Waterford city boundary extension

Dunmoreroader · 16-03-2016 1:26pm

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

The point the author is making, from the conclusions, is that it was built as a detriment to the North Quays project and the investment to it was lost.

The North Quays is arguably a better location for investment and development for the city and Ferrybank, however it has been left idle for as long as I came remember (~25 yrs). When the first application went in for FSC in 2002, there was no sign of any change, and even now, from what I understand, one of the larger buildings is being left at the end of the current cleaning process. The time it takes so that it is finally removed, as well as investment and the building of another bridge, it will be what...another 5 - 10 years? Maybe it can be so wisely used as car parking in the mean time, just like the South Quays waterfront.

Did they make FSC too big? Yes. But waiting possibly indefintely for another large future project that might never exist does also not serve the people of the area. If the North Quays had been cleared at a much earlier date, FSC would most likely never have existed.

In my opinon, you are the one misrepresenting the letter and drawing conclusions that the author did not make. Nowhere I can see does it include anything about what you just said about a plan to divert retailers or rates. You are presenting it as some sort of 'gotcha' argument, which I dont think it is.

Sorry but having read the whole submission rather than just the concluding paragraph, I don't believe I am misrepresenting her. Paraphrasing the 4th paragraph she maintains there are other arguments to support the boundary change but she's concentrating on the FSC planning fiasco because it shows up the myth that KCC has in the past and can in the future work with WCC in the best interests of planning and developing Waterford City including its northern hinterland.
It's most definitely a 'gotcha' argument IMO.

Flying Abruptly · 16-03-2016 2:50pm

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Sorry but having read the whole submission rather than just the concluding paragraph, I don't believe I am misrepresenting her. Paraphrasing the 4th paragraph she maintains there are other arguments to support the boundary change but she's concentrating on the FSC planning fiasco because it shows up the myth that KCC has in the past and can in the future work with WCC in the best interests of planning and developing Waterford City including its northern hinterland.
It's most definitely a 'gotcha' argument IMO.

I did read the whole submission, I even pointed out earlier how difficult it is to follow due to the way paragraphs are written.

The whole thing details the events surrounding the FSC planning and finishes with how it is detriment to the North Quays development. One example. Apparently then the letter can be used to extrapolate to know the past, present and future. Thats why I'm saying it cant be used as a single reference.

If WCC were seriously interested in developing the city centre, why has the North Quays lain idle for 25 years? The furthest it has ever gotten up until recently is with sketches and models. Why after the removal of the warehouses on the South Quays was the waterfront not developed into a business or commerical area instead of being reduced to car parking? In Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, car parks are located throughout the city centre in multi-storey buildings instead of wasting useful, large, well positioned areas in the city centre. If WCC are so interested in the people of Ferrybank, why has a second river crossing (for traffic or pedestrians) never been built to connect them directly to the city centre? Its far easier to blame someone else, and say that changing the border will be some silver bullet to fix all the problems. I'm sure that if the change is made, like with the examples I've just listed which are already under the control of WCC, nothing will change or improve, and people will continue to sit on there hands for another 25 years.

road_high · 16-03-2016 3:38pm

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

I did read the whole submission, I even pointed out earlier how difficult it is to follow due to the way paragraphs are written.

The whole thing details the events surrounding the FSC planning and finishes with how it is detriment to the North Quays development. One example. Apparently then the letter can be used to extrapolate to know the past, present and future. Thats why I'm saying it cant be used as a single reference.

If WCC were seriously interested in developing the city centre, why has the North Quays lain idle for 25 years? The furthest it has ever gotten up until recently is with sketches and models. Why after the removal of the warehouses on the South Quays was the waterfront not developed into a business or commerical area instead of being reduced to car parking? In Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, car parks are located throughout the city centre in multi-storey buildings instead of wasting useful, large, well positioned areas in the city centre. If WCC are so interested in the people of Ferrybank, why has a second river crossing (for traffic or pedestrians) never been built to connect them directly to the city centre? Its far easier to blame someone else, and say that changing the border will be some silver bullet to fix all the problems. I'm sure that if the change is made, like with the examples I've just listed which are already under the control of WCC, nothing will change or improve, and people will continue to sit on there hands for another 25 years.

