Waterford casino gets planning go-ahead

south

Plans to develop a casino near a 400-year-old Quaker burial site in Waterford city have been given the go-ahead by An Bord Pleanála.

Gambling Company Blazin' Aces Partnership is planning to turn two retail units at the historic Johns Lane in the city into a private members gaming club.

The development had received a number of objections as the building fronts onto a graveyard containing the remains of hundreds of people from the Society of Friends.


An Bord Pleanála granted the permission with a number of conditions.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1209/waterford.html

brendansmith

Lads, would someone take a spin up to McCanns house and see if hes ok?, im worried about him.

Professey Chin

ABP made a decision on something :eek:
How long till they get to the rest of them or were they just all sh!tting themselves on budget day?

AdMMM

There's been hushed talk of this going to the High Court. If it does it could be a very long time before work starts!

Cabaal

Have to say I personally hope they do appeal this, the land was given to the city but it still should be respected

AdMMM

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/233972.htm .

Looks like An Board Pleanála chose to reject the Inspectors report.

gscully

Cabaal wrote: »

Have to say I personally hope they do appeal this, the land was given to the city but it still should be respected

The land is not being touched. The proposed casino would be in an existing building unattached to the burial ground. If the case was rejected purely on the basis of respect to land, it would open a whole can of worms.

Cabaal

gscully wrote: »

The land is not being touched. The proposed casino would be in an existing building unattached to the burial ground. If the case was rejected purely on the basis of respect to land, it would open a whole can of worms.

None the less some very valid points raised

External Consultations
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government – refers to previous
archaeological investigation under licence 04E1701 where human skeletal material
was found with a total of 21 individuals found and burial was indicative of the
Quaker tradition for simple internment. Condition for archaeological monitoring is
recommended.
OBJECTIONS
Objections to the Local Authority included the following matters in addition to those
raised in the grounds of appeal: material contravention of the Development Plan as
is contrary to the protection of the retail function of the core shopping area.
6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The third party appeals are summarised as follows:
• Local Authority have invested substantial sums in Wyse Park;
• Further funds proposed to enhance former burial ground including erection of a
plaque;
• Site located in medieval area of city with archaeological remains in the area
including burial site;
• Area has suffered from anti-social behaviour;
• Undermines efforts of Council to provide a historic record of the area and
provide amenities in the area;
• Limited parking in the area;
• Society of Friends members visit the area and proposal is inappropriate use in
vicinity of former graveyard;
• Impact on amenity of adjacent apartments;
• Osteoarchaeological report on inhumed human skeletal remains excavated at
John’s Lane is attached;
• Proposal premature as contrary to intention of Gaming and Lotteries Acts;
• Absence of regulation of such activities which is a governmental concern;
• Legal status of the clubs unclear;
• Premature pending recommendations of DoEHLG taskforce on Adult
Entertainment including minimum size and location;
• Impact on residential amenity due to noise, disturbance and hours of operation;
• Door policy from 2 am will result in disturbance in the area from those queuing;
• Parking and car turning difficulties on John’s Lane;
• Site is zoned for commercial purposes but terrace of houses zoned for
residential;
• Specific policy in the plan to protect established residential areas from
encroachment;
• Policy relating to transitional zonal areas applies (s.10.12);
• Proposal conflicts with policy for core retail area as it does not make a positive
contribution;
• Any change of use from retail should make a positive contribution;
• Unoccupied nature of retail units not sufficient justification;

The area is not suitable for an increase in traffic as clearly noted, this cannot be easily improved, the location is far from ideal and for very valid reasons.

The premises should be planned for a more suitable area of the town

AdMMM

Cabaal wrote: »

None the less some very valid points raised



The area is not suitable for an increase in traffic as clearly noted, this cannot be easily improved, the location is far from ideal and for very valid reasons.

The premises should be planned for a more suitable area of the town

You've obviously never been near one of these places if you think there's going to be an increase in traffic...

Cabaal

AdMMM wrote: »

You've obviously never been near one of these places if you think there's going to be an increase in traffic...

So everybody that goes to the place won't ever drive?

I'm not speculating I'm basing it on the statements made in the report, they are very valid concerns.

Given your sig and what the place is I'm guessing you obviously have an interest as such of course your going to support it

Fair enough your entitled to support what you like, if it goes to the high court leave them decide it....if what you say is right and it can be classed as "ok" in relation to other concerns then it'll get the go-ahead :pac:

foxylad

Cabaal wrote: »

Fair enough your entitled to support what you like, if it goes to the high court leave them decide it....if what you say is right and it can be classed as "ok" in relation to other concerns then it'll get the go-ahead :pac:

the "casino" applied to City Council for planning -McCann & Co objected ---council granted planning

Lodged with ABP - with objections from McCann & co - ABP passed it

so now he wants to bring it to the Hight Court ????
now many times does he need to be told ???

typical of this City

Professey Chin

foxylad wrote: »

the "casino" applied to City Council for planning -McCann & Co objected ---council granted planning

Lodged with ABP - with objections from McCann & co - ABP passed it

so now he wants to bring it to the Hight Court ????
now many times does he need to be told ???

typical of this City

Why typical of this city?
Its a serial objector from galway who takes advantage of an archaic planning system anyway he can.The city cant really do anything about it

gscully

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Why typical of this city?
Its a serial objector from galway who takes advantage of an archaic planning system anyway he can.The city cant really do anything about it

Yes, we all know he's from Galway, but this IS typical of this city...not the fault of the city!

AdMMM

With regards parking, the apartments above aren't at full capacity and there's very low percentage of car ownership there. Given the hours of opening, there'll be very few cars parked in that area at that time of night (all other residences on the road are owned by Revolution and remain unoccupied with the exception of one which houses a few employees of the place).

Now if customers do find parking to be difficult, let's not forget that Millers Marsh is a mere 40 second walk away from this site and is likely to be empty at this time and common sense would dictate that some would opt to park there instead.

Professey Chin

gscully wrote: »

Yes, we all know he's from Galway, but this IS typical of this city...not the fault of the city!

Id say its typical of him then and nothing of the city since the city has nothing to do with his arsing about

ziedth

Cabaal wrote: »

So everybody that goes to the place won't ever drive?

I'm not speculating I'm basing it on the statements made in the report, they are very valid concerns.

Given your sig and what the place is I'm guessing you obviously have an interest as such of course your going to support it

Fair enough your entitled to support what you like, if it goes to the high court leave them decide it....if what you say is right and it can be classed as "ok" in relation to other concerns then it'll get the go-ahead :pac:

Adam has a poin though, It won't really cause a major increase in traffic. If you look here in cork the two casinos don't have or need any parking.

I made my opinion of this known on the older thread when this first came up. and i'm delighted cause I enjoy a game of cards but more delighted to get one over on mccann.

Great news.

big_iain

Wooohoooo Casino in waterford. Can't wait

phil16phil

McCann being an appellant just diminishes others people's will to row in behind the objection.

At this stage I believe he has become counter-productive.

I don,t believe the traffic argument stands up, we are talking about tens of people not hundreds of people each day.

Taking it to the high court .....He,s just lines the pockets of the judiciary

ROCKMAN

Can someone please tell me exactly where the site is ?

EoinHeffernan

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Can someone please tell me exactly where the site is ?

Behind Revolution.