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

gibbon6

legrand wrote: »

I fall into the camp that believes the harbour is a place where we can and should be allowed to swim (I have and will do so regardless if only as a protest - yes I prefer the beach).

But for those of you who disagree and don't understand why many believe the harbour is a general amenity for all and not just for boat owners please refer to the attached from Sisk/Wicklow Co Co. Note the 'nice' beach, the lack of dry dock etc.

Whist some of you may state these images are representative only - please remember too that these images formed part of the overall propaganda
(the pup we were sold and were told we needed).

Happy new year

If Sisks think for one minute that they will be allowed to leave our harbour area in the disgraceful state that they have left it in for another year well then they are in for a very rude awakening. We the people of Greystones have had enough of Sisks and unless they get real they will feel the wrath of Greystones and 2014 will be an Annus horribilis for Sisks (even worse than 2013). Happy new year!:cool:

tennisplayer

gibbon6 wrote: »

If Sisks think for one minute that they will be allowed to leave our harbour area in the disgraceful state that they have left it in for another year well then they are in for a very rude awakening. We the people of Greystones have had enough of Sisks and unless they get real they will feel the wrath of Greystones and 2014 will be an Annus horribilis for Sisks (even worse than 2013). Happy new year!:cool:

Wow, great news. When Sisk see this they will be shivering in their boots. Happy new year

Langerland

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Christmas Day 2013 @ The Harbour by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

How ugly is that....Awful shame. Never go down there anymore (Like CheekyChops). Just hate it down there now.

HappyDaze007

Great pic, Lovely day and a nice boat..!!

Anyone know what boat that is...?

Thanks

HD

gibbon6

Could this be the eventual fate of the stalled and ill fated high rise development on reclaimed land at Greystones Harbour? :eek:

The climate it is a changing......

loyatemu

gibbon6 wrote: »

Could this be the eventual fate of the stalled and ill fated high rise development on reclaimed land at Greystones Harbour? :eek:

The climate it is a changing......

not likely, the development is all behind the harbour wall.

was down there today at high tide, huge waves crashing over the rocks but relatively calm in the harbour (admittedly it wasn't full easterly, but it was very rough).

gibbon6

loyatemu wrote: »

not likely, the development is all behind the harbour wall.

was down there today at high tide, huge waves crashing over the rocks but relatively calm in the harbour (admittedly it wasn't full easterly, but it was very rough).

Alas the harbour wall will not protect the development from the effects of Climate Change. Experts now believe that sea levels will rise by at least 1 metre this century. Any structures on this site will be abandoned due to inundation from the sea.

http://vimeo.com/21925211

F3

thecommander wrote: »

I agree with you that the harbour is a disgrace as it stands, but to suggest that a working harbour is a place for adults and children to swim is crazy. It's like playing football on a main road, go swim on the beach like everyone else.

The crane should be at the a North end of the marina, well out of the way. The beach is supposed to have sand on it, replenished as required by for 30 years by Sisk, then by WCC. Now why would they put sand on this beach if it were not for the community to enjoy ???? I think perspective should be kept on the 'working harbour' title, it's not exactly Rotterdam is it!

loyatemu

anyone know what these new moorings are for - will people be allowed moor their boats in the main basin?

pixbyjohn

loyatemu wrote: »

anyone know what these new moorings are for - will people be allowed moor their boats in the main basin?

It is a pity the harbour basin isn't bigger. If the harbour walls were another 100 meters or so further out then there would be room for swimmers and moorings. As it is 2 or 3 moored boats would fill/baulk the harbour.

gibbon6

pixbyjohn wrote: »

It is a pity the harbour basin isn't bigger. If the harbour walls were another 100 meters or so further out then there would be room for swimmers and moorings. As it is 2 or 3 moored boats would fill/baulk the harbour.

The harbour is far too big as it is. The smaller more compact harbour that the people wanted would have been completed at this stage for a fraction of the cost of the concrete monstrosity they built.

Fiachra2

F3 wrote: »

I think perspective should be kept on the 'working harbour' title, it's not exactly Rotterdam is it!

Actually its not correct to use the term "working harbour" at all. Cllr Derek Mitchell, a champion of this development regularly refers to it as " The fourth best leisure harbour in Ireland"

legrand

Recent weather has impacted North, South and Ladies Cove beach levels which over the coming months will normalise.

