Council vote on new Westside Tesco

beardybrewer

GekkePrutser wrote: »

I'd love to see that hole in the ground next to Dunnes filled by another Tesco though. Tesco has more choice in ethnic foods than Dunnes. It'd be good to have some variety on this side of town and it's a much more appropriate location.

Doubt they'd go in directly next to Dunnes. Tesco essentially dropped the ball when they didn't secure an anchor position in Knocknacarra or Doughiska.

But, there's always delivery. We do it once a month for all the Tesco goodies we can't get elsewhere. Excellent service.

_Whimsical_

The city tribune front page is headline is "Hand Over Rejected Supermarket Site For Park".
That strikes me as a bad idea too, isn't there already a huge park in Rahoon after all? And parks can becomes anti social behaviour problems in the evening/night.
Still a hundred times better than a supermarket though.

Eeden

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The city tribune front page is headline is "Hand Over Rejected Supermarket Site For Park".
That strikes me as a bad idea too, isn't there already a huge park in Rahoon after all? And parks can becomes anti social behaviour problems in the evening/night.
Still a hundred times better than a supermarket though.

Let's face it, Micheal O hUiginn, though a former City Councillor, wants to make money out of this site, so he's not going to hand it over for a park or anything similar unless he is well rewarded for doing so.

However, it is hard to see how any kind of development there is going to be of benefit to the area, without bringing disadvantages in terms of traffic, etc.

?Cee?view

Eeden wrote: »

Let's face it, Micheal O hUiginn, though a former City Councillor, wants to make money out of this site, so he's not going to hand it over for a park or anything similar unless he is well rewarded for doing so.

One of the craziest headlines I've ever seen on a Galway Rag. Who do those residents think they are? What are they smoking? Can I demand some of their property or that they hand it over to someone of my choosing? Their arrogance defies belief.

Ludikrus

?Cee?view wrote: »

One of the craziest headlines I've ever seen on a Galway Rag. Who do those residents think they are? What are they smoking? Can I demand some of their property or that they hand it over to someone of my choosing? Their arrogance defies belief.

You said it...Rag! Freddie Starr ate my hamster, say residents.

_Whimsical_

It sounds a bit mad alright but stranger things have probably happened on Irish County Councils than them voting to buy land off one of their cronies for a mad sum.
Like them granting planning permission for his venture completely inappropriately for example. Making such a bad decision infact that it be overturned at appeal on several points,points any sane, impartial person would not have overlooked in the first place.

The residents calling for it is a bit odd though.

Cheshire Cat

Another option for the land: http://galwayindependent.com/20140814/news/site-sought-for-new-graveyard-S42529.html

gordongekko

?Cee?view wrote: »

One of the craziest headlines I've ever seen on a Galway Rag. Who do those residents think they are? What are they smoking? Can I demand some of their property or that they hand it over to someone of my choosing? Their arrogance defies belief.

I'm not a resident of the area but I think it's a great idea not a crazy idea. There is no demand issued by anyone. The residents are suggesting the council buy the land and turn it into a decent civic area that the city is sadly lacking.

_Whimsical_

gordongekko wrote: »

I'm not a resident of the area but I think it's a great idea not a crazy idea. There is no demand issued by anyone. The residents are suggesting the council buy the land and turn it into a decent civic area that the city is sadly lacking.

Well realistically it would only serve the immediate local area as there would be no real space for parking, so it wouldn't really be a civic area for the city. There's a park directly opposite it too. Personally I don't like the idea, I think it would attract anti social behaviour at night. Parks very close to housing don't tend to be a terrific idea. I wouldn't be all that surprised though if the council bought it off O'Higgin for a more than decent sum though.

Mrs OBumble

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well realistically it would only serve the immediate local area as there would be no real space for parking, so it wouldn't really be a civic area for the city. There's a park directly opposite it too. Personally I don't like the idea, I think it would attract anti social behaviour at night. Parks very close to housing don't tend to be a terrific idea. I wouldn't be all that surprised though if the council bought it off O'Higgin for a more than decent sum though.

