Brendan McCann at it again

Cabaal

Bards wrote: »

I find it very amusing that he did not object to anything while the Greens were in Government. Yet a new Government is only in a wet day and he starts objecting again - Am I being too cynical?

errr wasn't Newgate Developnment amongst others all proposed whilst FF and Greens were in Gov?

dayshah

Bards wrote: »

I find it very amusing that he did not object to anything while the Greens were in Government. Yet a new Government is only in a wet day and he starts objecting again - Am I being too cynical?

He left the Greens because he was unhappy with them in government. I think you are being too cynical.

Also regarding him not objecting to things in WIT. The WIT architecture is suitable to its location (edge of town, by a manufacturing plant). If you tried to plonk the library building into the city centre that would be a different story.

Yes Boss

dayshah wrote: »

He left the Greens because he was unhappy with them in government. I think you are being too cynical.

Also regarding him not objecting to things in WIT. The WIT architecture is suitable to its location (edge of town, by a manufacturing plant). If you tried to plonk the library building into the city centre that would be a different story.

And your view on the appalling modifications/additions to the College Street Campus - One of Waterford's few buildings of Architectural significance!

dayshah

Yes Boss wrote: »

And your view on the appalling modifications/additions to the College Street Campus - One of Waterford's few buildings of Architectural significance!

I don't know anything about that. Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide a link.

Bards

Cabaal wrote: »

errr wasn't Newgate Developnment amongst others all proposed whilst FF and Greens were in Gov?

FF & PD's

pocketvenus

O Riain wrote: »

where are they gonna fit H and M in arundel square? are they knocking buildings to build something new? cause the current ones are not big and if i remember correctly, occupied

I read the planning notice and if I remember right they are taking all the space from Sully's Snooker Hall down to the Brassaire and then going back into City Square as their retail outlet. Not sure if 02 shop is being taken in also but wouldnt be a bad thing as a bigger shop is needed there.

City needs some new retail outlets as shooping is so bad here and you literally would get about shops here in 30 mins.

McCann needs to go back to Galway. It seem he does not want the project to go ahead at all, both City Square & Pennys incorportaed the city walls into their sites no problems & anyway that area was extensively looked at when City Square and the Brassaire, Cutting Co etc were built so it is unlikely there is anything left there.

I have a feeling as he also objected to the relative Gov Dept it will be knocked down as they to be intention on keeping Waterford in the sorry state it is. No doubt some Gov official as his eye on getting it to his own area.

angry_fox

Marchandire wrote: »

Why not ask local small and medium business owners how they feel about yet another retail development in the city?

Was in around town today and they love the idea, brings more people and money in to the city. No one is coming to Waterford because there is no good retail outlets. The town has a great history with some fantastic historical buildings but that does not bring in the big money or provide many jobs. Big name retailers and proper developments in the city centre bring in the people, money for local business and creates jobs.

But for McCann latest scheme, I never thought I would say this but I think he may have a point......

wellboytoo

Mc Cann uses the minutae of the planning act to stop development, a very clever and effective method, but not in the spirit of the act. don't know the planning permission on this site , but it is unspoilt in an historical sense and if the development proposes to dig into it , it should be excavated .
But this cannot be done to the depth of City square as it is a very small foot print and is not practicable to go to that depth.
Dig or cover and raft over, it will be there in another few hundred years, as has been done on many an occasion in the past, if you don't disturb it , fine build on top of it.

1967

That site was excavated to the nth degree when city square was in the planning stages if there was anything to be found i am sure it would have been found then,pure pettiness from the man as far as i am concerned.

Finnbar01

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Used to be. Didnt get elected a while ago and I think the GP has distanced themselves from him. Not sure if hes still a member. I have been told hes a terrible lecturer though

What does he lecture in?

dayshah

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What does he lecture in?

Maths.

He came across very well on Talking History during a discussion of Pythagoras.

You can download the podcast.
http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/programmes/all-programmes/talking-history/pythagoras-on-talking-history-sunday-10th/

DixNeuf

Hi all, I'm looking at someone who is regarded as a serial objector in another part of the country. There seem to be a lot of similarities between how most people who've posted on this chap and the situation I'm interested in. I just wanted to ask, what do you think fellas who persistantly object to planning applications are doing it for?

Do you think they are just being a pain? Do you think it's a sense of misguided civic responsability?

The other thing that interests me is, if someone objects to a development, surely if the objection is baseless, it can be thrown out? Particularly if it's from someone who seems to do it frequently.

I have no knowledge of the case you guys are discussing particularly though.

For the record, I've been to Waterford several times in the last 2 years and really enjoyed it. No amount of extra shops or centres would prompt me to go back again though, There are things like that in every town and city in the country. All the same in big developments too, I find.

So I don't believe having H&M is going to bring in more tourists.:o

What's there that's unique is what people go for.

But I'm a big fan of the place. But I completely understand why people would want a greater variety of shops where they live, it just didn't strike me as particularly lacking in that regard.

Finnbar01

I don't know Dix why they constantly complain, maybe it gives them a sense of importance?

DixNeuf

Yeah, maybe it's some sort of empowerment.

If I'm honest, I'm a little conflicted. Some of my favourite parts of the country could clearly have done with someone objecting to some of the stuff that got built in the last few years. Lots of it was needed of course, but planning is such a dark art in this country.

Sorry if I'm wandering off topic.

viking2011

DixNeuf wrote: »

I just wanted to ask, what do you think fellas who persistantly object to planning applications are doing it for?

Do you think they are just being a pain? Do you think it's a sense of misguided civic responsability?

