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

recedite

F3 wrote: »

Sisk finally reported back, having strung the TC and community along for almost 3 years that it was going to happen, that funding would not allow this PCC to be built. They succeeded in stalling the project for almost 3 years on this one point. ...It was plainly used by Sisk [tolerated by both WCC and out TC] as a stalling tactic to allow the market to recover....

HSE has since gone ahead with a new Primary Care Clinic on the new Port Road just north of Wicklow town, and building work is progressing well there. Loughlinstown A&E is downgraded now to something similar to a PCC. This leaves Greystones halfway between the two PCC's and unlikely to get its own one in the foreseeable future.
The harbour fiasco is partly responsible for this; if town councillors had earmarked a site near Charlesland or Farrankelly Rd 10 years ago and lobbied HSE for a PCC to be built, maybe it could have been built, but we'll never know the answer to that now.

F3 wrote: »

Secondly, Sisk were given [by way of a gift by our County Manager] 34 additional sites free of charge, more than 2 years ago, to ‘make the project viable’. Two things occur here, (1) The sites were taken from what should have been the community park, and (2) even if they were gifted these sites under the market change clause, then that was on the basis that they continued to build without stalling the programme.

[By the way we conservatively estimate the value of these additional sites at between €15 and €17 million euro,]

The market has already started to swing upwards, but "not enough" for them yet, it seems. These 34 extra sites and planning permissions should be gradually clawed back as the market rises, and the amenity area for the park restored (or to be more accurate, the remaining part that has not yet fallen into the sea).

loyatemu

recedite wrote: »

HSE has since gone ahead with a new Primary Care Clinic on the new Port Road just north of Wicklow town, and building work is progressing well there. Loughlinstown A&E is downgraded now to something similar to a PCC. This leaves Greystones halfway between the two PCC's and unlikely to get its own one in the foreseeable future.
The harbour fiasco is partly responsible for this; if town councillors had earmarked a site near Charlesland or Farrankelly Rd 10 years ago and lobbied HSE for a PCC to be built, maybe it could have been built, but we'll never know the answer to that now.

AFAIK what was proposed for the harbour was not a PCC in the sense that James Reilly has been banging on about for the last few years - it was to be a privately-owned clinic with units to rent to GPs, dentists etc. The GP surgery on Church Rd was due to move into it.

The famous list of towns to get HSE PCCs (that precipitated Roisin Shortall's resignation) did not include Greystones, even after Reilly had monkeyed around with it.

legrand

Out of interest... Sisk have stated that building works are expected to commence in Q2 2014 (2 weeks into that period now) - there appears to be some activity with test bores on the site (perhaps someone could help us understand what that's about?). At any rate - given the original plan is 5+ years old are Sisk not obliged to re-apply for planning permission or have they already done that? I think there a 5-year limit on planning permission or was there another special derogation provided to Sisk under this PPP?

For example did the PCC [facility] occupy the buildings that were originally designated commercial or was it a specific design requiring specific planning permission?

Sisk have ignored/contravened any number of EIS conditions already, so is it safe to assume there development itself will contravene permissions?

pixbyjohn

I think Sisk have a 10 year time limit on planning in this case.

Fiachra2

Press release from GUBOH

The Give Us Back Our Harbour group has been meeting candidates standing in the May local elections and says it is pleased with the result of these discussions.

The level of support for the Community Plan among the fresh candidates standing for election far more accurately reflects the degree of public support for the Plan than the indifference and hostility to it shown by most incumbent councillors, says the group.

GUBOH now believes that, following the local elections, much faster progress can be made to tidy up and landscape the unsightly harbour area, with immediate benefits for the community and the local economy.

Over the past three years, GUBOH’s efforts with members of Wicklow County Council have been frustrating, stated a GUBOH spokesman.

“Cllr Tom Fortune has worked tirelessly to resolve this problem,” said Fiachra Etchingham, “but the other county councillors were largely unsupportive and hostile”.