Or indeed promote so much out of town retail (that actually opened and IS drawing business away) on the Cork road and in Ardkeen for example- there seems to be no issue around these and are actually trading. The real reason why Waterford city centre took a hammering is all due to the woeful planning all overseen by WCC. As you rightly point out, far easier blame others...

kikel · 16-03-2016 5:00pm

Lots of talk about abut who is to blame for the past in a divided city. Personally I agree with sentiments that Waterford is to blame for it's own problems.

To move forward through, what is the best solution for the city of Waterford? Can sharing responsibility for the area really work for the people living in the area? Do you believe it can work? Open question to all posters.

Dunmoreroader · 16-03-2016 5:06pm

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

I did read the whole submission, I even pointed out earlier how difficult it is to follow due to the way paragraphs are written.

The whole thing details the events surrounding the FSC planning and finishes with how it is detriment to the North Quays development. One example. Apparently then the letter can be used to extrapolate to know the past, present and future. Thats why I'm saying it cant be used as a single reference.

If WCC were seriously interested in developing the city centre, why has the North Quays lain idle for 25 years? The furthest it has ever gotten up until recently is with sketches and models. Why after the removal of the warehouses on the South Quays was the waterfront not developed into a business or commerical area instead of being reduced to car parking? In Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, car parks are located throughout the city centre in multi-storey buildings instead of wasting useful, large, well positioned areas in the city centre. If WCC are so interested in the people of Ferrybank, why has a second river crossing (for traffic or pedestrians) never been built to connect them directly to the city centre? Its far easier to blame someone else, and say that changing the border will be some silver bullet to fix all the problems. I'm sure that if the change is made, like with the examples I've just listed which are already under the control of WCC, nothing will change or improve, and people will continue to sit on there hands for another 25 years.

"If WCC were seriously interested in developing the city centre"??? Viking Triangle, Medieval Museum, House of Waterford Crystal- which the council bought and refurbished to accommodate what was left of Waterford Crystal keeping a presence in the city. Newgate shopping centre project has only been resurrected due to city council input and might have a chance now because FSC hasn't gone ahead, if they can get NAMA to take their heads out of their arses.
The North Quays has been a fiasco too I agree but is only now showing progress due to the city council buying it themselves and Paudie Coffey getting SDZ status for it. Prior to that a succession of vested interests ensured development couldn't proceed; Port of Waterford and CIE arguing over rights of way, developers who came and went or went bust, friggin fishermen from Kilmore Quay enforcing landing rights and last but not least KCC rubber-stamping a super-sized FSC.
The point I'm trying to make, and which I believe Ms Taheny was making, is the best authority to plan an area is the local(with a small l) authority which will always have its interests as its priority, not a "local" authority based in a competing city 50km away that will always prioritize the interests of that competing city. Its understandable and its self-evident. Look at how lopsided Waterford is due to lack of development to the north i.e the area within KCC.
As she also pointed out, Waterford City Council also blocked similar attempts at inappropriate retail developments within its own jurisdiction and reversed some of the harm caused by the Butlerstown Retail Park development by forcing TK Maxx into the city centre where they should have set up in the first place. This development was of course sanctioned before the two councils merged by Dungarvan-centric Waterford County Council, built just outside the city boundary, looking for a piece of the city's retail rates pie; sound familiar...FSC anyone...no....? :pac:

Dunmoreroader · 16-03-2016 5:08pm

kikel wrote: »

Lots of talk about abut who is to blame for the past in a divided city. Personally I agree with sentiments that Waterford is to blame for it's own problems.

To move forward through, what is the best solution for the city of Waterford? Can sharing responsibility for the area really work for the people living in the area? Do you believe it can work? Open question to all posters.

undivide it

Flying Abruptly · 16-03-2016 6:43pm

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

...Viking Triangle, Medieval Museum, House of Waterford Crystal...

Peanuts compared to real development that is going to attract day-to-day shoppers and business people from throughout the region. These examples generate a handful of tourists that will visit these sites once. The Newgate centre can possibly do this, but is another WCC slow burner, being on the go around 10 years. The latest news I can find on it is from 2014 on John Deasy's site.

kikel wrote: »

To move forward through, what is the best solution for the city of Waterford? Can sharing responsibility for the area really work for the people living in the area? Do you believe it can work? Open question to all posters.

