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

Fiachra2

The provision of moorings for people who had owned berths in the old harbour was a condition of the planning permission. The "mooring" buoys were put in place to comply with this but apparently not actually to provide moorings. Almost all of them are unusable as they dry out at low tide. About four of them are usable but anyone who has asked to use them has been refused. Most notable is the rowing club who I understand have repeatedly contacted WCC but been refused on a variety of spurious grounds. Another shining example of WCC's commitment to the community.

Tabnabs

A very obedient lot they are too...

I'm very surprised no-one has just picked one up and begun "squatters rights". Plenty of small harbours on the east coast dry out, but are still full of boats, big and small. Seems the only actual authority in the harbour applies to the wooden pontoons? A waste of perfectly good moorings (and for free).

Annasopra

Fiachra2 wrote: »

The provision of moorings for people who had owned berths in the old harbour was a condition of the planning permission. The "mooring" buoys were put in place to comply with this but apparently not actually to provide moorings. Almost all of them are unusable as they dry out at low tide. About four of them are usable but anyone who has asked to use them has been refused. Most notable is the rowing club who I understand have repeatedly contacted WCC but been refused on a variety of spurious grounds. Another shining example of WCC's commitment to the community.

So the moorings are not actually for mooring! FFS

Fiachra2

Press release from Cllr Mitchell. As always, Mitchell demonstrates that the only group in Greystones that he is interested in representing are boat owners. The rest of the community can go swing as far as he is concerned. (I am also relived to find-third sentence- that we in the sailing club do have a "premise". I think I would find life without a premise rather confusing!)

After an open letter from Cllr Tom Fortune dismissing his dismissal of the Community Plan for Greystones Harbour, Cllr Derek Mitchell issues a statement…

I am calling for the clubhouses for the 5 marine Community Clubs, Sea Scouts, Rowers, Divers, Anglers and Sailors, to be built. These have been long promised and following the opening of the North Pier I consider these are the next facilities we should be asking for. The first 3 of these clubs have no premise, other than a boat compound, at the moment. A majority of these clubs want the premise built and do not want the sites turned into a Public Picnic Area as proposed by GUBOH and Cllr Fortune.

The buildings have planning permission but will take a while to construct as they have to be built to ‘lighthouse standard’ as they are close to the sea wall and waves may come over in storms.

The importation of beach sand, as proposed by GUBOH, will get washed down by the waves and is likely to silt up the harbour which would damage the progress which we have achieved in building the deepest marina on the East Coast

legrand

So Sisk had stated that works would [finally] commence in Q2 2014. Here we are well into Q3 and still nothing, that is, Zero has been done. Yet another promise/deadline missed.

With ~4 or 5 weeks left to the end of the summer season - Sisk have blagged their way out of doing any work for another year.

Perhaps Sisk could add a big fat ZERO to their philosophy of Building Excellence Delivery

http://www.johnsiskandson.com/ie/zero-philosophy

red_bairn

legrand wrote: »

With ~4 or 5 weeks left to the end of the summer season - Sisk have blagged their way out of doing any work for another year.

Perhaps Sisk could add a big fat ZERO to their philosophy of Building Excellence Delivery

http://www.johnsiskandson.com/ie/zero-philosophy

Bahahaha!~

pixbyjohn

It is obvious that Sisk are not ready to build at the harbour for quite some time and no development will take place until Sisk are ready. It is a very unfortunate situation but that's the reality as the record shows over the past few years. Anything that has or hasn't happened is because of Sisk.

legrand

And to coin a phrase Wicklow CoCO is nothing more that Sisk's B1tch.

And if you are a recently elected councilor - what are you waiting for? Jeez, even Mr Mitty has released a statement 'calling' (good grief) for works to start.

Can I call (read get your f'ing act together) on all elected councilors to work together and pressure Sisk/Wickow CoCo to finally sort this mess out.

It's clear that despite the overwhelming desire by the electorate that the Community Plan is adopted, Sisk's miserable alternate solution (Mr Mitty's picnic area) amounts to 'go whistle dixie'.

