€300M Investment into Waterford City

JohnC.

Do we know yet what the nature of the objection is?

Harry Palmr

Well hopefully they are named publicly, no way should someone hide behind some law when fecking up a City.

Deiseen

There was only one person from Passage who made a submission in the first round....
We have to wait until ABP publish the actual appeal to know 100% but it's easy to have a good idea at the moment.
Dunno if they realise how much ill will is going to be wished upon them when they're name is published.

JohnC.

Deiseen wrote: »

There was only one person from Passage who made a submission in the first round....

The last week doesn't appear to be on the ABP site yet, so it may not be that one. It has week ending 2 March.

Deiseen

JohnC. wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

There was only one person from Passage who made a submission in the first round....

The last week doesn't appear to be on the ABP site yet, so it may not be that one.

Someone posted a link earlier of the initial appeals that went in before it went to ABP stage. Only people who made submissions at this stage could make an appeal to ABP. There is only one from Passage. It HAS to be.

Wanderer78

thankfully we actually have some sort of democratic process for planning processes, spend some time in less democratic countries and you ll see the dangers of not having such systems. is it flawed, absolutely, but just be glad we have it. dont worry folks, this is just a blip in the process, it ll all be worked out soon

mooseknunkle

Deiseen wrote: »

Someone posted a link earlier of the initial appeals that went in before it went to ABP stage. Only people who made submissions at this stage could make an appeal to ABP. There is only one from Passage. It HAS to be.

One from Passage and three from Cheekpoint

http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/media/planning/waterford-sdz/Section%2010%20of%20Chief%20Executives%20Report.pdf

Harry Palmr

Thanks for the link, a few of the comments are perfectly sensible a few of the interested parties are curious - DAA for example.

No comment at this stage.
-
WCCC notes the content of the submission

Deiseen

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thankfully we actually have some sort of democratic process for planning processes, spend some time in less democratic countries and you ll see the dangers of not having such systems. is it flawed, absolutely, but just be glad we have it. dont worry folks, this is just a blip in the process, it ll all be worked out soon

I agree, its great that we have it and if the guy has made a genuine logical appeal, that needs to be raised, then more power to him.

If he's made an appeal for malicious reasons or because hes a vindictive bitter human being then thats nothing more than abuse of our democratic system.

spaceCreated

Right putting 2 and 2 together with the very obvious clues/pointers provided it sounds more like someone either wants to be brought on for the project or sour grapes. Its just so bloody weird, the delay alone is insane. If I tried something like this Id be worried about being ostracised and being spat on everytime I walk down the street!

Anyone familiar with the process? Would a "redraw" happen like the ferrybank shopping centre IF an bord planala rule in favour of the objection? ALthough ti seems to centre more around lack of details in certain parts (if that is indeed the person)

Wanderer78

Deiseen wrote: »

I agree, its great that we have it and if the guy has made a genuine logical appeal, that needs to be raised, then more power to him.

If he's made an appeal for malicious reasons or because hes a vindictive bitter human being then thats nothing more than abuse of our democratic system.

unfortunately there are nearly always negative effects of having such systems, but id imagine, any petty objections are quickly ignored in later reviews, even though this part of the planning process can and does slow the process to some degree, id imagine it to is included in the overall time frame of the project, im still glad this process is still included in our planning processes.

Road-Hog

spaceCreated wrote: »

Right putting 2 and 2 together with the very obvious clues/pointers provided it sounds more like someone either wants to be brought on for the project or sour grapes. Its just so bloody weird, the delay alone is insane. If I tried something like this Id be worried about being ostracised and being spat on everytime I walk down the street!

Anyone familiar with the process? Would a "redraw" happen like the ferrybank shopping centre IF an bord planala rule in favour of the objection? ALthough ti seems to centre more around lack of details in certain parts (if that is indeed the person)

My money would Be on the objector/objection coming from no. 17 on the list of earlier submissions the link to which was posted a couple of comments above. The opening lines of the original submission goes along the lines of ‘what a wasted opportunity’ and he then goes on to make 11/12 queries seeking clarification along with an overall tone of ‘I know best’....wrapped up in the pretense that he is Looking out for the greater good of the region....! Seems to be afraid that there could be too much growth as a result of the development

Maybe rhis person is correct.....and has knowledge of similar situations/developments in other parts of the globe?

Deiseen

Road-Hog wrote: »

spaceCreated wrote: »

Right putting 2 and 2 together with the very obvious clues/pointers provided it sounds more like someone either wants to be brought on for the project or sour grapes. Its just so bloody weird, the delay alone is insane. If I tried something like this Id be worried about being ostracised and being spat on everytime I walk down the street!

Anyone familiar with the process? Would a "redraw" happen like the ferrybank shopping centre IF an bord planala rule in favour of the objection? ALthough ti seems to centre more around lack of details in certain parts (if that is indeed the person)

My money would Be on the objector/objection coming from no. 17 on the list of earlier submissions the link to which was posted a couple of comments above. The opening lines of the original submission goes along the lines of ‘what a wasted opportunity’ and he then goes on to make 11/12 queries seeking clarification along with an overall tone of ‘I know best’....wrapped up in the pretense that he is Looking out for the greater good of the region....! Seems to be afraid that there could be too much growth as a result of the development

Maybe rhis person is correct.....and has knowledge of similar situations/developments in other parts of the globe?

That seems the obvious one until you hear that it came from passage, leaving one suspect.

Road-Hog

Deiseen wrote: »

That seems the obvious one until you hear that it came from passage, leaving one suspect.

