Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

€300M Investment into Waterford City

Options
1…2526283031…135

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    Max Powers
    Registered Users Posts: 3,510 ✭✭✭Max Powers


    TommyHilfiger wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong was it the chamber of commerce in Kilkenny that put in the submission not the Council.

    Both chamber and county council I think but I suppose we can forget about that now, in better news Leo vardakar is in town today meeting council and representatives of al hokair about the project.all positive in terms of driving project on.


  • Options
    #813
    Irishlad2014
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭Irishlad2014


    From News and Star: [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]BREAKING: A valid objection HAS been received by An Bord Pleanala to the North Quays development[/font]


  • Options
    #814
    dzilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭dzilla


    Max Powers wrote: »
    in better news Leo vardakar is in town today meeting council and representatives of al hokair about the project.all positive in terms of driving project on.

    I hope he dosen't have a heart attack or anything after 5pm.


  • Options
    #815
    jimbo1979
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭jimbo1979


    A valid objection gone in,could be looking at another 12 weeks.unreal,the one good thing to happen in the city in years and some shower of fools objecting to it.how can it be valid if the time period is over in anyone objecting


  • Options
    #816
    Deiseen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Deiseen


    I wonder did this come from outside the county.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    BBM77
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭BBM77


    Is this for real I wonder. An Bord Pleanala said there were no objections, who said there is?


  • Options
    #818
    Waterboy2014
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Waterboy2014


    Apparently is it real. Someone from Cheekpoint apparently. I read through the submissions and only 3 from Cheekpoint. One in particular was quite negative. Very disappointing and made even more so by the fact we thought it had initially passed without objection... on the other hand, probably detailed designs wouldn't have been ready for several months anyway. Hopefully Al Hokair have confidence that ABP Will reject objection and proceed with detailed planning nonetheless.


  • Options
    #819
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    Waterboy2014 wrote: »
    Apparently is it real. Someone from Cheekpoint apparently. I read through the submissions and only 3 from Cheekpoint. One in particular was quite negative. Very disappointing and made even more so by the fact we thought it had initially passed without objection... on the other hand, probably detailed designs wouldn't have been ready for several months anyway. Hopefully Al Hokair have confidence that ABP Will reject objection and proceed with detailed planning nonetheless.
    Fair play to that person part of the city being sold on for peanuts to arab vultures, why wouldnt they object, and 90 million from our own purse being mad available for their "infrastructure" they must be laughing all over their halal soup at us gullible infidels..


  • Options
    #820
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,709 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Could take up to 18 weeks. Hopefully they will rule sooner.


  • Options
    #821
    Deiseen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Deiseen


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    Waterboy2014 wrote: »
    Apparently is it real. Someone from Cheekpoint apparently. I read through the submissions and only 3 from Cheekpoint. One in particular was quite negative. Very disappointing and made even more so by the fact we thought it had initially passed without objection... on the other hand, probably detailed designs wouldn't have been ready for several months anyway. Hopefully Al Hokair have confidence that ABP Will reject objection and proceed with detailed planning nonetheless.
    Fair play to that person part of the city being sold on for peanuts to arab vultures, why wouldnt they object, and 90 million from our own purse being mad available for their "infrastructure" they must be laughing all over their halal soup at us gullible infidels..

    Is this a joke?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Ignore Hoffmans input and stand well clear of his output when it comes. That beer has been defunct for 20 years but I can still smell it!


  • Options
    #823
    Iveee
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭Iveee


    Waterboy2014 wrote: »
    Apparently is it real. Someone from Cheekpoint apparently. I read through the submissions and only 3 from Cheekpoint. One in particular was quite negative. Very disappointing and made even more so by the fact we thought it had initially passed without objection... on the other hand, probably detailed designs wouldn't have been ready for several months anyway. Hopefully Al Hokair have confidence that ABP Will reject objection and proceed with detailed planning nonetheless.

    can you post or pm me the link ?
    thanks


  • Options
    #824
    bookworms
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭bookworms


    I would be very interested to read it too. I can't seem to find the details on the website


  • Options
    #825
    Gardner
    Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Gardner


    mickmackmcgoo wrote: »
    I see Rob suggesting on Twitter that there were no objections to An Bord Pleanala which is surprising and great news

    Seems to be sprouting more steam again young Rob based upon today’s events


  • Options
    #826
    Gardner
    Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Gardner


    jimbo1979 wrote: »
    A valid objection gone in,could be looking at another 12 weeks.unreal,the one good thing to happen in the city in years and some shower of fools objecting to it.how can it be valid if the time period is over in anyone objecting

    Shower of fools? Like everyone we don’t know what the objection is. It could be valid or it could be complete thrash. Hold tight before you engage your fingers on the keyboard


  • Options
    #827
    Waterboy2014
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Waterboy2014


    Iveee wrote: »
    can you post or pm me the link ?
    thanks

    http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/waterfordnorthquayssdz/index.htm

    It's Section 10 report. It has all the submissions... appeal has to be from one of these people.


  • Options
    #828
    deise08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭deise08


    According to news and star, it came from someone living out passage way. .


