Council vote on new Westside Tesco

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

Probably from the cost of the SQR works. IIRC the final cost was about €14m, over a distance of about 1.6km.

While the figure looks high remember that the problems were caused by the contractors finding services that had to be moved. If there is anything (e.g. sewers, ESB, Gas, UPC/NTL, telecoms etc) to be moved they'd have to pay for all that as well part of the works.

Good point - very expensive all the same.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Good point - very expensive all the same.

I'd need to see the updated map (not sure where this road is supposed to be) but it appears that there will be land costs as well. Commercial land isn't exactly cheap and it's a lot to ask somebody to buy land that they are probably going to have to cede to the council anyway.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd need to see the updated map (not sure where this road is supposed to be) but it appears that there will be land costs as well. Commercial land isn't exactly cheap and it's a lot to ask somebody to buy land that they are probably going to have to cede to the council anyway.

Is the developer not the owner of this land already? Are would they factor in the "potential" cost if one also had to buy said Commercial Land at the going rate?

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Is the developer not the owner of this land already? Are would they factor in the "potential" cost if one also had to buy said Commercial Land at the going rate?

It looks from the drawings that they'd have to buy at least some land and possibly a building off the adjoining retail units. As I said without seeing the maps for the conditions, it's unclear just wtf they're talking about.

Jack_Plumber

If this development goes ahead and the junction at McDonald's becomes a crossroads, it will do huge damage to Westside Shopping Centre.

The units near Fine Wines (Westside Cycle, A&D Carpets etc) will probably be knocked to facilitate access and proper alignment for the new crossroads. Some of these traders believe they will be offered units in the new development. Terrible to see working people being taken for a ride.

Mrs OBumble

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

The units near Fine Wines (Westside Cycle, A&D Carpets etc) will probably be knocked to facilitate access and proper alignment for the new crossroads. Some of these traders believe they will be offered units in the new development. Terrible to see working people being taken for a ride.

What makes you think they won't be offered units there?

Or if the plans are purely for a supermarket, who can the traders (ie entrepreneurs, not just "working people") see that too?

AFAIK, there are plenty of empty units around the place.

Jack_Plumber

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What makes you think they won't be offered units there?

Or if the plans are purely for a supermarket, who can the traders (ie entrepreneurs, not just "working people") see that too?

AFAIK, there are plenty of empty units around the place.

Because I have looked at the plans: the floor layout does not include separate units.

The floor space is for an anchor tenant for Comparison and Convenience retail fronted by banks of checkout tills. Then, in front of the main building, there will be a restaurant / food building (probably something like a KFC or McDonald tenant).

There is one other smaller building and I'm not sure what that it.

What I am saying is that the entire development (except for a restaurant) will be a single tenant.

The traders near Fine Wines who have been promised units should ask for an undertaking in writing from the developer. It seems that their support has been won with the prospect of getting sweetheart deals on units that are not in the current plan.

_Whimsical_

That's interesting Jack_plumber. That would seem to be a huge breach of trust if it is so.It would seem like businesses such as Fine Wines would find it tough to compete with Tesco on price. I'd think they'd be gobbled up in a few months even if they were tenants.

According to the City Tribune today Tesco are set to make a final decision on whether to go ahead or not in the next few days. I have my fingers crossed the wont for a myriad of reasons. I don't think any other tenant would be as dominating a force as Tesco in that spot,either in terms of traffic disruption,resulting diminished quality of life in local residential areas or in respect of squeezing competion out of Galways retail sector.

Jack_Plumber

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

That's interesting Jack_plumber. That would seem to be a huge breach of trust if it is so.It would seem like businesses such as Fine Wines would find it tough to compete with Tesco on price. I'd think they'd be gobbled up in a few months even if they were tenants.

According to the City Tribune today Tesco are set to make a final decision on whether to go ahead or not in the next few days. I have my fingers crossed the wont for a myriad of reasons. I don't think any other tenant would be as dominating a force as Tesco in that spot,either in terms of traffic disruption,resulting diminished quality of life in local residential areas or in respect of squeezing competion out of Galways retail sector.

The way it seems works is that a local developer gets an outline agreement that Tesco will help to get a successful planning application in an area that fits into their store development strategy. However, apart from the store design element, the local developer (in this case, Micheál O’Higgins) will run with other costs. Tesco provide access to their panel of expertise in technical areas such as traffic, water and drainage, sound, etc.



Once the application has been accepted by the local authority, then Tesco come back into the picture and the deal with the local developer is sealed.


I think that the articles in the Connacht Sentinel and City Tribune start from the erroneous position that the local developer already had a water tight contact with Tesco: this was never the case. Moreover, Tesco's position is as strong now as it would be expected to be at this stage of the development. In other words, I believe these newspaper articles are about distraction at a critical time leading to the appeal date on July 3rd.

inisboffin

Is front access through the SQ road opposite the pitch? That 'ghost' entrance?
Is there still proposed access via the Rahoon Road, opposite/down from Highfield? I know there was mention of closing off that road (the Rahoon Road) entirely. Sorry if this has been said, I'm just trying to figure out which is which!