The Harbour "beach" (I'm loath to call it that) lost maybe 200-400mm of cover exposing rocks and boulders - I'm not so sure the sand/single cover will be returned by natural means due to breakwater construction. I can be pretty sure that Sisk/WCC will do nothing and will offer excuse that the seas will nourish the shore 'soon'.

gibbon6

legrand wrote: »

Recent weather has impacted North, South and Ladies Cove beach levels which over the coming months will normalise.

The Harbour "beach" (I'm loath to call it that) lost maybe 200-400mm of cover exposing rocks and boulders - I'm not so sure the sand/single cover will be returned by natural means due to breakwater construction. I can be pretty sure that Sisk/WCC will do nothing and will offer excuse that the seas will nourish the shore 'soon'.

to

Sisks better start spending some of their moula NOW to fix up the mess that they have made at the harbour and fulfill their contractual obligations or else clear out of Greystones so the site can be returned to public ownership.:mad:

Fiachra2

Posted by Tom Fortune on Facebook

On Tuesday the 28th January 2014, the Town Council will hold a very important meeting regarding the community plan for renovating Greystones Harbour. The developers, SISK will attend, along with Council officials involved in the development and also Wicklow TDs'. Personally I hope that this meeting may prove a major stepping stone in delivering the community plan in full. If public representatives work together we can impress on SISK and Wicklow County Council that it is not acceptable to leave the harbour in its current state. In addition we can make it clear to SISK that the derisory proposals that they have come up with so far will not do.
To help achieve this I am asking the community to play their part by turning up in large numbers at 7-30pm ON TUESDAY 28th JANUARY 2014 AT THE TOWN COUNCIL OFFICES. YOUR SUPPORT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

MyPerfectCousin

Eh, wasn't the Community Plan already voted down by the town councillors?

Fiachra2

No. If you ask them, I think you will find very few who would not support landscaping the harbour along the lines proposed.

MyPerfectCousin

Fiachra2 wrote: »

No.

Well I'm confused then about the reporting on the meeting where Tom Fortune made his pitch but failed to get support from a majority of councillors.

That's great if the Community Plan is still alive, then.

recedite

F2 you reported it here yourself on this thread that they voted the community plan down. Here's a reminder of what happened;

Fiachra2 wrote: »

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?

I suspect that Sisk will use the meeting to outline what aspects of their own plan they are willing to implement, or have already implemented.

The presence of TD's at the meeting could be considered an "escalation".
We'll see if Simon Harris TD shows up, and whether he voices support for the community proposals, or merely cow-tows to Sisk's instructions.
He is our only elected representative with direct access to government.

F3

The community plan was published on 24th September 2013 with budget costings of €1.8million of which €1.5m were 'permanent works' which would have to be done anyway, so the net 'abortive works' were considered to be €300k.

within 24 hours of the community plan being published, it was lambasted and ridiculed as a scheme that would cost €13million and require substantial changes to the EIS and new planning permissions and special permission from Irish rail before it could be implemented.

Shortly after that, it was dropped to €10million and then finally to €8.3m according to Sisk in a letter sent to the Town Council on 16th October.

In fairness to the TC's, they did not know who to believe, the community plan budget or the letter from Sisk, and certainly it would be ridiculous to go back and change the EIS or indeed start the planning process again for what are essentially temporary works.

This left the community with a task to carry out a full and professional costing report, and not just a budgetary report. Stephen Donnelly and tom Fortune engaged a professional firm of Quantity Surveyors to do just that [the principal being a member of the Greystones community] and a 68 page detailed report was published on the community plan costings and also a clear explanation as to why Sisk letter of the 16th of October was downright misleading to our public representatives on this contentious issue.

The author of the detailed costing report met with almost every Town Councillor [FG, FF, Lab and independents] and those he did not meet he answered in writing detailed clarifications to questions that were posed.


Sisk wrote another unhelpful letter to the TC's on the 5th of Dec, essentially bullying the TC into accepting the paltry pocket of green that they had proposed.

At the following Town Council meeting in December, it was clear that for the first time there was a sense of unity across all public reps and all were critical of Sisk, not just of the untruths of the 16th of October, but the bully boy tactics in their letter of 5th December.

What was passed at the December TC meeting was to invite, Sisk, Sean Quirke, all the Wicklow TD's and the author of the Community plan costings to the Town Council meeting on the 28th.