Looking at it on Maps, it's about 1/2 of the size of the park directly across the road - and the immediate neighbourhood is shown as having a lot of other green areas too.

I can't see it being big enough to be a civic amenity type park

It is a lot larger than the existing Rahoon Cemetery site. But I wonder what years of furniture manufacturing might have done in terms of soil contamination.

_Whimsical_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Looking at it on Maps, it's about 1/2 of the size of the park directly across the road - and the immediate neighbourhood is shown as having a lot of other green areas too.

I can't see it being big enough to be a civic amenity type park

It is a lot larger than the existing Rahoon Cemetery site. But I wonder what years of furniture manufacturing might have done in terms of soil contamination.

Yeah, it wouldn't a goer. I wonder what the Highfield Residents were thinking, there's at least 3 huge parks in that estate and I've never seen people using them really. Can't imagine what they'd want with yet another one.

Grave yard idea would be interesting but not the nicest setting either.
I bet it'll end up as offices or a call centre or something similar.

Fey!

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Yeah, it wouldn't a goer. I wonder what the Highfield Residents were thinking, there's at least 3 huge parks in that estate and I've never seen people using them really. Can't imagine what they'd want with yet another one.

I'm in Highfield, and the first I've seen or heard of it being suggested that it be turned into an amenity site was that article, and none of the neighbours I've spoken to have mentioned it either.

I was against the Tesco development, for reasons I've already made clear. However, I wouldn't expect for the land to handed over or purchased as local amenity. I'm sure Mr O'hUiginn will come up with some idea, especially as he now has a road built to access it (using council funds I'm sure; I've never been able to get an answer from the council as to why that lane was built or how it ended up on the plans for that road given that the road was being built before the planning for the site went in).

serfboard

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

It sounds a bit mad alright but stranger things have probably happened on Irish County Councils than them voting to buy land off one of their cronies for a mad sum.

Yeah - I heard of one City & County Council that bought a mothballed airport for a million euro, for example.

But that would never happen here ...

serfboard

Fey! wrote: »

I've never been able to get an answer from the council as to why that lane was built or how it ended up on the plans for that road given that the road was being built before the planning for the site went in.

Keep asking that question. And in trying to get an answer ask this one - Cui Bono? For whose benefit was it built?

Iwannahurl

Fey! wrote: »

... a road built to access it (using council funds I'm sure; I've never been able to get an answer from the council as to why that lane was built or how it ended up on the plans for that road given that the road was being built before the planning for the site went in).

Now that the scheme has been turned down by ABP, the relevant "deliberative processes" have been completed, presumably. In which case, you have the option of seeking answers under the Freedom of Information Act.

For example, what documentation exists with regard to that "ghost lane"? Somebody decided that it should go in, and perhaps there was correspondence between the various parties involved.

serfboard wrote: »

Keep asking that question. And in trying to get an answer ask this one - Cui Bono? For whose benefit was it built?

Absolutely. The decision makers involved must be held accountable.

_Whimsical_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Now that the scheme has been turned down by ABP, the relevant "deliberative processes" have been completed, presumably. In which case, you have the option of seeking answers under the Freedom of Information Act.

For example, what documentation exists with regard to that "ghost lane"? Somebody decided that it should go in, and perhaps there was correspondence between the various parties involved.




Absolutely. The decision makers involved must be held accountable.

It would be very interesting to know just who paid for the road. It was mentioned in one article on the subject as having been built especially for access to the Tesco supermarket. It was certainly intended for more traffic than a small development of offices or such would require.
This article also mentions it as being built to furnish Tesco. :http://connachttribune.ie/residents-want-tesco-reject-site-become-park/

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

Keep asking that question. And in trying to get an answer ask this one - Cui Bono? For whose benefit was it built?

Who benefits? The people of Galway whose future commutes would be slightly less interrupted by making a small adjustment to a road already being redeveloped (and now completed) by taking a proposed redevelopment into consideration.

It is a very small but practical piece of forward planning.