  • Options
    #829
    Chiparus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    Waterboy2014 wrote: »
    Apparently is it real. Someone from Cheekpoint apparently. I read through the submissions and only 3 from Cheekpoint. One in particular was quite negative. Very disappointing and made even more so by the fact we thought it had initially passed without objection... on the other hand, probably detailed designs wouldn't have been ready for several months anyway. Hopefully Al Hokair have confidence that ABP Will reject objection and proceed with detailed planning nonetheless.

    Bunch of odd people out there , apparently there was much local objection to a scout hall on derelict ground as it would cause a nuisance.


  • Options
    #830
    Aquos76
    Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 9,036 Mod ✭✭✭✭Aquos76


    Gardner wrote: »
    Seems to be sprouting more steam again young Rob based upon today’s events

    Thats a bit unfair, Rob wasn't the only one who was saying that there had been no objections, the mayor gave this information to all the councillors also. He had been furnished the information from ABP himself, the cock up was on their part and not someone from within the council or Rob for that matter.


  • Options
    #831
    jelutong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,160 ✭✭✭jelutong


    Chiparus wrote: »
    Bunch of odd people out there , apparently there was much local objection to a scout hall on derelict ground as it would cause a nuisance.
    Are you referring to the Abbey Church in Ferrybank by any chance? That's not on derelict ground.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Aquos76
    Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 9,036 Mod ✭✭✭✭Aquos76


    jelutong wrote: »
    Are you referring to the Abbey Church in Ferrybank by any chance? That's not on derelict ground.

    I assume he is talking about Passage.


  • Options
    #833
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 14,011 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    jelutong wrote: »
    Are you referring to the Abbey Church in Ferrybank by any chance? That's not on derelict ground.

    He quoted a post about Cheekpoint residents, and even highlighted Cheekpoint ...... which is not in Ferrybank to my knowledge :D


  • Options
    #834
    JohnC.
    Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭JohnC.


    Aquos76 wrote: »
    Thats a bit unfair, Rob wasn't the only one who was saying that there had been no objections, the mayor gave this information to all the councillors also. He had been furnished the information from ABP himself, the cock up was on their part and not someone from within the council or Rob for that matter.

    Wasn’t the issue that the “no objections” information came 15 or 20 minutes before the deadline, but this objection came about 10 minutes before the deadline. The information was correct at the time it was put out.


  • Options
    #835
    Christy Browne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Christy Browne


    The council really should have kept their mouths shut before it was 100% set in stone, makes us look completely amateur to see the mayor announcing that planning permission has been granted only to eat his words a few hours later


  • Options
    #836
    thomasm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,503 ✭✭✭thomasm


    Christy Browne wrote: »
    The council really should have kept their mouths shut before it was 100% set in stone, makes us look completely amateur to see the mayor announcing that planning permission has been granted only to eat his words a few hours later

    That got confirmation from ABP, what more could they have waited for. ABP have now apologied for their error


  • Options
    #837
    Waterboy2014
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Waterboy2014


    Christy Browne wrote: »
    The council really should have kept their mouths shut before it was 100% set in stone, makes us look completely amateur to see the mayor announcing that planning permission has been granted only to eat his words a few hours later

    You have got to love people making all these uninformed accusations without actually knowing the facts. If you read Council press release, they were informed the day (4.30pm on Thurs) following the deadline (deadline being 5.30pm on Wednesday) that no valid objections has been received. However on Friday, ABP contacted them and said that an objection had been received prior to Wed and had got mislaid die to internal post issue. The council had nothing to do with false announcement and I believe they have pushed this project through in a very dedicated way. Credit where credit is due. Always some people that will criticise even when there is no basis to it! Check the facts!!!


  • Options
    #838
    Christy Browne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Christy Browne


    Waterboy2014 wrote: »
    You have got to love people making all these uninformed accusations without actually knowing the facts. If you read Council press release, they were informed the day (4.30pm on Thurs) following the deadline (deadline being 5.30pm on Wednesday) that no valid objections has been received. However on Friday, ABP contacted them and said that an objection had been received prior to Wed and had got mislaid die to internal post issue. The council had nothing to do with false announcement and I believe they have pushed this project through in a very dedicated way. Credit where credit is due. Always some people that will criticise even when there is no basis to it! Check the facts!!!

    I understand that completely but what was the rush to make the announcement? Why not wait until the end of the week at least.

    Just think these things should be taken at a wide berth, especially with so much on the line.


  • Options
    #839
    BBM77
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭BBM77


    Someone from the council or the developer could meet with the objector to discuss their issue and maybe they can allay their fears whatever they may be so they could withdraw the appeal.

    It is ridiculous though that someone can put a development like this at risk in such a way.


  • Options
    #840
    spaceCreated
    Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭spaceCreated


    deise08 wrote: »
    According to news and star, it came from someone living out passage way. .

    So someone living in Waterford wants to reject the biggest thing to happen to the City in ... it beggars belief, I wonder will they have 24/7 gardai presence safeguarding this person?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    freewheeler
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭freewheeler


    Ridiculous system as far as i'm concerned where ONE person can halt a development as important as this one!! So in other words anyone, whether they have a legitimate concern or are just some local nutter with an axe to grind can put a spanner in the works and delay or even scupper a development opportunity...to me this beggars belief :mad:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement