[Article] TK Maxx Ordered to Stop Selling from Retail Park

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

For those of you who though Railway sq. was not viable, you could be about to be proved wrong.

Railway square is more than just retail space, its flats too. They could have put something their, with plenty of space for TK Maxx without being mug ugly.

dayshah

gscully wrote: »

I would've assumed the demise of Egans came about when the spotlight focused on John St. Before Muldoons, Rubys, Club LA and Preachers started to take all the punters in, Egans served as a good spot for people to drink before heading to The Bridge and Roxys. There's way too much concentration of nightlife in that one area now.

The reason Egan's closed is because they hired someone who's job it was to stand at the door, look tough, and prevent well mannered people in their mid-twenties from entering.

Needless to say it didn't help their trade.

d_j

I do not agree with this poxy rule that TK Maxx are not allowed to sell clothes where they currently are & must move into the city centre, to a considerably smaller premises with no parking facilities. FFS!

JohnC.

There is parking at Railway Square, it's just not free. One car park under the building and another large one beside it. Or a free Tesco car park across the road if you want to take your chances there.

rasper

For what its worth from the eyes of someone not from waterford originally, I think its madness trying to control where a business sets up by banning its trade everywhere but a certain spot.
It seems like a turnoff for businesses to locate here and hence job loss, if the cc has problems sort them out but not by banning jobs elsewhere , sounds like a Irish Union attitute protecting the few at the expense of the majority.
Has this worked in other urban centres in Ireland, or is this attitute possibly a reason that Waterford missed out on the investment it should have attracted duuring the bubble

merlante

rasper wrote: »

For what its worth from the eyes of someone not from waterford originally, I think its madness trying to control where a business sets up by banning its trade everywhere but a certain spot.
It seems like a turnoff for businesses to locate here and hence job loss, if the cc has problems sort them out but not by banning jobs elsewhere , sounds like a Irish Union attitute protecting the few at the expense of the majority.
Has this worked in other urban centres in Ireland, or is this attitute possibly a reason that Waterford missed out on the investment it should have attracted duuring the bubble

Waterford lost out on investment primarily because of objections in the inner city coupled with a correct policy of banning certain types of out of town shopping (comparison retail such as clothes, DVDs, etc.) in order to maintain the primacy of the city centre. The city council are not saying you have to set up in any particular unit, they are confining certain businesses to the city centre.

Dublin city has been held up as an example of how not to plan a city Europe-wide because of lax planning. Cork, and particularly Limerick, city centres are under pressure from out of town shopping. The risk is the creation of US-style donut cities, where the centre is hollowed out, and where all residents end up being car bound and have to drive to access facilities in the suburbs. Poor people end up effectively trapped in their homes and you get plenty of social problems. Waterford's city centre is not particularly strong to begin with, so any amount of out of town shopping whatsoever could spell disaster.

M&S were trying to set up on the outskirts of the city. We could have had a situation where all of the premier 'high st.' shops coming to Waterford, that don't want to have to bother about tricky planning permission, set up at different locations around the outer ring road, which would have been hardly accessible by public transport. Even if a particular shopping centre was on a bus route, the fact that it was in the suburbs means that 2 buses or a walk plus a bus would be required in order to get out there for those that do not drive. The city centre, on the other hand, is accessed by 6 or 7 bus routes and is within walking distance of most of the population.

dayshah

rasper wrote: »

For what its worth from the eyes of someone not from waterford originally, I think its madness trying to control where a business sets up by banning its trade everywhere but a certain spot.
It seems like a turnoff for businesses to locate here and hence job loss, if the cc has problems sort them out but not by banning jobs elsewhere , sounds like a Irish Union attitute protecting the few at the expense of the majority.
Has this worked in other urban centres in Ireland, or is this attitute possibly a reason that Waterford missed out on the investment it should have attracted duuring the bubble

And I thought the main reasons for the property bust are well understood. What do you think will come of the thing in Ferrybank

Silverado

dayshah wrote: »

And I thought the main reasons for the property bust are well understood. What do you think will come of the thing in Ferrybank

Which one? They have two empty shopping centres in Ferrybank. One at Belmont and one near Rathculliheen.

cowhands

I heard now its only a rumour that they might be moving into the Old Byrnes World of Wonder shop beside Superquinn.

Yes Boss

cowhands wrote: »

I heard now its only a rumour that they might be moving into the Old Byrnes World of Wonder shop beside Superquinn.

They cannot do that either as it would be a similar site to the one they already occupy!

Minstrel27

Yes Boss wrote: »

They cannot do that either as it would be a similar site to the one they already occupy!

What kind of shopping is that complex zoned for?

dayshah

cowhands wrote: »

I heard now its only a rumour that they might be moving into the Old Byrnes World of Wonder shop beside Superquinn.

I think Railway Sq would be better for them. That place has none of the advantages of a city centre location, and some disadvantages. Parking isn't fantastic (remember Railway Sq has underground parking anyway) and the ring road is busy, so a bit stressful to pull out of.

d_j

Best location for them is where they currently are & should be allowed to stay there - period.

dayshah

d_j wrote: »

Best location for them is where they currently are & should be allowed to stay there - period.

I don't particularly care what the best location for them is, I care about the best location for Waterford.

d_j

I think it's best for the deise too dayshah:p

merlante

d_j wrote: »

I think it's best for the deise too dayshah:p

What would you say about the fact that a large percentage of the population of the city have probably never been there because of its location? Tough luck if you don't drive I suppose?

AdMMM

When going clothes shopping, TK Maxx doesn't even spring to mind in Waterford, because of it's location. Whereas in Dublin, a trip to the St Stephens Green branch is always part of my "itinerary".

comeraghs

SO, Are TKMAXXX definetly moving to Railway Sq. It´d be good for the city centre.

Psychedelic

comeraghs wrote: »

SO, Are TKMAXXX definetly moving to Railway Sq. It´d be good for the city centre.

TK Maxx planning saga almost over
The ongoing planning situation regarding the fashion store, TK Maxx, and its location at the Butlerstown Retail Park in Waterford is still with the courts but almost resolved.

Justice Mary Finlay has reserved judgement on a date when TK Maxx will be instructed to stop selling fashion goods from its store at Butlerstown. However, the Court was told that TK Maxx had a plan to move into Railway Square in the city centre on a site previously occupied by Penneys while its Barronstrand Street premises was extended and refurbished.

Planning permission was granted last week for a mezzanine floor at the Railway Square premises to facilitate TK Maxx. Other traders in the city centre will certainly welcome the extra shoppers that TK Maxx will undoubtedly attract. Incidentally, Penneys recently bought the Belfry Hotel at its rear to facilitate further expansion which is a boost for the city centre.

Unauthorised goods
The motion was granted for TK Maxx to cease trading unauthorised goods and the Court reserved judgement on the actual date of closing. But, pointed out Judge Finlay, that would be of no advantage to the firm as it would be backdated to the judgement date at the Commercial Court last week.

http://www.munster-express.ie/business/tk-maxx-planning-saga-almost-over/

d_j

merlante wrote: »

What would you say about the fact that a large percentage of the population of the city have probably never been there because of its location? Tough luck if you don't drive I suppose?

I would say exactly the following:

Fact? I'd love to see where you pulled that statistic from! A 'large percentage of the city's population' living such a sheltered existence - YEAH RIGHT!! Pull the other one pal:rolleyes:

So you don't drive? Well you're DRIVING me insane with such bullsh1t! It's not as if it's a million miles away @ the Butlerstown Retail Park FFS!!

What about the people living nearer to where it currently is now? How would they ever make such an epic voyage into the city centre? The same way as they have been for years (on the horse & cart):D

All business does not have to revolve around the city centre, a city grows and expands etc. But one way to entice a business to the city centre may be to lower the extortionate rates of rent currently being charged & free parking during certain times etc.

AdMMM wrote: »

When going clothes shopping, TK Maxx doesn't even spring to mind in Waterford, because of it's location. Whereas in Dublin, a trip to the St Stephens Green branch is always part of my "itinerary".

That's because Dublin isn't full of serial objectors or McCant's as they are locally referred to around here. Who can blame TK Maxx for not setting up in the city centre after all the knock backs the new shopping complex that was planned for the old De La Salle centre got? No M&S in Waterford either!

merlante

d_j wrote: »

I would say exactly the following:

Fact? I'd love to see where you pulled that statistic from! A 'large percentage of the city's population' living such a sheltered existence - YEAH RIGHT!! Pull the other one pal:rolleyes:

So you expect that people without a car would be willing to walk all the way out to Butlerstown to buy a pair of runners and walk all the way back in? Not likely. This place has absolutely no access for people without a car, which include large tranches of the population, such as the young, the old, the poor and people who just choose not to drive.

