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

F3

recedite wrote: »

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.

I would agree that the local services to houses would go in during substructure works to the houses / apartments but what I'm talking about is the underground sewage pumping station that picks up the gravity sewers is sited under the plot that is to be grassed. Also there are emergency storage tanks to go in (if pump fails) and there is also fuel tanks to go in for the marina all of which are under the grassed area. The point being made, is that if Sisk are serious about starting, then these services and the connection to the trunk sewer on church road via a high pressure sewer ( which also has to go in) from the pumping station will need to be done pretty much now.

With regard to the containers, planning permission is not required, but at the harbour liaison meetings the harbour residents were very insistent that temporary containers would not litter the harbour visually, their point being 'what next caravans and shacks'

recedite

Sewage pumping station could be built simultaneously with the showhouses; it would not need to be operational until first occupation of the houses.

F3

recedite wrote: »

Sewage pumping station could be built simultaneously with the showhouses; it would not need to be operational until first occupation of the houses.

Deep drainage and enabling works are always carried out in advance of the main building works. Technically the drain may not be used until the first flush of the toilet during commissioning, but rather the custom and practice is to complete the deep drainage works first before discovering sequencing clashes with local services, ducts and foundations of works in progress at a later date. Remember, you will have, NTL, eircom, gas, water, electricity, public lighting etc all going in at a shallow level so the sequence is to do the deep stuff first and get it literally, 'out of the way'

We have for example, an operating marina where no vessel can be refueled from a container exceeding the maximum of 5 litre capacity. There should have been fueling tanks and a fueling berth constructed as apart of the marine works before the marina was put into use, all of which needs to go under the grassed area designated by Sisk. This I'm sure is frustrating to BJ marine and the owners of vessels.

F3

Just to clarify, the above criteria was set out in the Environmental Impact Statement, the provisions of which form part of the contract, and we have a complete set of the tender documents received under an Freedom of Information request, that took some time and money before we got our hands on it, 000's of documents which included a full copy of the contract (concession agreement)as it was tendered under European procurement rules.

Incidentally, under the tendered contract they had to guarantee the complete funding of the project from start to finish and there was no provision for them to stop / suspend or phase the works, they were obligated to proceed diligently from start to finish without stopping ( no show houses) regardless of banks funding drying up or economy's crashing.

However, what is puzzling is that WCC appear to have fundamentally changed the contract that was tendered, which I'm not convinced that they can do that.

Do we have any European Procurement experts out there that could shed some light on this?

Cheeky Chops

Was there any EC funding in this project? I've worked professionally with Commissioner Reding for nearly 10 years but I would only consider my influence there if it is appropriate. IF EC funds have been misused and can be proven to be so then I will have a conversation.

F3

F3 wrote: »

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.

so no PM then?

res ipsa loquitur......

F3

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

Was there any EC funding in this project? I've worked professionally with Commissioner Reding for nearly 10 years but I would only consider my influence there if it is appropriate. IF EC funds have been misused and can be proven to be so then I will have a conversation.

This is a very interesting point you have made here Cheeky. If for example the DoE [or whomever] at the very early stages of feasibility studies on harbour PPP's [as I understand that Greystones PPP if successful it would have been the model for many such developments around the Irish Coastline] used European funding to research any element which could be attached to Greystones, on the face about what it is that you know about the Greystones project, what are the consequences for WCC? or indeed the Irish Government?

F3

F3 wrote: »

This is a very interesting point you have made here Cheeky. If for example the DoE [or whomever] at the very early stages of feasibility studies on harbour PPP's [as I understand that Greystones PPP if successful it would have been the model for many such developments around the Irish Coastline] used European funding to research any element which could be attached to Greystones, on the face about what it is that you know about the Greystones project, what are the consequences for WCC? or indeed the Irish Government?

Check out the Irish Times today; €95,000,000 down the drain on Poolbeg

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/poolbeg-contract-terminated-after-32m-payments-1.1603932

The council was last month cleared of breaching State aid rules and will be cleared of breaching procurement rules once the RPS contract has been ended, he said.

