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

Langerland

Who do County Managers and City Managers report or answer to??? Are they completely infallible?

Tabnabs

Basil Miller “It is perfectly clear that Sisk’s only concern is to extract as much profit from the harbour project as possible"

legrand

@ pixbyjohn..
Not sure where you are coming from PBJ the members of GUBOH and local councilors attempted to engage with Sisk/WCC to resolved the matter - given the no-show (f**k you) from Sisk/WCC are you suggesting GUBOH now disband and give up?

From my perspective I remain grateful to these folks for there efforts. That said, I can only assume new tactics are required (perhaps legal as you allude to) is probably the only option - but how might this be financed? I presume Sisk/WCC are gambling this is not a route that can/will be taken?

I think [our] protestation here on social media are well and good - but perhaps wider public protests (something more than a handful of people with 'down with this sort of thing' placards) are required that will gain the attention of national media?

GUBOH - could you rally the Greystones community?

F3

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Is there anything that can be done to bring Sisk and Wicklow County Council to task over what is alleged they are failing to do. If they are reneging on the contract then surely there is some action that can be taken.
Comments by various GUBOH members and some politicians over the past several years on Boards.ie, Facebook, Newspapers and East Coast Radio would lead you to believe that something positive is about to happen to force Sisk and Wicklow County Council complete the outstanding work at the harbour. Is it now time for the pressure groups to put up or shut up?

The simple answer is yes, Sisk can be easily brought to heel under Clause 16 of the Contract that was tendered. The Contractor is to proceed diligently to completion.

But it is WCC who must enforce them to do so. The problem we have on this PPP is quite unlike any other PPP procured in the state, WCC is an equity partner with Sisk and has heretofore not imposed such an instruction. Sisk as a private entity have enjoyed this reprieve / concession from WCC for 4 years now.

They used the NAMA card to justify the delay. But this is completely a Red Herring as the funding was GUARANTEED by the mother company Sicon Ltd. Simply put, contractually it does not matter that AIB essentially went bust, the contractor must proceed diligently to completion [Sorry Sisk, tough cheese!]

Normally under PPP's, the Authority is the independent certifier who's role is to administer the terms of the contract. Every other Government Contract in the history of the state [as far as I'm concerned] waves this stick and Contractors perform.

WCC stated at a TC meeting [c.18 months ago] that in their opinion, Sisk has been proceeding diligently [albeit not in respect of physical works] by 'investigating the feasibility of building a Primary Care Centre'

This at best is a tongue in cheek justification for WCC not waving the contractual stick in Sisk direction, but the fact is 14 month ago, Sisk announced that the PCC is now not going ahead. So the question is why have WCC not waved the stick for 14 months? Perhaps thats why they did not turn up for the special MDC meeting held on the 9th September?

The Municipal District Council have arranged for an identical meeting on the 23rd September with Sisk & WCC but devoid of TD's and 3rd party 'advisors' to the MDC at which they will go through the same agenda.

The MDC have been advised that they must look at the 'leverage' they have before attending the meeting with WCC and Sisk, because it is anticipated that they will be told 'NO' to any demands and to mind their own business as they essentially have done for the past 4 years.

My gut tells me that an announcement is due from Sisk /WCC, probably before the meeting on the 23rd. This announcement will introduce the long awaited JV development partner together with a loose programme of what is going to happen.

Within this announcement and cutting through all the back slapping and chequered flag grabbing that will undoubtedly follow in the media, will be a further change in planning. For one, the planning is currently for a PCC which now has to be changed and WCC will grant whatever changes are requested and the matter may be referred to ABP [again] and so the process will delay again.

That being said, if I were the new JV developer, I would concentrate on appeasing the community and build the bridges that have been so badly damaged by WCC & Sisk over the past 4 years and finally work with the community. This is logical and sensible not only from a PR point of view, but from a commercial point of view.