A lot of people might have been there once or twice by taking a lift off someone, but that is not much good is it?

d_j wrote: »

So you don't drive? Well you're DRIVING me insane with such bullsh1t! It's not as if it's a million miles away @ the Butlerstown Retail Park FFS!!

I do drive. I detest the fact that I can't get everything I need in the city centre and that I have to occasionally drive out to Ardkeen village for Next or Butlerstown for TkMaxx. Waste of time and petrol. The council want to call a halt to this BS -- more power to them.

It's 4.8km (58mins) from the Clock tower and 5.9km (1hr 15mins) from Ardkeen village, according to google maps. Would you take a couple of hours out of your life to go to TkMaxx, knowing that you have to carry back whatever you buy? Two taxis will cost you 20+ euro.

d_j wrote: »

What about the people living nearer to where it currently is now? How would they ever make such an epic voyage into the city centre? The same way as they have been for years (on the horse & cart):D

What you mean the 10 people living in Butlerstown versus the 10-15,000 people near the city centre? If you don't want to buy a car, you should be able to live near the centre and get whatever you need. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then yes, you need to buy a car, or a horse and cart, to get anywhere. But then that's your choice.

d_j wrote: »

All business does not have to revolve around the city centre, a city grows and expands etc. But one way to entice a business to the city centre may be to lower the extortionate rates of rent currently being charged & free parking during certain times etc.

Cities expand because there are no longer affordable units available nearer the centre due to rude economic growth. Do you see any economic growth out there? Do you think that the centre is in such huge demand that we absolutely have to build outside of it? Obviously not.

You may have a point about the rates that are being charged. If this is the problem then this is the battle that should be fought, not the right to set up non-bulky, comparison retail everywhere and anywhere. The council have invested in the city centre, this is where the businesses should be. This is where the bus services start and terminate. This is where the amenities are and where the tourists go. The council are trying to build and maintain something that will consolidate Waterford as a regional centre for shopping, tourism, quality of life, etc.

d_j wrote: »

That's because Dublin isn't full of serial objectors or McCant's as they are locally referred to around here. Who can blame TK Maxx for not setting up in the city centre after all the knock backs the new shopping complex that was planned for the old De La Salle centre got? No M&S in Waterford either!

What you have to worry about are businesses that do not want to deal faithfully with the city council that is responsible for our city, that want to establish a pattern of out of town development that *might* be fine in one individual case, but would absolutely not be sustainable if all businesses wanted to do the same thing. From the city council and government's point of view, all of the facilities of the city are provided in and for the city centre, so diverting shoppers to outskirts threatens that investment and makes us all financially and socially poorer in the long run.

People like yourself would be the first to complain 10 years down the line if the council ****ed up the city because they didn't enforce good planning. Maybe you also think the banks should be able to do whatever they want?

dayshah

TK Maxx was set up in the county to mainly serve the city. So they got county rates.

You may have a point about rates (though the council needs money to function). Probably more relevant though is that when TK Maxx were making their plans it would have been close to the peak of the boom and rents would have been high. Now they are lower so TK Maxx will be viable. It will be hassle for them to move, but still worth their while to stay open.

coolperson05

This is a good move. Now people will use it on their day in town. It could also help railway square finally take off. There's still many units left vacant with a gorgeous seating area outside. The likes of H&M, Accessorize and others could take note.

d_j

merlante wrote: »

So you expect that people without a car would be willing to walk all the way out to Butlerstown to buy a pair of runners and walk all the way back in? Not likely. This place has absolutely no access for people without a car, which include large tranches of the population, such as the young, the old, the poor and people who just choose not to drive.

A lot of people might have been there once or twice by taking a lift off someone, but that is not much good is it?

Hilarious! Here's a FACT for you - It's 2010, there are more people WITH a car than not. Businesses are aware of this fact and they'll attract this majority with the free parking for a start;)

merlante wrote: »

I do drive. I detest the fact that I can't get everything I need in the city centre and that I have to occasionally drive out to Ardkeen village for Next or Butlerstown for TkMaxx. Waste of time and petrol. The council want to call a halt to this BS -- more power to them.

Boo hoo, so you had to take a short drive to Next or TK Maxx. You got whatever it was you were looking for didn't you? So how was it a waste of time & petrol?

merlante wrote: »

It's 4.8km (58mins) from the Clock tower and 5.9km (1hr 15mins) from Ardkeen village, according to google maps. Would you take a couple of hours out of your life to go to TkMaxx, knowing that you have to carry back whatever you buy? Two taxis will cost you 20+ euro.

Hey, we're not yank tourists okay. Google maps is bullsh1t and as regards the taxis - that's another story - see the other thread about that one!

merlante wrote: »

What you mean the 10 people living in Butlerstown versus the 10-15,000 people near the city centre? If you don't want to buy a car, you should be able to live near the centre and get whatever you need. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then yes, you need to buy a car, or a horse and cart, to get anywhere. But then that's your choice.

There are more than 10 people living in Butlerstown but you want everything on your lap in the city centre for you because that's where you live - move to Dublin then. I'm sure the GAA would welcome another blue shirt for the football on Sundays.:D

merlante wrote: »

Cities expand because there are no longer affordable units available nearer the centre due to rude economic growth. Do you see any economic growth out there? Do you think that the centre is in such huge demand that we absolutely have to build outside of it? Obviously not.

Yeah, no growth because of the cost of rent in city centre and you have to pay for parking everywhere. Why should you have to join the rat race of looking for parking and then have to pay for it when you can shop till you drop hassle free with plenty of free parking out in Butlerstown Retail Park?

merlante wrote: »

You may have a point about the rates that are being charged. If this is the problem then this is the battle that should be fought, not the right to set up non-bulky, comparison retail everywhere and anywhere. The council have invested in the city centre, this is where the businesses should be. This is where the bus services start and terminate. This is where the amenities are and where the tourists go. The council are trying to build and maintain something that will consolidate Waterford as a regional centre for shopping, tourism, quality of life, etc.

If there are tourist attractions are in the city centre I'm all for that, obviously. In the meantime a bus route could easily be extended to Butlerstown Retail Park for the hoards of people without cars!:rolleyes:

merlante wrote: »

People like yourself would be the first to complain 10 years down the line if the council ****ed up the city because they didn't enforce good planning. Maybe you also think the banks should be able to do whatever they want?

Hey, you don't know me pal. I'm not one to complain:cool: The Council have already ****ed up the city! They couldn't plan a knees-up in a brewery. McCan't has now thankfully gone but so is the boom so damage is already done.

As for the banks, where's the thread on that? I may have a word or two to say on it. I might have to complain:pac::pac::pac:

Aquos76

Lads, can ye atleast try to keep this civil, ye are both making good valid points, however, I don't want to see things getting personel, and the thread ending up been a slagging match.

merlante

d_j wrote: »

Hilarious! Here's a FACT for you - It's 2010, there are more people WITH a car than not. Businesses are aware of this fact and they'll attract this majority with the free parking for a start;)

According to the Irish Times, there were 1.8m private cars in 2007, at the height of the boom. The population of Ireland is about 4.4m. That's 2.6m+ without a car (some people have more than one car) versus 1.8m that do, so no, most people don't own a car, even if every one of those cars belonged to a different person, which they don't.

If you are below the age of 17, you can't drive. If you are elderly it's more difficult to retain your licence because (amongst other things) your sight goes. If you don't have any money, guess what, you can't buy a car, or if you have one, you can't afford to run it. There are 13.7% of the workforce that is unemployed at the moment, many will not be able to run their cars.

There's a few facts for you.

d_j wrote: »

There are more than 10 people living in Butlerstown but you want everything on your lap in the city centre for you because that's where you live - move to Dublin then. I'm sure the GAA would welcome another blue shirt for the football on Sundays.:D

I choose to live in the city centre because I want to live close to facilities. You choose to live wherever and presumably like to drive everywhere. Your choice, but don't come crying about the cost of parking in town, you made your bed. If all of the businesses in town were on the outer ring road, you'd spend more on petrol going from shop to shop over about 8km of road then you would on parking in town.

I'm quite happy in Waterford thanks, maybe you're the one who'd be happier living in one of the worst planned cities in Europe?

d_j wrote: »

Yeah, no growth because of the cost of rent in city centre and you have to pay for parking everywhere. Why should you have to join the rat race of looking for parking and then have to pay for it when you can shop till you drop hassle free with plenty of free parking out in Butlerstown Retail Park?

It's easy to get parking in town, where do you think you live? If you lived in a city like Dublin you'd have to walk twice as far and pay twice as much. Have you ever been to Dublin, because you sound like a farmer come down to the 'big city' of Waterford, horrified by the fumes and gridlock of the city centre? Give me a break.

The Butlerstown Retail Park is grand if it's just one or two businesses like TkMaxx, but you clearly can't put all of the businesses in the city in a retail park on the outer ring road. That's not going to work. So instead of having the centre undermined by ad-hoc development, the council are 'planning' the city. It's called sustainable development.

d_j wrote: »

If there are tourist attractions are in the city centre I'm all for that, obviously. In the meantime a bus route could easily be extended to Butlerstown Retail Park for the hoards of people without cars!:rolleyes:

So what, the tourists see the viking quarter, Mall, etc., and then they walk down to JR square, Michael st., etc. and find a ghost town because the council have bowed to clueless fools and allowed business to open wherever they like? All you'd need is for them to be mugged and have their crystal taken off them by someone who can't afford a car to complete the picture.

The council should not stick a bus out there because there are no people living there and it would be a very inefficient service, and because there shouldn't be a shop like TkMaxx there in the first place. If they were stupid enough to run a bus out there then half of the population would actually have to get two buses to get there, one in to the centre and the other out to Butlerstown. Not a trip you'd bother making, so why expect others to do it?

d_j wrote: »

Hey, you don't know me pal. I'm not one to complain:cool: The Council have already ****ed up the city! They couldn't plan a knees-up in a brewery. McCan't has now thankfully gone but so is the boom so damage is already done.

As for the banks, where's the thread on that? I may have a word or two to say on it. I might have to complain:pac::pac::pac:

You sound like wellboy from UTD.

Sully

Wait, where is McCann gone?

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Wait, where is McCann gone?

.....quiet


mmmmmmmmm that must mean there is no planning permissions being looked for - oh wait he scared tham all away - job done

dayshah

:rolleyes:

All of our problems were caused by McCann and all will be solved by a M&S I suppose.

Typhoon.

I see tk maxx have less than 30 days left

any update on a new premisis?

this is disgusting that 60 jobs are being lost.... news and star article

who was it objected to them again... was it noel frisby and mulligans chemist?

JohnC.

Typhoon. wrote: »

this is disgusting that 60 jobs are being lost.... news and star article

who was it objected to them again... was it noel frisby and mulligans chemist?

It is the employer who are to blame really, by taking liberties with the planning. Maybe if they were more honest there wouldn't be 60 jobs lost.

iseegirls

Typhoon. wrote: »

who was it objected to them again... was it noel frisby and mulligans chemist?

Why mulligans chemist?

Minstrel27

iseegirls wrote: »

Why mulligans chemist?

Do TK Maxx sell perfume?

Typhoon.

they do sell a few bottles of perfume alright

I think i remember hearing mulligans and frisbys were involved in the objection, I could be wrong though thats what I'm askin

sparkling sea

Under the Constitution every person living in Ireland has a right to earn a living.

I was wondering if people feel the decision made to close TK Maxx, the loss of 60 jobs, plus the jobs which will undoubtedly be lost in the other shops on the complex is a breach of this Constitutional right.

I think if I was working in T K Maxx or B and Q or Halfords I might think of challenging this decison on the grounds that it went against my Constitutional right to earn a living.

Bards

sparkling sea wrote: »

Under the Constitution every person living in Ireland has a right to earn a living.

I was wondering if people feel the decision made to close TK Maxx, the loss of 60 jobs, plus the jobs which will undoubtedly be lost in the other shops on the complex is a breach of this Constitutional right.

I think if I was working in T K Maxx or B and Q or Halfords I might think of challenging this decison on the grounds that it went against my Constitutional right to earn a living.

...and what about every other shop in the City Centre???? DO these workers not have the same rights - they are being put in jeopardy everytime an out-of-town retail development sets up

JohnC.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Under the Constitution every person living in Ireland has a right to earn a living.

I was wondering if people feel the decision made to close TK Maxx, the loss of 60 jobs, plus the jobs which will undoubtedly be lost in the other shops on the complex is a breach of this Constitutional right.

I think if I was working in T K Maxx or B and Q or Halfords I might think of challenging this decison on the grounds that it went against my Constitutional right to earn a living.

If TKMaxx are there illegally, then, through no fault of the workers themselves, aren't they basically earning a living through illegal means? I don't think the constitution covers them for that.