.

he has a high opinion of himself, says he is preserving the city for future generations.
on Billy McCarty Show he was asked if he thought it was right - he said he would love to be cloned in every town in ireland to stop planning mishaps!
if thats not big headed!!!!!

Green Hornet

Just out of curiosity, is it acceptable to be naming and slating somebody on a forum like this? Seems kind of personal? Sounds like some of his objections have been appropriate from some of the posts.

decies

If you object to an opening of a paper bag your bound to get it right once or twice!!!!

dayshah

DixNeuf wrote: »

Do you think it's a sense of misguided civic responsability?

As most of his objections have been upheld I don't think his sense of civic responsibility is misguided at all.

Just look at where the Old Stand was and the Árd Rí. Does anyone seriously think we can trust developers to do what they think is best?

We have a planning process for a reason, and the fact that most of his objections were upheld show they were valid. His objections caused delays because they were held to be valid, which meant redesigns were needed.

If his objections were not valid, they would not have caused the same delays.

Moral of the story, if you want your development to proceed quickly then submit a decent proposal in the first instance.

decies

Moral of the story if you want to bring major retail development and jobs to Waterford city think twice and go somewhere where you might be more welcome.

Gadgie

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

I have been told hes a terrible lecturer though

For the record, I had him for maths in first year, and I thought he was excellent.

I don't believe he has a secret agenda to stifle development in Waterford. I'm sure he believes that the objections he's making are valid. But since I never discussed anything with him besides maths, that's just my own impression of the man's character.

SillyMcCarthy

Sully wrote: »

Banned.




Don't be silly, both are technically correct!

Oh the yearning for an education!
My dear fellow, they are 'not' technically correct!
Maybe in your mind it doesn't make a difference.
Only one of these words is spelt correctly & that
is the one that I have pointed out to you!

What ever way they spell it on the other side of
the Atlantic is their business but here it Centre.

I would suggest that you should purchase the
latest version of the Oxford Dictionary. It might
give you some assistance along the path of life!

Sully

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

Oh the yearning for an education!
My dear fellow, they are 'not' technically correct!
Maybe in your mind it doesn't make a difference.
Only one of these words is spelt correctly & that
is the one that I have pointed out to you!

What ever way they spell it on the other side of
the Atlantic is their business but here it Centre.

I would suggest that you should purchase the
latest version of the Oxford Dictionary. It might
give you some assistance along the path of life!

Its okay, its nothing to get upset about. They are both correct, and while we may use one variation more than another - everybody gets the point. But thanks all the same for the, eh, much needed pointer.

rasper

reckon if the country had more Brendan McCanns we may not be owned by Germany and France

jayboi

Il give a what I think is a good example of what he does

Last year the corporation applied to demolish 10 Bailey's New Street
http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&q=waterford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Waterford,+County+Waterford&gl=ie&ll=52.260323,-7.106437&spn=0,0.0421&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.260323,-7.106437&panoid=zd2LaWT7Dzb1HHYs5qJlwA&cbp=12,286.92,,0,0
Its a moldy old house thats fallling down as it is, its walls are build into the walls of greyfriers which totaly takes the look off the site.
What the corporation were trying to do was open up greyfriers more i.e show off one of the citys assets.
he objected on the grounds that the house is of great historical importance.

The house was only going to be demolished its not like a 10 story skyscraper painted bright pink was going to be put in.

scico rocks

I've read all the arguments pro and against him, and I still feel that there is something slightly sinister or "not just right" to his statements / objections. Just can't figure out what he has to gain by stifling Waterford.

merlante

jayboi wrote: »

Il give a what I think is a good example of what he does

Last year the corporation applied to demolish 10 Bailey's New Street
http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&q=waterford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Waterford,+County+Waterford&gl=ie&ll=52.260323,-7.106437&spn=0,0.0421&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.260323,-7.106437&panoid=zd2LaWT7Dzb1HHYs5qJlwA&cbp=12,286.92,,0,0
Its a moldy old house thats fallling down as it is, its walls are build into the walls of greyfriers which totaly takes the look off the site.
What the corporation were trying to do was open up greyfriers more i.e show off one of the citys assets.
he objected on the grounds that the house is of great historical importance.

The house was only going to be demolished its not like a 10 story skyscraper painted bright pink was going to be put in.

Wasn't aware of this! That building indeed could do with going and is falling down. You could think that exposing the French church would be something he would be in favour of.

I'd say if you tried to knock down city square to expose the foundations he'd probably object to that too. Then again, it's 'modern looking' and has commercial activity inside it, so he might just let it off. Would be hard to break the habit of a lifetime though.

Max Powers

does anyone have any suggestions for stopping McCann. Im talking about people power, putting pressure on him etc. before its suggested, non-violent means only boys and girls.

Hoffmans

idiots @ home playing with their laptops should get out in the fresh air a little more and they might see the results of what dodgy planning / cronyism has done not only to the town but to the country.......
than ranting on & dropping names of people they may have not met....

developers/politicians/estate agents/civil servants/banksters gas the lot of them....

dayshah

Max Powers wrote: »

does anyone have any suggestions for stopping McCann. Im talking about people power, putting pressure on him etc. before its suggested, non-violent means only boys and girls.

Yes, you can turn the country into a dictatorship and eliminate freedom of speach. Its not really worth much if you only have the freedom to say whats popular.

The planning process already has safeguards against vexatious objections. His objections cause delays as they are usually upheld.

Green Hornet

It sounds like not everybody thinks that he's just a serial objector to be honest. Some of the feedback on this thread seems to think that he's actually done some good by holding up some inappropriate planned developments. There were far too many of those.

I dont see why people should'nt object to something (just because it will create jobs) if it was inappropriate.