Cookie_Monster

F3 wrote: »

Check out the Irish Times today; €95,000,000 down the drain on Poolbeg

how so? 32m down the drain, the rest was land costs and it's still going to be built so hardly a waste of money...

Fiachra2

Below is the executive summary of the professional report prepared by John O'Brien (FCIArb MSCSI MRICS MCInstCES) on the community plan for the harbour and the letter from Sisk dismissing the plan as impractical and prohibitively expensive. The report shows neither to be the case. Sisks analysis was both sloppy and misleading and the real cost to them is a mere €500K.

Executive Summary

Sisk’s letter to Greystones Town Council dated 16th October 2013 was in my professional opinion, both alarmist and misleading. Sisk indicated to the Town Council that the community plan required significant changes to existing planning permission, amendments to the EIS, difficult permissions to procure from Iarnrod Eireann and that it was estimated that it would cost Sisk in the region of €7.3 to €8.3 million to implement.
There is no such requirement for changes or additional planning permission, nor any requirement for rock armour, nor any changes to the EIS. There is no requirement for a bridge over the existing railway nor any permissions required from Iarnrod Eireann to construct such a structure.
Sisks detailed costing’s of the community plan which were issued to my team on 31 October 2013, were reviewed and analysed in detail. Apart from the above, there were some notable errors found in the Sisk’s detail costing. Some examples include circa 23,000 square metres of D’Arcy’s field [beyond the north fence-line] which was costed as requiring topsoil, spreading and grassing, which of course it does not as it is already there. Sisk appear to have made an error in costing the ARUP initial design of the boardwalk which was for vehicular traffic as opposed to the revised pedestrian structure which although titled as such in their costing, the engineering detail was clearly for the initial more expensive vehicle structure. Sisk also costed the permanent access from cliff road at almost €200,000 which was not required in the community plan. The community plan required to utilise the already built RC steps with a simple tie in to ground level. Sisk priced for disposal off-site to landfill all the excavated material which is quite unnecessary as the existing borrow pit at the north of the site can easily accommodate the clean arisings. We found Sisk under measured items which we appropriately corrected, and when adjusted and corrected for quantities, comparable specification, and applying appropriate market rates, the revised total expenditure for the community plan amounted to €2.09 million of which €1.58 million is deemed to be permanent works1.

The cost of funding the €1.58 million permanent works [by bringing the capital expenditure forward by 3 years] equates to €108,091 taking a rate of 4%.
Thus, in my professional opinion, based upon the assumptions and calculations detailed in this report, the entire actual cost to Sisk to implement the community plan and maintaining it for 3 years is €504,899 with no planning restrictions or changes to planning required save as to the permissions required of a community bandstand.
Please note, that the previously advised figure of €1,884,335 in the Preliminary Budget Cost Plan issued to both Sisk and the Town Council on the 24th September, 2013 has now after this detailed analysis and review been revised to €504,899.
If there is any aspect of this report that any reader from Sisk, WCC, Greystones Town Council, Central Government or indeed any member of community has questions or queries, please email them to me, where I would be more than happy, and shall endevour to respond quickly, with clarity reasoning and substantiation or indeed to rectify any errors I may have made in arriving at the findings published in this report.

F3

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how so? 32m down the drain, the rest was land costs and it's still going to be built so hardly a waste of money...

You make a good point about the land not being wasted but €50 million for land in poolbeg is an awful lot of money, whats the land worth? I'm not sure it could be sold for residential units due to the proximity of the Poolbeg power station and Poolbeg waste water treatment plant and pumping station for Dublin City...:rolleyes:.

recedite

So, the cost of the community plan revised downwards to just over €500,000. Not a lot really.
The only way for Sisk to justify avoiding it now is if they manage to convince people that they would go along with it, but its too late now because they need the vacant land kept clear as they intend to start building "very soon".

Fiachra2

Unfortunately they have left themselves in a bit of a bind on that one. In one communication to Greystones TC they said they were going to start in "2nd quarter of 2014". In a subsequent one they revised this to just "2014". However in costing the community plan they factored in a cost of maintaining the harbour area for 3 years! Therefore it would appear that their real expected start date is at least three years time.
This combined with their spectacular track record on start dates for the PCC would leave even their most ardent supporters sceptical about any claims of an imminent start date (well maybe not their most ardent supporters but there are only about two of them...)