Mrs OBumble

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

The traders near Fine Wines who have been promised units should ask for an undertaking in writing from the developer. It seems that their support has been won with the prospect of getting sweetheart deals on units that are not in the current plan.

If I was Fine Wines, I'm not sure that I'd want a unit in the same development as Tesco. (Although O'Briens seem to be doing ok in a similar situation on the Headford Rd).

Are you sure they've been promised units in tthe same complex, vs the same area?

galwaycyclist

inisboffin wrote: »

Is front access through the SQ road opposite the pitch? That 'ghost' entrance?
Is there still proposed access via the Rahoon Road, opposite/down from Highfield? I know there was mention of closing off that road (the Rahoon Road) entirely. Sorry if this has been said, I'm just trying to figure out which is which!

Yes this requires clearing up as a key objection to the proposal is that it will put heavy traffic on Shantalla/Rahoon Road.

Jack_Plumber

inisboffin wrote: »

Is front access through the SQ road opposite the pitch? That 'ghost' entrance?
Is there still proposed access via the Rahoon Road, opposite/down from Highfield? I know there was mention of closing off that road (the Rahoon Road) entirely. Sorry if this has been said, I'm just trying to figure out which is which!

Inisboffin, your confusion is well placed as there have been 3 sets of plans at this point in time. Each time the most significant change has been in the road layout.
In the current set of plans... the T-junction at McDonalds will in effect become a crossroads. Traffic coming townward will use the 'ghost' lane to cross into the development. This 3-lane road will continue and link to Rahoon Road beside (an parallel to) Mountpleasant Avenue.
This same link road will be used by service and delivery vehicles to access the services area to the rear of the main building.
Hope this clarifies it for you!

Jack_Plumber

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If I was Fine Wines, I'm not sure that I'd want a unit in the same development as Tesco. (Although O'Briens seem to be doing ok in a similar situation on the Headford Rd).

Are you sure they've been promised units in tthe same complex, vs the same area?

I would be surprised if the new building that houses Fine Wines would be for the demolition ball. Instead, it it the units to the west of this building (old Lydon site) that is in the line of fire.

Regarding your other issue, I mean the same complex and this is exactly the nub of the issue.

The owner of one property is promising tenant traders a spot in another development that he doesn't own.

inisboffin

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

Inisboffin, your confusion is well placed as there have been 3 sets of plans at this point in time. Each time the most significant change has been in the road layout.
In the current set of plans... the T-junction at McDonalds will in effect become a crossroads. Traffic coming townward will use the 'ghost' lane to cross into the development. This 3-lane road will continue and link to Rahoon Road beside (an parallel to) Mountpleasant Avenue.
This same link road will be used by service and delivery vehicles to access the services area to the rear of the main building.
Hope this clarifies it for you!

Thanks! Almost have it!
Which is Mount Pleasant Avenue? Is it what's also called Annadale?
So in essence the service vehicles *could* come up from Cookes Corner/Shantalla direction if delivering in town and turn right in to the service entrance too?

_Whimsical_

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

I think that the articles in the Connacht Sentinel and City Tribune start from the erroneous position that the local developer already had a water tight contact with Tesco: this was never the case. Moreover, Tesco's position is as strong now as it would be expected to be at this stage of the development. In other words, I believe these newspaper articles are about distraction at a critical time leading to the appeal date on July 3rd.

That is really worrying.I hadn't even thought of such a thing but I can see how that would work out and make people less inclined to believe there is reason for any further objections on this. It would be a very manipulative ploy but not one I'd put past the owner of the land.

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

In the current set of plans... the T-junction at McDonalds will in effect become a crossroads. Traffic coming townward will use the 'ghost' lane to cross into the development. This 3-lane road will continue and link to Rahoon Road beside (an parallel to) Mountpleasant Avenue.

So does that mean that the road the Rahoon rd enterance just past Highfield will be closed off completely?
Thanks for sharing your info Jack.

emptybladder

I'm a bit lost here tbh. Tesco only ever signed a 'heads of agreement', not a contract. That's simply agreement in principle. Like 'sale agreed' on a house. So where does the conspiracy theory kick in?

_Whimsical_

emptybladder wrote: »

I'm a bit lost here tbh. Tesco only ever signed a 'heads of agreement', not a contract. That's simply agreement in principle. Like 'sale agreed' on a house. So where does the conspiracy theory kick in?

Well it's being presented in the paper as if it were a rubber stamped certainty that Tesco had been going to take the site and as though Tesco were now considering backing out of the plan. That has been the gist of headlines, 2 articles and quotes given my the owner of the site.

Harps

Where's the idea that the adjacent building would have to be demolished coming from? From plans I've seen the new road is solely on the developers site..