“In recent weeks we have met a number of the new candidates who are running in May and the outcome so far has been positive. We have found them willing to listen to the community’s concerns and they seem to have greater empathy with the plight of the community than do most sitting councillors.

“The candidates found the meetings useful, as we were able to explain the real reason for the delay, which is the failure of Wicklow County Council to properly administer the harbour contract in the interest of the public, and to suggest actions they could take if elected to ensure that the Community Plan for the harbour will be implemented speedily.

“These meetings have given us new optimism that after the local elections Tom Fortune will have the support he has lacked in recent years to compel the management of Wicklow County Council to enforce the planning conditions relating to the harbour and to use its considerable powers under the contract to ensure the area is fully landscaped until building work is completed.”

GUBOH stated that the group will publish a list of candidates committed to rapid implementation of the Community Plan closer to election day, and will campaign in the Greystones/Delgany electoral area to have those candidates, and only those, elected to the new Municipal Council and the County Council.

“Electing pro-Plan candidates next month is the one sure way that voters can have an influence in this issue and ensure that the Community Plan is implemented,” concluded Etchingham.

gibbon6

There is a good chance that Greystones will elect a majority of pro community councillors who have supported the Community Plan for the harbour such as Tom Fortune and Jennifer Whitmore. It is important that we only elect pro Community Plan candidates. The current bunch of Town Councillors have let Greystones down big time. We must never make the same mistake again.

Cerco

I think it is a good strategy to interview the candidates and elicit their support. The difficulty is that there is no guarantee they will not change their position once elected. The influence of the whip can be convincing. We have already seen this in operation in recent times.
Perhaps the listing of suportive candidates could mitigate this as the candidates will either accept the listing or resile thereby givIng the electorate a clear message.

Fiachra2

Agreed but at least its better to vote for Councillors like Tom who are predisposed to support the community plan that those such as Mitchell and McLoughlin who have stated that they wont.
Some of the candidates (eg Tara Hanley) has the community plan on their literature so changing position will be difficult.

I'd day let's elect them and see how we get on!

Fiachra2

Press release from Tom Fortune

Independent Cllr Tom Fortune has stated that following the local elections in May the completion of the community plan should be a major priority. Fortune has confirmed that there are no longer any obstacles to the completion of the Community plan for Greystones harbour and that work could commence immediately.

He stated that he has seen the Market Change clause included in the contract and this did not constitute an obstacle to progress. “I am not a legal expert” said Fortune “but I could find nothing in the clause that justified the kind of delays that the people of Greystones have had to endure” Tom Fortune also stated that Council officials had confirmed to him that the finance of the project was underwritten by Sisk and that there was therefore more than adequate funds in place to complete the landscaping works.

Cllr Fortune said “With neither financial nor contractual obstacles in place to prevent the community plan proceeding, and following on from the May elections, proposals should immediately be brought to the County Council to complete the community plan for Greystones harbour and I sincerely hope that all elected council members from the Greystones Electorial Area will support this action and the people of Greystones will not have to endure another summer of discontent”.

gibbon6

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Agreed but at least its better to vote for Councillors like Tom who are predisposed to support the community plan that those such as Mitchell and McLoughlin who have stated that they wont.
Some of the candidates (eg Tara Hanley) has the community plan on their literature so changing position will be difficult.

I'd day let's elect them and see how we get on!

Mitchell is only interested in having his yacht in the marina and he dosen't want us mere commoners invading his space. Mitchell and McLaughlin support their own vested interests and not the community plan. :mad:

F3

People Before Profit Candidate Jacqui Johnston posted:


I heartily endorse much of what Charlie says. What he refers to informs many of the reasons I am running in the local elections and the manifesto I am putting before the people.

I have been afforded a platform to speak to people every day for the past three months in my capacity as a local election candidate. As a community activist prior to this, I’m well aware of the struggles, issues, challenges, worries, anxieties, lack of representation, exclusion and disenfranchisement many people throughout our county (and indeed, country) feel.