So a reality check please. Well, Councillors where are you?

Cerco

legrand wrote: »

So a reality check please. Well, Councillors where are you?

Busy writing open letters to each other.
It is clear for some time now that the former and current Councillors have no real control over the harbour development. All the power is vested in the County Manager.

Tabnabs

In this great "democracy" of ours, the humble local councillor is actually a fairly impotent thing:

Powers of local councillors

Individual powers NONE

Collective powers Planning policy YES
Planning decisions NO
Sanitation policy YES
Sanitation decisions NO
Roads policy YES
Selecting roadworks NO
Motorways NO
Employment NO
Policing NO
Housing policy YES
Allocation of housing NO
Selecting houses for repair NO
Selecting houses for improvement NO
Water supply NO
Water charges NO
Property tax NO
Education NO
Health NO
Agriculture NO
Foreign affairs NO
Social welfare NO
Sport NO
Youth work NO

http://bocktherobber.com/2014/03/local-elections-2014-what-powers-do-local-councillors-have/

All they are doing is inflating their own importance in the eyes of their electorate...

legrand

As it happens, sisk have started to fence off the recently grassed area.

It was my understanding that the changes to the fencing would be mean removal of fences in the car park and back along by Sweeneys and part way down Beach Road. However, from what I can gather they are surrounding the grassed area with fencing - perhaps they will remove the fencing on the harbour side.

Another mess - so we having fencing within fencing. Can we add some boulders and 2 meter high gates to stop the camper vans accessing the car park while we're at it..

pixbyjohn

Photo of new fence "tru" the fence by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

loyatemu

whatever else you say about the harbour, it has been a real boon to local fencing contractors.

why are the fencing it off - to stop people stealing the grass? to prevent youths from playing football within sight of the yachts? to protect the endangered wicklow marine slug?

Cerco

Tabnabs wrote: »

In this great "democracy" of ours, the humble local councillor is actually a fairly impotent thing:


http://bocktherobber.com/2014/03/local-elections-2014-what-powers-do-local-councillors-have/

All they are doing is inflating their own importance in the eyes of their electorate...

As the great Leonardo Da Vinci once commented in relation to some politicians

‘How many people there are who could be described as mere channels for food, producers of excrement, fillers of latrines, for they have no other purpose in this world; they practice no virtue whatsoever; all that remains after them is a full latrine’…

Fiachra2

Its worth remembering that not all councillors act the same way and indeed that the only reason they are so ineffective is that -in Wicklow in any case- a majority of them have formed an alliance to support the county manager.
So for example over the last few years Cllr Tom Fortune repeatedly proposed motions to try and have the harbour mess sorted out. Had they been passed the manager would have been under serious pressure to act. The motions failed because a majority of Cllrs chose to support the manager and oppose the motions.
Likewise at county level a motion of no confidence in the county manager was twice brought forward because of the frankly outrageous behaviour of the manager. Had the motion been passed the minister of the environment would have been under pressure to intervene. Again the motions failed because a majority of Cllrs chose to support the manger.

So the issue is not the imbalance of power it is a cynical decision by elected representatives not to act in the interest of their electorate.

However we saw some change at the last election. Maybe we will see a bit more progress once the new council starts meeting.

Tabnabs

Fiachra2 wrote: »

So for example over the last few years Cllr Tom Fortune repeatedly proposed motions to try and have the harbour mess sorted out. Had they been passed the manager would have been under serious pressure to act.

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Had the motion been passed the minister of the environment would have been under pressure to intervene.

Fiachra2 wrote: »

So the issue is not the imbalance of power it is a cynical decision by elected representatives not to act in the interest of their electorate.

Under pressure, but in no way obliged to act. I think Keegan (DCC) has shown how much pressure city/county mangers can withstand without having to change their mind, opinion or decision.

I think the point still stands about just how feeble the councillors powers actually are.

legrand

So Sisks alternative to the community plan is more or less done.

In a word - laughable.

Instead of opening up the area it now sits (effectively) behind two rows of fencing further alienating the people of Greystones.

