Oxigen want to set up on North Quays

giles lynchwood

roco71 wrote: »

sorry I am not an expert when it comes to the interpretation of the laws on that one but to the best of my knowledge the parking of vehicles regardless of being empty or not does not require a permit - perhaps the City Council could answer the concerns on this one.

Well i need a permit to park outside my own front door.
Excellent news all round i think,well done to all concerened,may i suggest new rath as a location as there is a few large shead´s empty in that area and it is close to the motorway,ideal location.

Aquos76

Facts wrote: »

My point is this is great news & our councillors should be congratulated for using their influence, the fact is we're very quick to moan and complain about them when we want to!

Well I tend to disagree, the fact that there were over 500 members of the public lodged objections had more to do with it. I'm wouldn't be inclined to give all the credit to the local councillars, Oxigin were also conscious of the impact this would have had on their customer base here in Waterford too.

I'm just glad common sense prevailed.

trishw78

I haven't seen anyone mention it, but yes several Resident committee's in Ferrybank are objecting to the use of this building. If this were still a working quay like it was some 20 years ago I don't think there would be a problem as it's no longer a working quay it's just going to cause problems...

Lurching

giles lynchwood wrote: »

may i suggest new rath as a location as there is a few large sheds empty in that area and it is close to the motorway,ideal location.

Which sheds are you thinking of?

giles lynchwood

Lurching wrote: »

Which sheds are you thinking of?

in by tom´s tyre´s,i´m sure i saw a for sale/to let sign on one.

500 objection´s not a great reflection of waterford´s civic pride,i might add.

ToxicPaddy

giles lynchwood wrote: »

in by tom´s tyre´s,i´m sure i saw a for sale/to let sign on one.

500 objection´s not a great reflection of waterford´s civic pride,i might add.

Well its at least 500 households who would have withdrawn their custom from Oxigen and there could have been an increase of up to 5 fold in that number with friends, other family members etc withdrawing their custom on that basis.

So even though it seems a small amount of people the knock on effect and negativity towards the company could have been huge and at the end of the day, like any other company, Oxigen are in that business to make money..

A nice little victory, just waiting to see what politician jumps on the bandwagon claiming credit for this.. :rolleyes:

Facts

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Well its at least 500 households who would have withdrawn their custom from Oxigen and there could have been an increase of up to 5 fold in that number with friends, other family members etc withdrawing their custom on that basis.

So even though it seems a small amount of people the knock on effect and negativity towards the company could have been huge and at the end of the day, like any other company, Oxigen are in that business to make money..

A nice little victory, just waiting to see what politician jumps on the bandwagon claiming credit for this.. :rolleyes:

Toxicpaddy the fact is oxigen gave the waterford city councillors credit for their decision to reverse their application! Look at their letter in the waterford today.. As I said before credit where credit is due

Bards

giles lynchwood wrote: »

in by tom´s tyre´s,i´m sure i saw a for sale/to let sign on one.

500 objection´s not a great reflection of waterford´s civic pride,i might add.

typically only a small fraction of people will voice their concern while "The Silent" Majority will also be abhorred by the proposed development.

so 500 people might have objected but lost customers could easily be x20 times that number

Aquos76

Facts wrote: »

Toxicpaddy the fact is oxigen gave the waterford city councillors credit for their decision to reverse their application! Look at their letter in the waterford today.. As I said before credit where credit is due

You obviously missed where it said it listened to the people of Waterford also, the way you are going on about it, they city councillors are the ones who stopped this. That's bull ****. The Facts of the matter are Oxigen knew that because of the public fall out this was going to cause within the city of Waterford they knew it would do serious damage to their business and that's the real reason as to why they stopped it.
I do agree that the councillors were very vocal in their objections to this, and rightly so, that's what they are elected for, but giving them 100% credit for this is just wrong.

Here is a copy of the letter in Waterford Today for those who have not seen it.

echosound

Bards wrote: »

typically only a small fraction of people will voice their concern while "The Silent" Majority will also be abhorred by the proposed development.

so 500 people might have objected but lost customers could easily be x20 times that number

Agreed. I know a good few older people who were horrified when they heard about the proposed plans, but wouldn't have known how to even begin to object to it, they didn't know what channels to use; whether they should express their opposition directly to oxigen, or the council, or whoever owns the buildings, or how to go about wording such a letter etc.

Delighted to see that Oxigen have retracted their application. Shocking to think anyone in their right mind would even consider the viability of it in the first place.