The community, could negotiate and integration of the Community Plan, and hopefully everybody wins.

legrand

^^^
F3 what/who are MDC and ABP ('scuse me ignorance)

F3

legrand wrote: »

^^^
F3 what/who are MDC and ABP ('scuse me ignorance)

MDC: Municipal District Council
ABP: An Bord Pleanla

pixbyjohn

F3 wrote: »

The simple answer is yes, Sisk can be easily brought to heel under Clause 16 of the Contract that was tendered. The Contractor is to proceed diligently to completion.

But it is WCC who must enforce them to do so. The problem we have on this PPP is quite unlike any other PPP procured in the state, WCC is an equity partner with Sisk and has heretofore not imposed such an instruction.

OK, so in other words it won't happen then!

F3

pixbyjohn wrote: »

OK, so in other words it won't happen then!

WCC are unlikely to do anything they do not want to and as a commercial entity they have nothing to lose. You just have to deal with the massive ego's in that orgnanisation.

Remember, any losses in WCC are refunded by the tax and rate payers. [what a great company to work for!!]

Sisk however, I suspect are different, they have shareholders to satisfy and have no safety net on losses. Common sense is bound to kick in sooner or later and I feel it will be in the New JV partner rather than Sisk.

Ask yourself the question as to why do Sisk need a JV partner to complete? they have 100% control, they apparently have been forgiven €30 Million on the NAMA debt [thanks to the Irish Tax payer] and they have been given 34 sites by Eddie Sheehy free of charge [est. at €17million in value.

That's €47million from the state and its tax payers.

So why do they need a developer on board??

I think its because they are not experienced in developing [contracting yes] but developing no. And, I might add a big part of developing is getting communities on board so as not to create obstacles with planning objections etc.

If the 34 sites gifted by the County Manager was to address the down turn in the market and make the project viable, then was it not implied that it was on a use it or lose it basis?

They did not use it, the local housing market has now more than recovered, it is boiling again, perhaps our MDC should insist on taking the 34 site back and give the community its promised public park [all of it]

If indeed WCC have stepped out of their legal mandate, which has been suggested by Stephen Donnelly TD, and a public authority has given public assets with the expressed intent in making a private company profit they may already have big problems.

But its likely that the so called market change clause in the Contract [which was not in the tender contract] allowed such a transaction to occur, then it follows surely that when the market recovers, the assets [if not used] are taken back, otherwise supernormal profit will be made by a private company at the whim of a civil servant.

Just because an authority may have a power to do somthing, it does not follow that they have the right to do so.

Perhaps thats the kind of leverage the MDC ought to bring to the meeting on the 23rd with Sisk and WCC don't you think?
:rolleyes:

Fiachra2

pixbyjohn wrote: »

. Is it now time for the pressure groups to put up or shut up?

We have absolutely no intention of shutting up.

18 years ago Albert Gubay proposed plans to build a massive apartment development (6/7stories high)on the north beach. Naturally the local councillors were falling over each other to welcome this. However a few locals got together and opposed it and all the various iterations that came after it. Thanks to those efforts Greystones residents can still see (and you John can photograph) Bray Head. Indeed because of the delays it is now very possible that what gets built will be less visually intrusive than what was originally planned.

Things have moved on and GUBOH is not about opposing what is planned for the harbour area. What we are about is voicing the concerns of the community and trying to bring about an end to the mess even though a times this may seem well nigh impossible. So no we don't believe its time to shut up.

pixbyjohn

Fiachra2 wrote: »

We have absolutely no intention of shutting up.

So no we don't believe its time to shut up.

My question answered.

Tabnabs

I'm very surprised this news hasn't come up here yet, nothing on the GUBOH media pages either.

This is a real concern and it would be fascinating to hear a qualified legal opinion on the subject.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/bylaws-passed-at-greystones-harbour-despite-concerns-30575585.html

Greystones Harbour now has bylaws in place although concerns were raised about the constitutional rights of people during the discussion.