It should be interesting.......

clocha_liatha

I attended the last meeting , which btw was attended by Simon Harris who was as far as I know the only td present , I find him to be a decent man who I believe has the interests of the locals at heart. FG block voted against the local plan. People say it will be interesting to see what happens at the meeting but there is nothing like numbers to make politicians sit up and take notice . Do guboh have the wherewithal to publicise this meeting locally and get a big turnout or what about planning a march of concerned citizens from the harbour to arrive at the council offices prior to the meeting . Invite a photographer or two from the press and see which politicians actually support the local opinion. It's one thing turning up on the back of a lorry on paddys day waving at people showing how great a local supporter you are ,but it's another thing to actually back up your supposed community by standing up for them and with them when they need it . It's time the people of Greystones stood up and were counted . Be there

pixbyjohn

clocha_liatha wrote: »

Do guboh have the wherewithal to publicise this meeting locally and get a big turnout or what about planning a march of concerned citizens from the harbour to arrive at the council offices prior to the meeting .

Now that would be interesting

Fiachra2

That's a great idea Clocha but a march is not that easy to organise on a wet cold night in January.

We are publicising the meeting as much as we can on this forum and on Facebook but we are very much relying on interested people like you (and you John!) to make sure and bring a few friends with you. If everyone makes an effort we can get a decent crowd there and send a clear signal to all parties that the people of Greystones want a satisfactory resolution quickly.

legrand

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Now that would be interesting

why so cynical pixbyjohn?

As far as I'm concerned I'm very grateful to the Guboh folks for volunteering their time / expertise on our behalf.

Tabnabs

legrand wrote: »

why so cynical pixbyjohn?

As far as I'm concerned I'm very grateful to the Guboh folks for volunteering their time / expertise on our behalf.

As John is a great man for keeping photographic records of the local area. So something like that would indeed be interesting to him, I'd imagine. He's about the only one taking good quality photos and taking the trouble to post them on here too.

pixbyjohn

legrand wrote: »

why so cynical pixbyjohn?

As far as I'm concerned I'm very grateful to the Guboh folks for volunteering their time / expertise on our behalf.

I am not cynical at all, a march would be very interesting and I have been at the council meetings before. I have photographed GUBOH gatherings in the past, remember Dustin at the harbour and the GUBOH concert at the back of the Beach House. It is not only GUBOH who is interested in the harbour and the wider Greystones area.
Why would you consider me cynical?

Dustin and children at the harbour 1/7/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

legrand

Perhaps I mis-judged your comment and I apologies if I have done so but when I read your comment I interpreted as a bit a dig at Guboh and their efforts to organise a larger turnout.

pixbyjohn

legrand wrote: »

Perhaps I mis-judged your comment and I apologies if I have done so but when I read your comment I interpreted as a bit a dig at Guboh and their efforts to organise a larger turnout.

Your apology accepted, thank you.

clocha_liatha

Fiachra2 wrote: »

That's a great idea Clocha but a march is not that easy to organise on a wet cold night in January.

We are publicising the meeting as much as we can on this forum and on Facebook but we are very much relying on interested people like you (and you John!) to make sure and bring a few friends with you. If everyone makes an effort we can get a decent crowd there and send a clear signal to all parties that the people of Greystones want a satisfactory resolution quickly.

thanks for comment , re a proposed march , why not just do it, put some signs up in all the local schools,shops ,coffee shops. Asking 2 simple question , are you happy with the harbour development in its current state?, if not do you support the community development plan?, if you do turn up and march to the council offices to show your support

Fiachra2

clocha_liatha wrote: »

thanks for comment , re a proposed march , why not just do it, put some signs up in all the local schools,shops ,coffee shops. Asking 2 simple question , are you happy with the harbour development in its current state?, if not do you support the community development plan?, if you do turn up and march to the council offices to show your support

After many years of campaigning on this matter I have learned that despite strong feelings on the subject if its a cold wet night people will say "ah I wont bother sure there will be plenty of others there" We then end up with a handful of people and certain public representatives and council officials will be very quick to say "there you are....nobody is that bothered about the harbour lets just leave it as it is. If people really cared they would have turned up".

Maybe in am being overly cynical and pessimistic but I am more in favour of giving people the easy option and just asking them to turn up in large numbers in the council offices.