I was going to take some time to write a comprehensive piece about the harbour community plan and how it represents much of how I feel generally about the disconnect between Government/Local Government and the people it claims to represent but Charlie’s forthright piece comes straight from the heart and deserves a similar response.

A public representative should be just that; a representative of the public. He/she is not elected to represent big business, corporations or organisations, nor take a side that is in direct opposition to the community he/she has been elected to represent.

In Greystones, approximately one in every two households I’ve visited has expressed deep concerns about the harbour for a variety of different reasons. That is around 50% of the people I’ve spoken to who have voluntarily brought the harbour subject up themselves. Many of them feel outside of the decision-making process or have no idea of the current state of play. All of them, without exception said that they hate the way it looks, that they no longer enjoy it, that access is limited and that they feel impotent in terms of what they can do. How can this be? This is a natural resource – it belongs to the people and as a result of all that has happened, they feel they no longer have any control over or have any say in how it should be managed.

We have to wrestle that kind of power back out of the hands of people who are not making the right decisions on behalf of citizens. We have to create an environment where people feel that they DO have a say in what goes on in their communities other than a vote every five years for someone who will eventually go and do the opposite of what they’ve been mandated to do.

When entrusted by the people to act on their behalf, I believe that it is extremely important to consider carefully every decision that is made. It is perfectly OK to admit that you don’t know the answers to certain questions – in fact, it should be actively encouraged rather than waffling on at length in an attempt to conceal a lack of knowledge – but it is incumbent on public representatives to research carefully and consult expertise before making decisions on behalf of their community. I offer that as a pledge; to admit when I don’t know something and to make concerted efforts to gain ALL the knowledge and information I need to make informed decisions on behalf of my community. I also think that it is vital that public representatives have had no prior or existing contracts etc. with the local authority they are seeking election to, so that conflicts of interest never arise. In addition, I have pledged NEVER to participate in the junket culture that unfortunately is prevalent in the county of Wicklow. These can often be seen and/or used as an opportunity to cultivate behind-the-scenes relationships and deals, which I believe are not in the interests of my community.

My final point is about the damage that has been done as a result of lies and unfulfilled promises made to voters in attempts to gain power. I have no desire for power. I believe that power, in every case, must reside with the people. My election would only serve to facilitate that further. I make no promises other than to bring my honesty, integrity and belief in people’s ability to know what is right for themselves and their communities and for society generally. I have been on the receiving end of voters’ anger and frustration with the entire political process.

I am often getting the ire intended for FG, Labour and FF directed at me and I completely understand and agree with it. It is an utter scandal that our citizens have been brought to this point by a failed democracy. I call on all my fellow candidates to be absolutely mindful of this and to do what is just, fair and honourable for the people who have trusted us with their votes.

Tabnabs

gibbon6 wrote: »

Mitchell is only interested in having his yacht in the marina and he dosen't want us mere commoners invading his space. Mitchell and McLaughlin support their own vested interests and not the community plan. :mad:

Mitchell is a well known sailor who bases his small boat in Dun Laoghaire. There's no real sailing scene in Greystones and he'd miss out on his weekly Dublin Bay racing.

legrand

Tabnabs wrote: »

Mitchell is a well known sailor who bases his small boat in Dun Laoghaire. There's no real sailing scene in Greystones and he'd miss out on his weekly Dublin Bay racing.

[adopts an affronted look] What? Could it be that the same harbour he touts as being the best in the country is not quite good enough as a berth for his own boat? In fairness, if this is the case I'm not sure I'd disagree - whilst it may function as a place to berth a boat the whole basin is a god-awful eyesore - from eany distance you can't even see the the bleedin' boats - you know, that quality that makes normal marinas look attractive.

