay), those "facts" are being discounted/distrusted. It has nothing to do with your right to an opinion.

Tabnabs

F3 wrote: »

As a central committee member of GUBOH, I can assure you there is no, and never has been, any "anti development onslaught". We have only ever wanted an interim solution for the community whilst construction is delayed. What we despise is the lies, deceit and lack of transparency. So to whom do you aim your comments regarding anti-development onslaught toward?

And GUBOH are only one of a number of groups that were established in an anti-development position. In the early days, there was even talk of protesters talking up residence on the site to stop any works. So you'll forgive me if I cast a wider net when talking about groups against Greystones Harbour.

F3

Tabnabs wrote: »

And GUBOH are only one of a number of groups that were established in an anti-development position. In the early days, there was even talk of protesters talking up residence on the site to stop any works. So you'll forgive me if I cast a wider net when talking about groups against Greystones Harbour.

GUBOH are not and never have been an anti-development protest group.


http://greystonesharbour.org/about


The GIVE US BACK OUR HARBOUR group was set up in April 2011 after work at the Greystones Harbour construction site came to a full stop, with no indication that public access to the harbour amenity would be created after 3.5 years of deprivation.

The group has succeeded in having the hoardings around Greystones Harbour taken down and a small part of this amenity returned to the people. We continue to act for more to be opened to the public and for the vacant site to be landscaped.

The GIVE US BACK OUR HARBOUR group

Meeting Room
The Beach House
The Harbour
Greystones
Co Wicklow

e: gubohn@gmail.com
w: http://greystonesharbour.org/
f: facebook.com/groups/greystones

They may be members within our group who have anti-development feelings and opinions but the GROUP is firm in its objectives.

With respect, you should retract your post in this regard.

F3

You should familiarise yourself with the 30+ publicised 'good authority' failed milestones since 2007


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202537386018149&set=gm.602927063108260&type=1&theater

Tabnabs

F3 wrote: »

I've just seen the photographs of the Crane, what the f*** is there a steel container on the pier for!!! It looks dreadful and definitely has no planning permission. This is exactly the kind of double standards that people of Greystones have had to endure from WCC for generations now. WCC simply do what they want when they want and to hell with what is good for Greystones. I would immediately be objecting with banners and protest on the siting of the first container arriving. NO WAY!!!

F3 wrote: »

With respect, you should retract your post in this regard.

I've read the GUBOH FAQ page and see their official position, but with comments like this, bystanders may well draw a different conclusion.

It's a working harbour, in the absence of suitable buildings to store equipment and run the businesses, how are they to go about their business in the interim? Are you so sure that containers require planning? Most site meetings I've attended have been in a comfortably appointed container or similarly temporary structure. Look at the boatyard in DL, containers (without PP!) have been a feature for years. This is the reality of a working harbour. But your first reaction is to protest...

BigGeorge

What is built is built....and when it is completed it will fantastic. The problem is ' when?'

But after all the failed deadlines & cheap promises...years of them if we are all being frank...So many newsletters, press releases, town council meetings, harbour liaison groups, videos, rumours......all stating that progress is just over the horizon. Well, time have proven these to be hollow - consistently!

At last there is a feeling about that the people of Greystones just want some transparency from WCC in enforcing the contract & commitemnt they gave the community and for Sisk to fulfuill their part of the bargain & to stop buying time.

Cheeky Chops

sommelier wrote: »

Sorry I'm missing something here - does it matter how long I've been a member or how many contributions I've made. I have a right to contribute to this or any other forum. Is this a case of you don't like my opinion so you'll belittle it? F3 there are many people in this town that don't support your opinion but they allow you to speak.

Who the heck talks like this in real life?

legrand

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

Who the heck talks like this in real life?

A town councilor of course

I may not have contributed positively in any real sense to this forum (belly ached for sure - and I will continue to do so for good or ill). But think of this place a sort of virtual assembly where folks offer opinion - informed or otherwise.

So welcome sommelier. Regular viewers/posters look forward to your contribution - I am always open to correction (accepting same is another matter).

recedite

sommelier wrote: »

A very reliable source from Sherry Fitz tells me that Sisk are building 25 x 3 beds in the spring quickly followed by the 5 bed larger houses. This is great news - forget about fencing coming down now.:):D

While it can only be considered a rumour, I would not be surprised to see a few houses being built under the banner of "Phase 1". It would be a way of testing the market, and perhaps more importantly, of heading off any political demands for them to landscape the area. Also a way for some development company (the mystery investor/partner) to keep itself ticking over while waiting for a bigger upswing in the market.
Services would go in just prior to the foundations, in the usual way.