I believe other then existing sites in the city centre, including the North and South Quays, there is no where else viable which can breathe life back into it. Expanding into Ferrybank doesnt make sense as the main areas directly across from the city centre are mainly residental (Rockshire Rd., Abbeylands). So unless all these houses are to be removed, where do you develop? Moving out past these, moves you significantly away from the city centre again and defeats the purpose. Maybe someone can write a proposal to remove the rock face? If the aim on the other hand is to stop all development in Ferrybank and to push it back into the centre, nothing improves for the people living there.

Greater focus needs to be put into co-operation rather than forcing a change that would must likely make the relationship worse. The ideal solution I think would have been a smaller FSC to serve Ferrybank, with a greater push being made to develop the Quays for everyone.

Digital Society · 18-03-2016 3:10am

This a very strange thread that i randomly came across. i live in Ferrybank and the comments about South Kilkenny being hardcore Kilkenny people is laughable. The schools are 80% foreign kids. So much they have to have translators in every class. The estates are about 50% foreign. None of these are waving Kilkenny flags around.

Reality is that this anti kk nonsense only exists on boards. Ive been in Ferrybank now for many years and ive never once heard someone even mention it.

Back to the whole Foreign point i was trying to make. Why is it that they tend to head to Ferrybank? Ill tell you why. The fact that the council just ****ing ignores the place has destroyed house prices. We are the bloody Leitrim of Kilkenny

Also its actually sad hearing someone who lives a 10 minute drive from another person talking down to them as if they are subhuman. Where all in the same boat here. All dealing with the same bull****. Moving the line will just make the delivery of said bull**** a bit more efficient and maybe we might get a public park out of it. Not much to ask for is it

kikel · 18-03-2016 9:38am

Digital Society wrote: »

Reality is that this anti kk nonsense only exists on boards. Ive been in Ferrybank now for many years and ive never once heard someone even mention it.

What about all the public meetings and the 19K submissions opposed to this boundry change?

Digital Society · 18-03-2016 11:36pm

kikel wrote: »

What about all the public meetings and the 19K submissions opposed to this boundry change?

Who are they now? Kilkenny or WD people?

fuzzy dunlop · 19-03-2016 7:51am

road_high wrote: »

Or indeed promote so much out of town retail (that actually opened and IS drawing business away) on the Cork road and in Ardkeen for example- there seems to be no issue around these and are actually trading. The real reason why Waterford city centre took a hammering is all due to the woeful planning all overseen by WCC. As you rightly point out, far easier blame others...

Ah where would we be without road_high to misrerpresent facts as usual. The Cork Road developments were given permission by Waterford County council who followed the same strategy as Kilkenny as using areas on the periphery of Waterford to generate development in order to milk rates. To hell with proper sustainable planning and all crap that goes on in countries not stuck in a artificial rural mindset.

If you had a clue you would know that Waterford has a comparison retail focus on the City Centre which is in line with state policy. The developments on the outskirts are predominatly supermarkets and white goods which is a more suitable place. Hence TK Maxx moving ro the city centre.

However it is telling that the stuff on the Cork Road and Ardkeen is actually OPEN which shows it is probably a feasable development unlike Ferrybank SC.

fuzzy dunlop · 19-03-2016 7:57am

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

Did they make FSC too big? Yes. But waiting possibly indefintely for another large future project that might never exist does also not serve the people of the area. If the North Quays had been cleared at a much earlier date, FSC would most likely never have existed.

Not true. Kilkenny Co. Co intentionall changed the LAP to allow the monstrosity to be opened contrary to agreed policy. Just because it was built first doesn not mean the proper thing to do is open it now. That is just heaping one mistake upon another. The thing to do is change the use to somethin appropriate for the area. Warehousing most likely woulf fit the niche.

fuzzy dunlop · 19-03-2016 8:06am

kikel wrote: »

What about all the public meetings and the 19K submissions opposed to this boundry change?

How many off them were prepared by KK co co? It is curious that they need to stoke up animosity to harvest signatures for objections they have already prepared.

kikel · 19-03-2016 8:50am

Digital Society wrote: »

Who are they now? Kilkenny or WD people?

19K from Kilkenny. It's hard to decipher who these people are. I've my doubts that nearly 20% of the population fo Kilkenny care about this to submit a submission. I saw a video on John McGuinnnesses FB page and their was lucky to be 40 people at that meeting.

Flying Abruptly · 20-03-2016 1:40pm

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Not true. Kilkenny Co. Co intentionall changed the LAP to allow the monstrosity to be opened contrary to agreed policy. Just because it was built first doesn not mean the proper thing to do is open it now. That is just heaping one mistake upon another. The thing to do is change the use to somethin appropriate for the area. Warehousing most likely woulf fit the niche.

Not the point I was trying to make. I agree that FSC should never have been built as big as it has been. A small-medium sized supermarket was all that was necessary for the area. If the North Quays had been developed earlier (from the time it first became unused), there would have been no temptation to build FSC in its current form. What to do with it now is a whole other problem.

fuzzy dunlop · 20-03-2016 2:46pm

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

Not the point I was trying to make. I agree that FSC should never have been built as big as it has been. A small-medium sized supermarket was all that was necessary for the area. If the North Quays had been developed earlier (from the time it first became unused), there would have been no temptation to build FSC in its current form. What to do with it now is a whole other problem.

Fair enough but I think the thing to do with it is to turn it over to a whole different use such as entertainment. Indoor go kating springs to mind. If you think about it in the time its been there half a dozen other supermarkets have opened in the Waterford area. One a stone throw away from FSC. The other thing is the North Quays was beset from legal challenges ranging from Wexford Fishermen to CIE so these had to be overcome. There has been no planning applications for development for the North Quays yet. The plan from 2002 which I think you are talking about was a draft concept.

There is also another problem which is specifically what happened here. When a major developmet plan is announced for an area this imediately creates "potential" which dodgy politicians, property owners, developers want to take advantage of. So when such a plan is announced it imediately creates an impetus for the greedy elements to make money off of it especially if there is unused or agricultural land nearby. The planning permission granted for FSC is a textbook example of this. I am not sure if NAMA has both FSC and the North Quays but if they do them maybe it will be managed more quickly. However I don't think NAMA is sufficiently independent to hope for that especially considereing the Siteserv fiasco.

Digital Society · 23-03-2016 3:28am

kikel wrote: »

19K from Kilkenny. It's hard to decipher who these people are. I've my doubts that nearly 20% of the population fo Kilkenny care about this to submit a submission. I saw a video on John McGuinnnesses FB page and their was lucky to be 40 people at that meeting.

I dont understand this one bit. So youre saying that 19k people have done what exactly? Voted? Signed something to indicate they want Ferrybank in Kilkenny?

That number seems a bit strange. Living here a long time and not a single person ever asked me to sign anything.

What did the 19k actually do when you say submit a submission? Fill in a form and post it somewhere?

kikel · 23-03-2016 8:43am

Digital Society wrote: »

I dont understand this one bit. So youre saying that 19k people have done what exactly? Voted? Signed something to indicate they want Ferrybank in Kilkenny?

That number seems a bit strange. Living here a long time and not a single person ever asked me to sign anything.

What did the 19k actually do when you say submit a submission? Fill in a form and post it somewhere?

I don't know. I questioned this in an earlier post. The numbers don't stack up.

Digital Society · 26-03-2016 2:56am

So no one can tell me how 19,000 actually objected? writing? verbally? hearsay? in the pub?

road_high · 26-03-2016 2:04pm

Digital Society wrote: »

So no one can tell me how 19,000 actually objected? writing? verbally? hearsay? in the pub?

You could make a submission to the Boundary commission in writing or online I think.

Flying Abruptly · 26-03-2016 9:59pm

Digital Society wrote: »

So no one can tell me how 19,000 actually objected? writing? verbally? hearsay? in the pub?

All of the submissions and how they were made can be found on the boundary commission website:
http://www.waterfordboundaryreview.ie/currentsubmissions.html

Digital Society · 26-03-2016 11:54pm

....

fuzzy dunlop · 30-03-2016 5:55pm

Digital Society wrote: »

So no one can tell me how 19,000 actually objected? writing? verbally? hearsay? in the pub?