Fiachra2

Tabnabs wrote: »

Mitchell is a well known sailor who bases his small boat in Dun Laoghaire. There's no real sailing scene in Greystones and he'd miss out on his weekly Dublin Bay racing.

No sailing scene for him. There is (and always was) a great sailing scene for us peasants with our dinghies.

But as the last poster says its pretty rich to be claiming its the 4th best harbour in the world(or whatever) when it can't offer decent yacht racing.
(Which is not to belittle the efforts of those trying to build a keelboat fleet)

Tabnabs

No, there's no keelboat racing from Greystones for anyone, nor is there any tradition of such. If you have a big or small racing boat and want to race 'around the cans' on a weekly basis during the summer, then Dublin Bay is the place to be. There are hundreds of boats in Dublin Bay racing on a weekly basis.

Greystones has a small provincial harbour attached to a pretty little town. He might call it a mansion, but that doesn't make it anything more than a three bed semi-d

Fiachra2

Only a technical point but there is keelboat racing every Saturday and Wednesday night. Only a handful of boats and certainly not enough to justify Mitchell's claims (or merit his attendance).

If you want decent competition yes you do have to go to Dun Laoghaire.

LEIN

Who cares where Derek Mitchell goes or what he does? It's not a Greystones issue.

In fact this thread has become too political, I feel that a thread should be started in the political forum as this is not the place.

As always, contact 2011 or myself via PM if you have any issues with above.

Take Care,

Moderator

Fiachra2

Statement from Derek Mitchell published this morning on the Greystones Guide

Interesting use of the word "Premise" (as opposed to premises) at the end of the second paragraph. A premise is defined as "an assumption that something is true".

At the last meeting of Greystones Town Council on Tuesday it was announced that work had been completed on the walk to the North Pier and it was expected to open shortly. Also when the seeded grass on part of the site had become established it would be opened to the public this Summer.

The developers have discussed starting to build the Sailing and Angling Clubhouses this year. Cllr. Mcloughlin reported that the Angling Club was keen to get this work completed so it could move into the new premise.

I am pleased that planning for the start of construction of homes and public facilities is going well and hope that the agreement between Sisk and their new partners is concluded quickly, we need to get it finished’ said Cllr. Derek Mitchell

Fiachra2

Statement from GUBOH

EIGHT of the fourteen candidates contesting the Greystones Local Electoral Area have now signed up to a commitment to push for implementation of the Greystones Harbour Community Plan if they are elected.

The eight candidates have agreed to propose or support a resolution at County Council level which will compel the County Manager to implement the Community Plan in conjunction with Sisk. In addition it will require the County Manager to ensure that all the conditions of the planning permission are fully observed.

We are delighted to announce that the following candidates have already agreed to this:
Liz Dillon (Fine Gael)
Tom Fortune (Independent)
Taragh Hanley (Fianna Fail)
Jacqui Johnston (People Before Profit Alliance)
Charlie Keddy (Independent)
Nicola Lawless (Sinn Fein)
Ian McGahon (Labour)
Jennifer Whitmore (Independent)

GUBOH sought this commitment because we felt it essential that we can show we have full and similar commitments to the Community Plan from all those candidates who say that they support it.

We will update the list if we receive more positive responses.

GUBOH is asking voters in the Greystones Local Electoral Area to vote ONLY for candidates who give this explicit commitment to working to implement the Community Plan.

Alan_P

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Statement from GUBOH

EIGHT of the fourteen candidates contesting the Greystones Local Electoral Area have now signed up to a commitment to push for implementation of the Greystones Harbour Community Plan if they are elected.

The eight candidates have agreed to propose or support a resolution at County Council level which will compel the County Manager to implement the Community Plan in conjunction with Sisk. In addition it will require the County Manager to ensure that all the conditions of the planning permission are fully observed.