Besides all that, using the constitution to keep your job would be disastrous and your interpretation isn't what it is meant for. It would mean nobody could ever lose their job. That's simply unworkable. Steal from your employer? Don't worry, they can't fire you. Company need cutbacks to survive in a difficult economy? Don't worry, they can't let you go. Company has to shut down because it simply can't survive, possibly due to the previous point? Then what?

Let's face it, sometimes people lose jobs even if they personally have done nothing wrong. It's not nice, but it's life.

dayshah

Kahless wrote: »

It is the employer who are to blame really, by taking liberties with the planning. Maybe if they were more honest there wouldn't be 60 jobs lost.

Yes, and this has been on the cards for months, so TK Maxx have had plenty of time to prepare.

Meanwhile I've plenty of time to prepare for their CLEARANCE SALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

Yes Boss

Kahless wrote: »

If TKMaxx are there illegally, then, through no fault of the workers themselves, aren't they basically earning a living through illegal means? I don't think the constitution covers them for that.

Besides all that, using the constitution to keep your job would be disastrous and your interpretation isn't what it is meant for. It would mean nobody could ever lose their job. That's simply unworkable. Steal from your employer? Don't worry, they can't fire you. Company need cutbacks to survive in a difficult economy? Don't worry, they can't let you go. Company has to shut down because it simply can't survive, possibly due to the previous point? Then what?

Let's face it, sometimes people lose jobs even if they personally have done nothing wrong. It's not nice, but it's life.

Our Public Sector!

JohnC.

Can't say it didn't cross my mind

savic04

Really don't know why anyone would shop in town anymore, place is a disaster. Parking is a nightmare, its like a ghost town with so many closed down shops. Its nothing to do with TK maxx, why is it ok for Next to sell clothes in Tesco Ardkeen but not Tk Maxx?

Speak Now

savic04 wrote: »

Really don't know why anyone would shop in town anymore, place is a disaster. Parking is a nightmare, its like a ghost town with so many closed down shops. Its nothing to do with TK maxx, why is it ok for Next to sell clothes in Tesco Ardkeen but not Tk Maxx?

I guess because Ardkeen is not classed as a retail Park, it's along the lines of the Waterford shopping center in Lisduggan. Planning laws eh!

Psychedelic

savic04 wrote: »

Really don't know why anyone would shop in town anymore, place is a disaster. Parking is a nightmare, its like a ghost town with so many closed down shops. Its nothing to do with TK maxx, why is it ok for Next to sell clothes in Tesco Ardkeen but not Tk Maxx?

How is parking a nightmare? There's always plenty of spaces in each of the car parks, which you can see on the new signage which shows how many spaces available in each car park.

Too many closed down shops? What shops have closed, there's not that many, none that were that good anyway. As far as I can see all the good shops are still there, Alfie Hales, Shaws, John Palmer's, Tommy Hilfiger, Footlocker, Golden Discs, BPM, all the shops on George's Street and in George's Court, Debenhams, Dunnes, Heroes, Penney's, Sherwoods, Argos etc. I think we lost Adams and some ladies fashion shop in City Square; one of those units was replaced by Champion Sports. Pamela Scott is closing but will be re-opening in another store soon, and Lifestyle Sports are moving into where Pamela Scott were. TK Maxx will soon hopefully be in Railway Square which should help attract a few other shops to open there.

Take a walk through the city centre from Clock Tower to Masons and count how many empty shops you see, I'd be surprised if you counted more than a handful.

JohnC.

Plus you don't need to drive to get between shops and have a greater range of shops in the city centre.

Well, I say you don't need to drive, but there are lazy people who do anyway.

sparkling sea

Kahless wrote: »

If TKMaxx are there illegally, then, through no fault of the workers themselves, aren't they basically earning a living through illegal means? I don't think the constitution covers them for that.

Besides all that, using the constitution to keep your job would be disastrous and your interpretation isn't what it is meant for. It would mean nobody could ever lose their job. That's simply unworkable. Steal from your employer? Don't worry, they can't fire you. Company need cutbacks to survive in a difficult economy? Don't worry, they can't let you go. Company has to shut down because it simply can't survive, possibly due to the previous point? Then what?

Let's face it, sometimes people lose jobs even if they personally have done nothing wrong. It's not nice, but it's life.