Director of Services Sean Quirke said that the bylaws had been on public display.

Cllr. Nicola Lawless looked to amend the proposed bylaws to allow for rod fishing in the North Beach area while Cllr. Jennifer Whitmore looked for an amendment which would allow commercial fishermen six hours to remove their catch rather than the proposed immediate removal.

Cllr. Grainne McLoughlin sought an amendment that would prohibit clamping in Greystones Harbour. Cllr. Tom Fortune raised concerns over the lack of the right to appeal facility if charged with breaching the bylaws and also said he wasn't happy with the bylaws regarding fishing.

Cllr. Lawless also raised the matter of swimming in the harbour and said it was important to note that while swimming was prohibited, parents could still paddle close to the water's edge with their children.

Cllr. Pat Kavanagh said she had concerns regarding the 'statutory authority of the employees to stop and search people' and to ask their name and address. She said 'people had constitutional rights' and raised concerns with the possible searching of vehicles too.

She also said people had the 'right to gather in public' and said she was worried some of the bylaws could 'impinge on the constitutional rights of the free movement of people'.

Cllr. Tommy Cullen said 'I don't know much about this to be honest' but said having listened to Cllr. Kavanagh he had concerns. 'It seems very draconian. They are almost police state powers. I know there are concerns about anti-social behaviour but we can't override the rights of citizens to assemble or search cars.'

Why on earth are the group(s) purporting to represent the people around the harbour not up in arms over the alleged impingement of civil rights to Greystones population?

Stop and search? By some random private company employee?!

You don't want development, but this isn't worth even a mention? What's wrong with you people?

Fiachra2

I presume when you refer to groups who "purport to represent to represent people around the harbour" you do include the elected representatives who voted for these by laws?

Are they not the main group who should be up "up in arms" ?

As to your question of "what is wrong with (us)" I can only speak personally. There are only so many battles you can fight at any one time

recedite

The reason people are not "up in arms" is because they have gradually ceased to see the place as a pleasant public space, and now see it more as a privately owned facility. There are lots of boats in the marina, but not many people. Nobody lingers there, except the anglers, and now they will be moved on. Its a lifeless, soul-less place.

zanador

recedite wrote: »

The reason people are not "up in arms" is because they have gradually ceased to see the place as a pleasant public space, and now see it more as a privately owned facility. There are lots of boats in the marina, but not many people. Nobody lingers there, except the anglers, and now they will be moved on. Its a lifeless, soul-less place.

and once they get rid of the free parking it will be even emptier..

pixbyjohn

zanador wrote: »

and once they get rid of the free parking it will be even emptier..

It will be the council who will impose paid parking at the harbour when it is eventually handed over from Sisk I would think.

zanador

pixbyjohn wrote: »

It will be the council who will impose paid parking at the harbour when it is eventually handed over from Sisk I would think.

Whoever does it, it will stop me using the harbour at all. I park there now and then for a change from south beach and walk along a bit or skip some stones, but when it starts to cost I will be back to the park n ride.

red_bairn

zanador wrote: »

Whoever does it, it will stop me using the harbour at all. I park there now and then for a change from south beach and walk along a bit or skip some stones, but when it starts to cost I will be back to the park n ride.

You can't walk down to the harbour? Understandable if you need to bring lots of stuff for a family day out or for some scuba diving, sailing etc.

zanador

red_bairn wrote: »

You can't walk down to the harbour? Understandable if you need to bring lots of stuff for a family day out or for some scuba diving, sailing etc.

I can, and do often walk to south beach and the cove on the weekends - but living in Charlesland and studying full time means that during the week I drive to beach/harbour etc for my walks as I don't have much time and prefer to spend the walking time next to the sea rather than on the road Free parking determines where I go though!

red_bairn

zanador wrote: »

I can, and do often walk to south beach and the cove on the weekends - but living in Charlesland and studying full time means that during the week I drive to beach/harbour etc for my walks as I don't have much time and prefer to spend the walking time next to the sea rather than on the road Free parking determines where I go though!