It is done in writing or online. That is the procedure according to KK council website. However I am not sure where I heard it possibly here that there was a standard objection template handed out like fliers by KK Co. Co. to maximize the number of objections and to make it seem more like a grass roots effort.If this is the case then you could take the 19K figure with a huge pinch of salt. This would be easily observable as well if the nature of the objections were word for word the same.

kikel · 30-03-2016 8:10pm

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

It is done in writing or online. That is the procedure according to KK council website. However I am not sure where I heard it possibly here that there was a standard objection template handed out like fliers by KK Co. Co. to maximize the number of objections and to make it seem more like a grass roots effort.If this is the case then you could take the 19K figure with a huge pinch of salt. This would be easily observable as well if the nature of the objections were word for word the same.

Yes that is correct. Majority are all the same. All taken from a pre written template.

I would doubt people even posted them themselves. Flying Abruptlies link above is very good.

I read a large number of the submissions myself. While some were good. One from a guy I know who lives in the city was funny. "People down there don't want to live in Waterford"

Digital Society · 31-03-2016 2:28am

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

It is done in writing or online. That is the procedure according to KK council website. However I am not sure where I heard it possibly here that there was a standard objection template handed out like fliers by KK Co. Co. to maximize the number of objections and to make it seem more like a grass roots effort.If this is the case then you could take the 19K figure with a huge pinch of salt. This would be easily observable as well if the nature of the objections were word for word the same.

Reminds me of the time a group of hippy idiots knocked on my door with a form to sign saying i objected to the water meters. Pretty much made out that i either sign it or they will all hate me for ever. These where neighbours who wouldnt say hello to me on the street before this.

At the time i was renting and it wasnt my choice but would they listen? **** no. I was worse than a Stokes/Halligan/Delaney crossbreed to them from there on out.

Pretty sure anyone who signed this "template" would have been put in the same spot.

robwen · 31-03-2016 2:29pm

Digital Society wrote: »

Reminds me of the time a group of hippy idiots knocked on my door with a form to sign saying i objected to the water meters. Pretty much made out that i either sign it or they will all hate me for ever. These where neighbours who wouldnt say hello to me on the street before this.

At the time i was renting and it wasnt my choice but would they listen? **** no. I was worse than a Stokes/Halligan/Delaney crossbreed to them from there on out.

Pretty sure anyone who signed this "template" would have been put in the same spot.

Nothing like that really, the template was available in local newspapers were it could be cut out or it could be downloaded from certain websites & sure people were strongly encouraged to send in submissions but the onus was on the individual to send a submission. There was a pretty noticeable campaign targeted at all Kilkenny to send submissions not just the south against the boundary extension in local newspapers on KCLR & by local Councillors & TD`s

kikel · 31-03-2016 3:53pm

robwen wrote: »

Nothing like that really, the template was available in local newspapers were it could be cut out or it could be downloaded from certain websites & sure people were strongly encouraged to send in submissions but the onus was on the individual to send a submission. There was a pretty noticeable campaign targeted at all Kilkenny to send submissions not just the south against the boundary extension in local newspapers on KCLR & by local Councillors & TD`s

Still don't believe that 19K people got up off their backside and made a submission of their own accord. That's unbelievable conversion rate at 20% of the population of county Kilkenny. If that is the case I encourage Kilkenny County Council to give up managing the county and move into marketing.

The easiest way to make a submission was online. Online, only 205 people made submissions.

there were 18K these mulitiple submissions.

43 Letters

366 newspaper cuttings.

blue note · 31-03-2016 4:33pm

kikel wrote: »

Still don't believe that 19K people got up off their backside and made a submission of their own accord. That's unbelievable conversion rate at 20% of the population of county Kilkenny. If that is the case I encourage Kilkenny County Council to give up managing the county and move into marketing.

The easiest way to make a submission was online. Online, only 205 people made submissions.

there were 18K these mulitiple submissions.

43 Letters

366 newspaper cuttings.

From the last census, there are a little under 34k households in Kilkenny. So a little more than 1 in every two households submitted an objection. To be honest, the number of submissions makes it a little too ridiculous to mean anything.

robwen · 31-03-2016 5:36pm

Were there submissìons in favour aside from Waterford CCC or are the 19,000 all against?

kikel · 31-03-2016 7:23pm

blue note wrote: »

From the last census, there are a little under 34k households in Kilkenny. So a little more than 1 in every two households submitted an objection. To be honest, the number of submissions makes it a little too ridiculous to mean anything.

The population of the county is 95K from the same census.

Waterford city boundary extension

Comments