Your scenarios are complete different and obviously have no legal basis because of the factors you correctly put forward, however this situation is different with regard to TK Maxx as the judicial process makes the decision regarding not only the substantive issue of planning but because of that the ancillary issue of unemployment.
Its a balancing of rights. The right to earn a living versus the right to close down a booming business because of incorrect implementation of planning laws. It is really impossible to say what right would win out as a case with these set of circumstances has not been taken yet but given the current climate it might be worth a punt

sunnysoutheast

sparkling sea wrote: »

Your scenarios are complete different and obviously have no legal basis because of the factors you correctly put forward, however this situation is different with regard to TK Maxx as the judicial process makes the decision regarding not only the substantive issue of planning but because of that the ancillary issue of unemployment.
Its a balancing of rights. The right to earn a living versus the right to close down a booming business because of incorrect implementation of planning laws. It is really impossible to say what right would win out as a case with these set of circumstances has not been taken yet but given the current climate it might be worth a punt

Your argument doesn't make any sense - in what court and on what basis would you take a "punt"? TK Maxx are closing their branch because they are not in compliance with the planning permission for the premises they occupy and this interpretation has been tested on appeal, so why is it an "incorrect implementation"? I don't see any difference between workers in this situation and those whose employers have shut down for other reasons. In any case, who's to say that another business won't move in to the vacated unit?

As others have said, I too hope TK Maxx open up in Railway Square and give another shot in the arm to the City Centre and I hope the staff are transferred over should they want to. Remember that the owners and workers in businesses who comply with planning laws have rights too.

SSE

wmpdd3

savic04 wrote: »

Really don't know why anyone would shop in town anymore, place is a disaster. Parking is a nightmare, its like a ghost town with so many closed down shops. Its nothing to do with TK maxx, why is it ok for Next to sell clothes in Tesco Ardkeen but not Tk Maxx?

As far as I know Next got the planning permission form Waterford County council, when that area was in the sticks! But now it comes under Waterford City council, so Tesco can't get planning permission to extend the current clothing (tiny) section.

sparkling sea

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Your argument doesn't make any sense - in what court and on what basis would you take a "punt"? TK Maxx are closing their branch because they are not in compliance with the planning permission for the premises they occupy and this interpretation has been tested on appeal, so why is it an "incorrect implementation"? I don't see any difference between workers in this situation and those whose employers have shut down for other reasons. In any case, who's to say that another business won't move in to the vacated unit?

As others have said, I too hope TK Maxx open up in Railway Square and give another shot in the arm to the City Centre and I hope the staff are transferred over should they want to. Remember that the owners and workers in businesses who comply with planning laws have rights too.

SSE

The interpretation does not relate to my point, the Constit right to earn a livehood is a complete different point, we seem to have our wires crossed. Only the workers in either T K Maxx or the other stores could take this case, the actual compaines would not have standing to do so.

I hope the T K Maxx workers keep there jobs but from what I have heard today there will be at least an 18 month gap between the closing of the old store and opening of a new one.
I would also hope that all the workers of the other stores on the complex keep there jobs or even that the stores just stay open.
The owners are applying for change of use with regard to the unit but again this could take months.
I was in town today and it still amazes me just how empty it is, people don't seem to like the way the town centre has changed. It would be lovely if Waterford could become the vibrant city it was not so long ago.

sunnysoutheast

sparkling sea wrote: »

The interpretation does not relate to my point, the Constit right to earn a livehood is a complete different point, we seem to have our wires crossed. Only the workers in either T K Maxx or the other stores could take this case, the actual compaines would not have standing to do so.

I hope the T K Maxx workers keep there jobs but from what I have heard today there will be at least an 18 month gap between the closing of the old store and opening of a new one.
I would also hope that all the workers of the other stores on the complex keep there jobs or even that the stores just stay open.
The owners are applying for change of use with regard to the unit but again this could take months.
I was in town today and it still amazes me just how empty it is, people don't seem to like the way the town centre has changed. It would be lovely if Waterford could become the vibrant city it was not so long ago.

.....yes but take what case in what court and on what grounds? Can you point to any sort of case law or precedent?

It didn't seem to take Penney's very long to move into Railway Square and then back again. I mean how long can it take, it's not as if these types of shops require much internal remodelling is it?

The City Council's entire retail strategy is intended to retain and promote the vibrancy of the City Centre, either way this won't be helped by doughnut development.

SSE

JohnC.

A right to employment is not the same as a guarantee of employment.