Fair enough. It is nice to have free parking by the south beach and close to the north beach. Is it me or was there no sand at the north beach when the harbour was redeveloped?

loyatemu

red_bairn wrote: »

Fair enough. It is nice to have free parking by the south beach and close to the north beach. Is it me or was there no sand at the north beach when the harbour was redeveloped?

the North Beach was mostly pebbles. The beach in the harbour was a mix of sand and pebbles.

pixbyjohn

loyatemu wrote: »

the North Beach was mostly pebbles. The beach in the harbour was a mix of sand and pebbles.

2006
Greystones Harbour 2006 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

HarbourBeach 2006 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 2007 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Fiachra2

PRESS RELEASE CLLR TOM FORTUNE 0862488195


Greystones Harbour: Some Progress but timeline a disappointment

Cllr Tom Fortune, Chairman of Greystones Municipal District has welcomed the announcement that work is to commence on the marine clubhouses and coastguard station in 2015. However he has expressed concern over the timing and extent of the other aspects of latest schedule announced by Sisk and Wicklow County Council and also their reluctance to publish the full schedule. Cllr Fortune said “I am delighted to hear that work on the marine clubhouses is to commence in early 2015 however I am most disappointed that there are no proposals to remediate the rest of the site in the near future. The harbour has been an eyesore for seven years now. Based on the timeline presented to us on 23rd September, it is to remain in its present condition for at least two more summers and that in itself presupposes that the timeline is actually adhered to which is an achievement, as we are only too painfully aware, that has eluded the developers thus far”

A meeting of the members of Greystones Municipal District together with local TD’s Stephen Donnelly and Simon Harris was advised by representatives of Sisk and Sean Quirke of Wicklow County Council that the commencement of the work on the marine clubs and portion of the public square would begin in early 2015 and take a year to complete. Work on the remainder of the public square and the public park would begin in 2016 and take a further year to complete. The developers stated an intention to commence construction of housing at some unspecified time in the future, subject to the market conditions, and it was expected that this would take four or more years to complete.

“There is no reason why work on the park- which would benefit the wider community- cannot begin in conjunction with the marine clubs” said Fortune. “In addition given that there is no definite timeframe for the construction of housing it is unacceptable that it contains no measure to address the issue which concerns most Greystones residents which is the derelict site and ugly fencing to the north of the harbour, which is not good for tourism. This is work that could easily be undertaken in conjunction with developing the park.”

Cllr Fortune concluded by saying that “While the program, if it is adhered to, represents progress I consider it inadequate and I will be pressing for changes to address the concerns of all residents of the town.”

Taltos

The "if it is adhered to" says it all. Seems like Tom believes this latest news as much as the rest of us do. Believe it when I see it, not before.

legrand

^^^
thanks Fiachra.

Another 6 years at the very least before the mess is sorted out (assuming the economy continues to recover and pressure groups, local politicos and the wider community continue to be ignored).

Toddlers who last played in the area up to the start of the development will be young adults by the time this is finished - almost a full generation missed out on Greystones best amenity.

red_bairn

You would think they would make the park and take down the fencing to attract the potential buyers for housing/apartments... :rolleyes:

legrand

Indeed you would!

As F3 pointed out in an earlier post, Sisk are building contractors. They build to design created/scoped by others. So until a developer is appointed they will do nothing.

legrand

From a distance it appears that the hoarding along side the Sailing Club is being taken down.
Assume standard fair fencing will be erected instead
Better, but you really got to wonder why it took so long. Perhaps to give the impression that Sisk are still progressing and have not abandoned the site (which of course is the reality).

Harry Kane

I am afraid that there is nothing happening with the deserted building site at the harbour anymore. The dead cat bounce in the property market means that it will not be economical for any sane developer (or their bank) to speculate on this site. The site will remain a deserted wasteland for many years to come and even longer.