I'm looking forward to the additional range of Do's and Don'ts signage.

loyatemu

from Ivan Toole on The Face Book:

We will be landing the first commercial catch into Greystones harbour this afternoon about 3pm, it's 5 years since we last landed in our home town so anyone who's free... we would appreciate any support as one of our fellow fishermen has been evicted from the marina and had his boat stolen by marina management .. So I'm sure will not be welcome ... Thanks

karma_coma

What exactly is the story behind this? Are the harbour management trying to charge fishermen for landing their catch in the new marina or something?

Have to say it's outrageous if the harbour management are attempting to charge them. These are presumably the same fishermen who had no choice but to move to Dun Laoghaire when then named 'Sispar' shut the harbour for the redevelopment?

Local fishing boats should be allowed use the harbour for free. It is, after all, the fishing industry we have to thank for why there's a harbour...or the town of Greystones for that matter...at all.

loyatemu

karma_coma wrote: »

What exactly is the story behind this? Are the harbour management trying to charge fishermen for landing their catch in the new marina or something?

Have to say it's outrageous if the harbour management are attempting to charge them. These are presumably the same fishermen who had no choice but to move to Dun Laoghaire when then named 'Sispar' shut the harbour for the redevelopment?

Local fishing boats should be allowed use the harbour for free. It is, after all, the fishing industry we have to thank for why there's a harbour...or the town of Greystones for that matter...at all.

AFAIK they don't want them there at all.

pixbyjohn

Sailing@Greystones (1) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Tabnabs

karma_coma wrote: »

What exactly is the story behind this? Are the harbour management trying to charge fishermen for landing their catch in the new marina or something?

Have to say it's outrageous if the harbour management are attempting to charge them. These are presumably the same fishermen who had no choice but to move to Dun Laoghaire when then named 'Sispar' shut the harbour for the redevelopment?

Local fishing boats should be allowed use the harbour for free. It is, after all, the fishing industry we have to thank for why there's a harbour...or the town of Greystones for that matter...at all.

They would have paid to land a catch in DL as well. If you are using the facilities, you pay something towards that harbour. This happens in State owned and run fishery harbours around the country, why would a private harbour be any different?

loyatemu

Tabnabs wrote: »

They would have paid to land a catch in DL as well. If you are using the facilities, you pay something towards that harbour. This happens in State owned and run fishery harbours around the country, why would a private harbour be any different?

I think the point is that the new harbour company doesn't want commercial fishing boats using the facilities, whether they're paying or not.

(the old harbour was technically derelict so they - the fishing boats - were presumably using it for free).

Tabnabs

Was there not a drawing or image produced "recently" that showed two or three fishing boats would use the north pier? I'm sure it was via Sisk or WCC?

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 18_07_2014 (5) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 18_07_2014 (2) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Swimming off the South Pier at Greystones Harbour by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Fiachra2

Press Release from Tom Fortune


Cllr Tom Fortune (Ind.) has welcomed the call by fellow Cllr Derek Mitchell for the construction of the Marine Clubhouses which form part of the stalled development at Greystones Harbour. “ For the last 5 years I have campaigned to ensure that the elements of this project that benefit the community be completed urgently” said Fortune “a campaign that has not always been supported by my fellow councillors. In making his call Cllr Mitchell has correctly pointed out that without pressure from public representatives the community elements of this plan will not be completed any time soon. Left to their own devices Wicklow County Council and Sisk seem prepared leave the area a wasteland for the foreseeable future and I am delighted that another public representative has added his voice to the calls for the significant improvements to the harbour area. Another summer is slipping by (the fifth since work on the project stalled) and we need to see significant development there urgently. I will be seeking an early meeting with Sisk to significantly accelerate the minor improvements to the area that have been recently undertaken.”

legrand

Thanks PBJ for usual high standard of photography.
Sadly the reality is this is what most of see this..

loyatemu

so what's the plan for this so-called "open" area - could it be used for a market maybe (combined with GRAPE which seems to be adding craft and food stalls anyway)?