Fiachra2

Recent press release from Cllr Mitchell.

Its good to see him seeking a "realistic" start date. That will be a novel approach for Sisk and WCC.

Disappointing however to see a public representative make a request on behalf of the community (albeit not the one the community wanted), be told no by the developer and simply report that back as "well that's it folks I asked and they said no. So now I am going to ask for even less and maybe if we are really lucky they wont say no to me this time." (In which case we will declare it a "major gain")


The developers have agreed to improve the appearance of the harbour area and to open the North Pier next Summer. They also stated that they expect to start building by June 2014.

However I asked them to do away with all the fencing on the public square and to improve the landscaping on the fenced area and they have not agreed to this.

I have written again to them and asked them to landscape inside the fence for at least one metre width and to use trees in planters, which can be moved during construction, to soften up the area. This would be a major gain at limited cost. I have also asked them be realistic with the construction date as I am sceptical of a June 2014 start

MyPerfectCousin

Fiachra2 wrote: »

The developers have agreed to improve the appearance of the harbour area and to open the North Pier next Summer.
[/I]

Isn't this a joint development, public-private-partnership style? Isn't WCC also "the developer"? Why does the private side of a PPP get to be the boss? Surely it's meant to be the other way around?

thecommander

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

Isn't this a joint development, public-private-partnership style? Isn't WCC also "the developer"? Why does the private side of a PPP get to be the boss? Surely it's meant to be the other way around?

What does the contract say?

MyPerfectCousin

thecommander wrote: »

What does the contract say?

No idea. It was a rhetorical question, possibly even one I've asked before, but it's something that comes to mind every time our councillors act like Sisk is in charge and the town and county are at their mercy. I thought the county was a partner, and the one that provided the most important asset.

pixbyjohn

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

Sisk is in charge and the town and county are at their mercy.

This is the way it is, has been and will be until Sisk move it along. There is no denying that everything so far regarding the harbour has been Sisk's doing. There has never been a robust demonstration of the people of Greystones to change the speed of development by Sisk. We hear lots of talk but no real action from any of the lobby group/s.
It is a shame that the dream has not fully materialised but at least there is something to talk about!

Fiachra2

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

Isn't this a joint development, public-private-partnership style? Isn't WCC also "the developer"? Why does the private side of a PPP get to be the boss? Surely it's meant to be the other way around?

You are largely correct.

The contact imposes rights and responsibilities on both parties. So when the property market declined Sisk exercised their right to alter the scale of the project and increased it by 34 apartments and added the PCC. However Having exercised that right they then have a responsibility to complete the project.

They have absolutely no right under the contact to simply stall it as they have done. WCC has steadfastly refused to exercise their rights under the contract and compel Sisk to-at the very least- rectify the mess they have made. There is absolutely no requirement for councillors like Derek to go cap in hand to Sisk pleading for plant pots and why he choses to do so remains a mystery to all.

Fortunately we have a few representatives like Tom Fortune whose interactions with Sisk are rather more robust.

Cerco

In my opinion Mr. Mitchel's approach illustrates how little control the proponent town councillors have over this project.
All the bluster and blather over their achievements wrt this project is just that,,,,bluster and blather.
The genie is out of the bottle. All control lies with Sisk and WCC. The latter appear, for whatever reason, unwilling to excercise their control.

legrand

Walking by harbour at lunch time a number of dinghy's in the Pens have blown over in the high winds..

recedite

Signs of a new industry.
Now in the marina, and built by Island Shipping in Wicklow town, this cat probably services the Arklow turbines, but when the 220 turbines are built at the Codling Bank, 15KM out from Greystones, we will probably see a lot more of these.

Zoo4m8

Supplied by Island but built by the excellent Safehaven Marine down in Cobh, nit picking I know but I'm sure Island won't mind..

F3

Fiachra2 wrote: »

You are largely correct.