Mrs OBumble

Have to say, that's my thinking too: the marginal cost of building that lane when the rest of the work was being done would be tiny compared to the cost and disruption of creating it later on. We can pretty much guarantee that sooner or later the something will happen on the site, and the existing Rahoon Rd / SQ Road junction needs to close, it's just too close to the lights.

More interesting will be who will bear the cost of building the road thru the O'Higgins site if the development is of a smaller scale than originally planned.

And I see from today's Galway Indo that Michéal still doesn't think the plan is a lost cause: http://www.galwayindependent.com/20140820/news/hope-not-lost-for-westside-development-o-huiginn-S42727.html

antoobrien

Fey! wrote: »

I'm in Highfield, and the first I've seen or heard of it being suggested that it be turned into an amenity site was that article, and none of the neighbours I've spoken to have mentioned it either.

It was actually mentioned as an alternative here on this thread over 2 1/2 years ago, so it might just be the rags reading this thread and saying "residents" said it.

_Whimsical_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And I see from today's Galway Indo that Michéal still doesn't think the plan is a lost cause: http://www.galwayindependent.com/20140820/news/hope-not-lost-for-westside-development-o-huiginn-S42727.html

Hmmm well this is interesting. We were led to believe by reports in the papers here that objection to the development was upheld on several points including effect on traffic,bulk and impact on the local area. Mr O'hUiginn's reading is quite different.

However, Mr Ó hUiginn pointed out that, in An Bord Pleanála inspector’s report, there were no issues with regard to bulk, noise, design or traffic issues. He said that the report stated that the inspector considered the design of the development to be satisfactory, and that it would “enhance” the urban space on the Seamus Quirke Road and would give rise to a “visual improvement” of the area. He also said that the report noted the “acceptable impact on the neighbourhood.” He said the report did note some issues regarding the zoning of the development, and the impact on retail in the area.

Those points would suggest that residents objections were as good as ignored and leave plenty scope for a large development to still go ahead there.

what_traffic

Looks like selective quoting from Mr O'hUiginn's
Would really need to read the full report.
Here's the link to it:
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/242151.htm

antoobrien

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Hmmm well this is interesting. We were led to believe by reports in the papers here that objection to the development was upheld on several points including effect on traffic,bulk and impact on the local area. Mr O'hUiginn's reading is quite different.

The details of the inspectors report, appeals & decision are available on the ABP website here: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/242151.htm

In summary zoning, size & distance from the city centre, and visual impact were the three reasons that it was rejected by the board.

None of the reports mentioned traffic as a reason for rejection, that was a reason for appeal.

Gremlinertia

Council are looking for land for a new graveyard... :rolleyes:

_Whimsical_

antoobrien wrote: »

In summary zoning, size & distance from the city centre, and visual impact were the three reasons that it was rejected by the board.

None of the reports mentioned traffic as a reason for rejection, that was a reason for appeal.

Ok, I was mistaken. I must have read the piece about the residents feeling their concerns had been heeded as ABP having taken the key issues highlighted by them as reason for refusal. I'm sure the residents would not be happy that those objections were seen of neglicible value. If I lived on Rahoon Road I would be very annoyed that the impact would be seen as "acceptable" in terms of traffic and noise.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

However, Mr Ó hUiginn pointed out that, in An Bord Pleanála inspector’s report, there were no issues with regard to bulk, noise, design or traffic issues. He said that the report stated that the inspector considered the design of the development to be satisfactory, and that it would “enhance” the urban space on the Seamus Quirke Road and would give rise to a “visual improvement” of the area. He also said that the report noted the “acceptable impact on the neighbourhood.” He said the report did note some issues regarding the zoning of the development, and the impact on retail in the area.