No. 21......yes could well be this one but this guy has gotten third party expertise to pen his original submission.....rumour is that the objector is acting alone.....if it is this particular individual then it could be a fairly robust ‘objevtion’ But nothing that is insurmountable.......I’m sure the council had always expected numerous tricky submissions tp ABP and the fact that it’s only one is somewhat of a relief rather than having 10-12 to deal with....?

mooseknunkle

Id go with number 17 myself

sillysocks

I wonder whether an objector would have imagined that there would be numerous objections and might not have been so quick to submit if they knew they were the only objector.

Harry Palmr

Presumably Eddie Lynch (submission 21) owns a parcel of adjoining land and is worried about it's future use and what it'll be worth.

Aquos76

Deiseen wrote: »

That seems the obvious one until you hear that it came from passage, leaving one suspect.

If it is the person that most people are speculating it is, then that person isn't from Passage, the person in question is from Checkpoint.

Deiseen

Aquos76 wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

That seems the obvious one until you hear that it came from passage, leaving one suspect.

If it is the person that most people are speculating it is, then that person isn't from Passage, the person in question is from Checkpoint.

Eddie lynch?

fargojones123

So the person objecting apparently isn't even from Waterford City or Ferrybank and therefore isn't any of their business. It reminds me of the Michael Street development being held up by objections from someone in Cork if I remember correctly

reni10

It looks like it is number 17 according to John Cummins on WLR this morning:

---

A golden opportunity for Waterford going to waste the opportunity for Waterford is there to complement the city and create a wow factor for Waterford.

1. Is there not enough retail and commercial on the Ring Road and in other places and there are no shortage of sites should more be needed.

2. The Plan puts the North Wharf development in competition with the existing City Centre rather than enhancing and complementing the City.

3. The retail and commercial will replicate what is already in the city and this will impact on existing businesses in the City.

4. There is a question of retail and commercial outside and around this development- how big will it end up.

5. Will we have any more tourists than we have at the moment?

6. Buildings have priority on the site and it is intended to squeeze as much as possible onto the site.

7. Clearly no ships or boats here, no Tall ships- no cruise ships either.

8. The AA does not take into account the Port of Waterford’s work in the estuary

9. Too much emphasis on retail / commercial rather than the Estuary Area of Waterford Port.

10. The Plan is supposed to serve a future WCCC welcomes and notes the content of the submission.

---

JohnC.

fargojones123 wrote: »

So the person objecting apparently isn't even from Waterford City or Ferrybank and therefore isn't any of their business.

I don't know. On one hand, people say it's no business of someone a few miles away, just down the river. On the other hand, people say it's the business of much of the South East region and everyone should pull together. Can't really have it both ways.

Wanderer78

reni10 wrote: »

It looks like it is number 17 according to John Cummins on WLR this morning:

---

A golden opportunity for Waterford going to waste the opportunity for Waterford is there to complement the city and create a wow factor for Waterford.

1. Is there not enough retail and commercial on the Ring Road and in other places and there are no shortage of sites should more be needed.

2. The Plan puts the North Wharf development in competition with the existing City Centre rather than enhancing and complementing the City.

3. The retail and commercial will replicate what is already in the city and this will impact on existing businesses in the City.

4. There is a question of retail and commercial outside and around this development- how big will it end up.

5. Will we have any more tourists than we have at the moment?

6. Buildings have priority on the site and it is intended to squeeze as much as possible onto the site.

7. Clearly no ships or boats here, no Tall ships- no cruise ships either.

8. The AA does not take into account the Port of Waterford’s work in the estuary

9. Too much emphasis on retail / commercial rather than the Estuary Area of Waterford Port.

10. The Plan is supposed to serve a future WCCC welcomes and notes the content of the submission.

---

'naming and shaming' isnt a particularly productive way of solving social issues, politicians shouldnt be engaging in it, it may jeopardise the safety and well being of citizens.

as i ve said previously, the objection phase of any project such as this is important to all, it is a sign of democratic control, yes, its flawed, yes the process should always be reviewed and changed for improvements, but it is better to have it than not have it. this part of the process is included in the overall time frame of the project, i.e. its a part of the process. as the weeks and months roll on, its looking more likely this project will occur, people need to relax and be patient.

Deise Vu

Forgive my ignorance but why is it not known yet who lodged the appeal?

I very much doubt if some of the suspects above are true. A lot of wishy washy stuff about 'it could be better' won't cut it. I would be gobsmacked if it isn't someone who has skin in the game, ie an adjacent site which will have to be CPO'd and who paid a professional planner to make 'observations' that will cost money to overcome or, quelle surprise, a bigger offer for his property.

Aquos76

There are three objection confirmed now for this, two of the three names are known, the third is still unknown. The names that I have had confirmed from ABP are Pat Moran from Checkpoint and Eddie Lynch from Passage East.

reni10

Aquos76 wrote: »

There are three objection confirmed now for this, two of the three names are known, the third is still unknown. The names that I have had confirmed from ABP are Pat Moran from Checkpoint and Eddie Lynch from Passage East.

Hold on now, so we went from having no objections to then having 1 objection to now having 3 objections????

Aquos76

reni10 wrote: »

Hold on now, so we went from having no objections to then having 1 objection to now having 3 objections????

Yeah, it's totally messed up.

Deiseen

Aquos76 wrote: »

reni10 wrote: »

Hold on now, so we went from having no objections to then having 1 objection to now having 3 objections????

Yeah, it's totally messed up.

One valid
One invalid
One awaiting validity

Deiseen

Aquos76 wrote: »

There are three objection confirmed now for this, two of the three names are known, the third is still unknown. The names that I have had confirmed from ABP are Pat Moran from Checkpoint and Eddie Lynch from Passage East.

Which one is valid and which invalid do you know?

Aquos76

The two I named are valid objections, I’m told that the third is also a valid objection also, however I don’t have a name for this one.