The contact imposes rights and responsibilities on both parties. So when the property market declined Sisk exercised their right to alter the scale of the project and increased it by 34 apartments and added the PCC. However Having exercised that right they then have a responsibility to complete the project.

They have absolutely no right under the contact to simply stall it as they have done. WCC has steadfastly refused to exercise their rights under the contract and compel Sisk to-at the very least- rectify the mess they have made. There is absolutely no requirement for councillors like Derek to go cap in hand to Sisk pleading for plant pots and why he choses to do so remains a mystery to all.

Fortunately we have a few representatives like Tom Fortune whose interactions with Sisk are rather more robust.

An important point being made here, but we have no idea what the contract says. We know what the tender contract says but not the final contract , it's a secret apparently, but by the sounds from those that have seen it, this market change clause must be the batman of all clauses, as according to those who have "seen it" they say when the market drops they invoke their right as Fiachra states to change the development, the last time was to be given 34 new sites at a value I would guess at €500k each,that's €17million worth to Sisk, but then those who have seen the clause say that don't have to recommence building until the market recovers. This has to be completely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!!! so Sisk get given €17million to sit on their hands, inconvenience the entire community, and only when the market recoups, they continue to build, WHAT ABOUT THE €17MILLION.??? Wake up for goodness sake (those who preach that they have seen) the €17million was to to continue to build to completion to compensate the down turn, not to wait until the value returns over time allowing a platinum hand shake to Sisk with love from WCC?? WTF

legrand

^^^^
I can only assume the confusion here is down to the "view of those that have seen it (the final contract)" so all we have is hearsay and innuendo. I presume also the these people (who have seen it) are on the Sisk/WCC side only?

I thought the contract was obtained under FOI? Or was that just an earlier draft and not the latest which includes the market change clause?

F3

legrand wrote: »

^^^^
I can only assume the confusion here is down to the "view of those that have seen it (the final contract)" so all we have is hearsay and innuendo. I presume also the these people (who have seen it) are on the Sisk/WCC side only?

I thought the contract was obtained under FOI? Or was that just an earlier draft and not the latest which includes the market change clause?

The Contract that was "tendered" under EU procurement rules was received under FOI. The final contract will not be disclosed as it has been deemed commercially sensitive. But here's the thing, how much can a contract be changed without breaching EU procurement rules? the answer is "not much" if nothing at all.

So, either WCC have breached EU rules, or the alleged changes do not exist as per what has been advised by some TC's that claim they have seen and understood the contract. With respect, they do not know what they are looking at.

We can at best 'join the dots' but answers to questions raised must be pursued until fully answered.

To not answer, is completely unacceptable and is not being tolerated.

They will be answered, but at what cost?

Fiachra2

Facebook quote from David O'Reilly, a Fine Gael candidate for the 2014 Local elections. Good to hear and hopefully he understands the extent of the "undeveloped aspects"!

With regards to the harbour, I would of course support the Greystones Harbour Community plan. I walk past the harbour twice a day, and agree something needs to be done with the undeveloped aspect of the site

legrand

Not met him but a decent man from what I can gather! Actively participates in Tidy Towns efforts too....

RosieJoe

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Facebook quote from David O'Reilly, a Fine Gael candidate for the 2014 Local elections. Good to hear and hopefully he understands the extent of the "undeveloped aspects"!

With regards to the harbour, I would of course support the Greystones Harbour Community plan. I walk past the harbour twice a day, and agree something needs to be done with the undeveloped aspect of the site

Jaysus, who'd have thought! A politician spouting stuff to get votes! :pac:

Fiachra2

RosieJoe wrote: »

Jaysus, who'd have thought! A politician spouting stuff to get votes! :pac:

In fairness if we are to ever resolve this issue we need to get unequivocal commitments from politicians that-if elected-they will force Wicklow County Council to properly landscape and open up the harbour and then we need to vote for those politicians who give that commitment. To date Tom Fortune and Stephen Stokes have consistently supported the community in this matter. It looks like this chap is onside and hopefully others and, if they do, we should vote for them.