I know there was a requirement to add cycle lanes and widen the road for HGV's but the latest plans I've seen still seemed to have the road on the O'Higgins site

what_traffic

Harps wrote: »

Where's the idea that the adjacent building would have to be demolished coming from? From plans I've seen the new road is solely on the developers site..

I know there was a requirement to add cycle lanes and widen the road for HGV's but the latest plans I've seen still seemed to have the road on the O'Higgins site

Any links to those plans?

Jack_Plumber

Harps wrote: »

Where's the idea that the adjacent building would have to be demolished coming from? From plans I've seen the new road is solely on the developers site..

I know there was a requirement to add cycle lanes and widen the road for HGV's but the latest plans I've seen still seemed to have the road on the O'Higgins site

From the traders who operate in the units parallel to the SQR - A&D Carpets, Quiff Hair Stylists, West Side Cycles.

Jack_Plumber

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

That is really worrying.I hadn't even thought of such a thing but I can see how that would work out and make people less inclined to believe there is reason for any further objections on this. It would be a very manipulative ploy but not one I'd put past the owner of the land.




So does that mean that the road the Rahoon rd enterance just past Highfield will be closed off completely?
Thanks for sharing your info Jack.

Closing the road near the ESB substation (intersection between Rahoon Road and SQR) has been speculated upon but has not appeared in any plans. It is the Galway Transportation Unit (GTU) who would make the call here and I am not aware of any recommendation at the present time.

antoobrien

Harps wrote: »

Where's the idea that the adjacent building would have to be demolished coming from? From plans I've seen the new road is solely on the developers site..

I know there was a requirement to add cycle lanes and widen the road for HGV's but the latest plans I've seen still seemed to have the road on the O'Higgins site

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

From the traders who operate in the units parallel to the SQR - A&D Carpets, Quiff Hair Stylists, West Side Cycles.

From looking at the original plan it's not practical to have a road solely on Higgins's site, as the alignment of the road would not be particularly useful (the junction would be mis-aligned with bóthar le cheile and there'd be a fairly sharp swing to the right immediately on entering the premises), so it looks to me as if there has to be some land take from the neighbouring units if the development is to go ahead.

As for the demolition of some/all of those units, well it looks as if at least the first unit (and possibly the second) would have to go in order to keep the existing goods access to this site.

Harps

what_traffic wrote: »

Any links to those plans?

I saw the physical copy of the plans, they might be on the city council website by now, on my phone so not sure.

I might be wrong but from what I remember the road wont be perfectly aligned to form a cross-road with the road opposite, its slightly staggered to the left which gave me the impression that its solely on their own site

Jack_Plumber

inisboffin wrote: »

Thanks! Almost have it!
Which is Mount Pleasant Avenue? Is it what's also called Annadale?
So in essence the service vehicles *could* come up from Cookes Corner/Shantalla direction if delivering in town and turn right in to the service entrance too?

Yes, Annadale is the name of one of the houses on Mountpleasant Avenue.

Harps

Here's the proposed junction..

_Whimsical_

So are we supposed to send in updated objections or is that now out of our hands as planning permission has been granted,albeit on certain conditions?

Jack_Plumber

emptybladder wrote: »

I'm a bit lost here tbh. Tesco only ever signed a 'heads of agreement', not a contract. That's simply agreement in principle. Like 'sale agreed' on a house. So where does the conspiracy theory kick in?

Just to put the Connacht Sentinel/Tribune story to bed... I quote the developer "I have stated time and again that this is an investment of my own of €10 million, to build a standard supermarket that, hopefully, will have Tesco as the main operator." The word 'hopefully' concurs with the notion of a pre-contract.

Ref: Galway Advertiser, 14 July, 2011.
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/41820/environment-minister-phil-hogan-could-yet-overturn-rezoning-decision


So emptybladder, you are spot on!
It is also interesting to note that it is at this point the development changed from being a €35m development to a most modest sum of €10m-15m.

Ref: http://www.galwaynews.ie/19886-new-vote-may-pave-way-%E2%82%AC35m-hypermarket

Jack_Plumber

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

So are we supposed to send in updated objections or is that now out of our hands as planning permission has been granted,albeit on certain conditions?

The planning decision has been made by the Galway City Council planning office (06/06/2013) and the development (11/312) has been granted approval (albeit with some conditions).
If you are not happy with the decision of the local authority, you can appeal to An Bord Pleanala before July 3rd, 2013. You are entitled to appeal if you have already lodged an observation/objection (for which you would have paid €20). There are some other possibilities for late entries, such as being an adjacent property etc.

The standard cost of the appeal to ABP is €220. In your appeal you must make clear what your grounds for appealing the decision are. No additional material can be submitted after July 3rd.

Early_Bounce

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

From the traders who operate in the units parallel to the SQR - A&D Carpets, Quiff Hair Stylists, West Side Cycles.

Jack,
I was taking a look at the file and found this letter which supports what you mentioned.