We are delighted to announce that the following candidates have already agreed to this:
Liz Dillon (Fine Gael)
Tom Fortune (Independent)
Taragh Hanley (Fianna Fail)
Jacqui Johnston (People Before Profit Alliance)
Charlie Keddy (Independent)
Nicola Lawless (Sinn Fein)
Ian McGahon (Labour)
Jennifer Whitmore (Independent)

GUBOH sought this commitment because we felt it essential that we can show we have full and similar commitments to the Community Plan from all those candidates who say that they support it.

We will update the list if we receive more positive responses.

GUBOH is asking voters in the Greystones Local Electoral Area to vote ONLY for candidates who give this explicit commitment to working to implement the Community Plan.

Have the other 6 explicitly refused to support the Community Plan, or has GUBOH just not got an answer off them yet ?

Cheeky Chops

Their silence speaks volumes ....

Fiachra2

Two candidates, Derek Mitchell and Grainne McLoughlin have consistently opposed the community plan and voted against it at Town Council meetings. We do not anticipate that they will make any commitment. We are hopeful that the other candidates will support the community in time.

Don Osborne Fargo

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Two candidates, Derek Mitchell and Grainne McLoughlin have consistently opposed the community plan and voted against it at Town Council meetings. We do not anticipate that they will make any commitment. We are hopeful that the other candidates will support the community in time.

I see that the Green Party guy, Niall Byrne, has joined the eight named above and has given his commitment to the same pledge as the first people did.

Don Osborne Fargo

Mod edit: No duplicate posts. This post already appears [URL="Local Elections 2014: What issues will you be raising with candidates on the door?"]here[/URL].

F3

I really do not accept nor understand any Greystones public representative not wanting to push Eddie Sheehy to instruct the implementation and integration of the community plan.

No firm construction commencement date nor a programme of work nor indication of phasing has been issued by Sisk / WCC yet there are those who 'welcome the progress' WTF?????? Get your heads out of your respective asses!!

We need the community plan B]which has been published for 9 months [/B implemented now, and when Construction finally commences, it should be phased to accommodate public amenity thereafter. The phasing would be very straight forward and a small price to pay for the upset caused by WCC and Sisk to the community for the past 4 years.

The fundamental purpose for this PPP lest we not forget was to improve the amenity for the community of a Greystones. This is the opening written sentence for the entire objective to develop the harbour under the chosen PPP route, yet we as a community have all been ignored and regarded as 'second rate' and our needs given lowest priority for the past 4 years or more.

gibbon6

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Two candidates, Derek Mitchell and Grainne McLoughlin have consistently opposed the community plan and voted against it at Town Council meetings. We do not anticipate that they will make any commitment. We are hopeful that the other candidates will support the community in time.

You are right there Fiachra, as usual. A vote for Mitchell or McLoughlin is a indeed a vote for Sisks and years and years more of a building site at the harbour. The other candidates who support the community plan are clearly the ones to vote for.

Fiachra2

GUBOH have produced an election video asking people to support those candidates who have committed to supporting the community plan to renovate the harbour area. You can see it here.

https://www.youtube.com/user/GUBOH

Cheeky Chops

I really hope people get out and vote tomorrow and stop this cartel.

Tom gets my no.1

recedite

I see some forces are being mustered to counter the GUBOH efforts.
A guy who said he was chairman of the Ridge Angling Club arrived at my house canvassing for Grainne Mc Gloughlin. When I mentioned the harbour and her refusal to support the community plan, he tried to tell me she was actually a great supporter of the harbour, so I ran him off the premises.
I believe the ridge anglers were one of the clubs who were originally offered free clubhouses by Sisk in return for "community support" for the harbour redevelopment.
On their facebook page is a claim that Stephen Donnelly TD is "furious about being included in GUBOH leaflet..."
Although checking Donnelly's own website, I can find nothing at all there about it.

Cheeky Chops

Yep on Greystones Open Forum page GUBOH are being called bullies. Grainne McLoughlin's son and partner are on there. Talk about being desperate. It's a sickening read to be honest.