He seems to have disregarded their ruling on bulk and visual impact

From the report :

The proposed development by reason of its excessive bulk, scale and mass would constitute a visually discordant feature in the urban landscape in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development would, therefore, seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

antoobrien

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

He seems to have disregarded their ruling on bulk and visual impact

He's referring to the inspectors report there rather than the board decision. The inspector doesn't mention bulk and visual impact, but states that he recommends rejection because the site wasn't zoned for this use and it's not in line with the retail planning guidelines issued in 2012 (the details are at the end of inspectors report 1)

The reason he (Ó hUiginn) is so optimistic is the comments that the inspector makes immediately before the recommendation (emphasis added):

Having considered the matters presented in written submissions and the oral hearing proceeding; the provisions of the development plan; other national guidance, the existing use established on the site and the nature of the development proposed many of the initial issues raised relating to overall design, traffic and other potential impacts were addressed in the course of the assessment of the application and in the course of the oral hearing and appeal submissions the most recent proposal and layout I consider represents the optimum proposal in the context of siting design and layout.

Notwithstanding the issues relating to design and layout specific to the site the primary issue is the appropriateness of the development in the context of the policy and strategic guidance from national to local level and the current proposal does not I consider meet the criteria of a plan or strategic led development in the context of a wider developed development and retail strategy and the information as submitted does not support and other consideration. The zoning of the site is noted but so also are other provisions of the plan relating to core strategy and retail strategy which do not support the zoning as indicated for the site.

The cynical part of me says that the visual impact and bulk is sugar coating for the appellants and not a major part of the reason that the development was rejected.

_Whimsical_

antoobrien wrote: »

He's referring to the inspectors report there rather than the board decision. The inspector doesn't mention bulk and visual impact, but states that he recommends rejection because the site wasn't zoned for this use and it's not in line with the retail planning guidelines issued in 2012 (the details are at the end of inspectors report 1)

The reason he (Ó hUiginn) is so optimistic is the comments that the inspector makes immediately before the recommendation (emphasis added):



The cynical part of me says that the visual impact and bulk is sugar coating for the appellants and not a major part of the reason that the development was rejected.

Thank you for pointing that out, the cynical part of me agrees on that final point after reading more.

what_traffic

The Inspector and the Board are two separate entitys within the ABP. Sometimes a ABP will copy and paste an Inspectors report in allowing/refusing applications; other times they can deviate for or against an Inspector's report.

serfboard

antoobrien wrote: »

The details of the inspectors report, appeals & decision are available on the ABP website here: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/242151.htm

From the inspectors report:

The zoning of the site is noted but so also are other provisions of the plan relating to core strategy and retail strategy which do not support the zoning as indicated for the site

and

the current zoning of the site is at variance with overall strategy

IMO, the real rot in "planning" in Ireland was not building per se, but was in the zoning, which was within the gift of politicians.

To me, the inspector is basically saying that this site should not have that zoning.

Iwannahurl

Deleted User wrote: »

Who benefits? The people of Galway whose future commutes would be slightly less interrupted by making a small adjustment to a road already being redeveloped (and now completed) by taking a proposed redevelopment into consideration.

It is a very small but practical piece of forward planning.

In a city (and county) not known for forward planning, scepticism is justified.

By way of historical example, there's a Times Past snippet in the latest Connacht Sentinel (page 17) warning of future problems due to "ribbon development" west of the city.

The original article, an editorial perhaps, insists that the Corporation and County Council should ensure that housing development on the west "would be on planned lines and would not take the haphazard form that some of it is now taking".

The year? 1957. And what did Galway Corporation give us? Knocknacarra and the Western Distributor Road.

Galway City Council also fought tooth and nail to make the SQR a dual carriageway featuring several roundabouts over its short length. They were reigned in by An Bord Pleanala. The same City Council, which has for twenty years claimed a bypass is needed to alleviate intolerable traffic through the city, declared in the ABP oral hearings that traffic on the SQR would not be a problem with the O hUigin proposal.

serfboard wrote: »

IMO, the real rot in "planning" in Ireland was not building per se, but was in the zoning, which was within the gift of politicians.

It was both. But you're right, the zoning was a huge problem. Given Ireland's "planning" system, once zoning was decided by Councillors, many of them bribed as we now know, "planners" could not refuse permission.

serfboard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

once zoning was decided by Councillors

And let's not forget that the owner of this site was a Fianna Fail Councillor for over thirty years.