€300M Investment into Waterford City

Aquos76

The Waterford News and Star are now reporting that the third isn’t valid as yet

“There have been three objections in total to the North Quays Development. See tomorrow's edition for more on this.

UPDATE: The third objection will need to receive further investigation as to its validity. So the figure remains at two.”

cactus jacks

Something about a third objection on WLR's website too. How anyone could object to a development that will change the fortunes of this city is pretty disgraceful. Hopefully these objections won't cause to much disruption.

Jamie2k9

http://www.wlrfm.com/2018/03/12/45624/

Statement from ABP, 1 invalid, 1 valid, 1 under consideration. So just 1 complaint currently.

Aquos76

As I said previously, ABP confirmed 2 names to me at 14:30 as confirmed submissions, this afternoon, those were the two names I gave earlier, regarding the third one, they would not give me any information at all about that one.

Johnboy1951

cactus jacks wrote: »

Something about a third objection on WLR's website too. How anyone could object to a development that will change the fortunes of this city is pretty disgraceful. Hopefully these objections won't cause to much disruption.

You apparently have no concept of the whole procedure.

It is within our rights to raise objections, and appeals.

You wish to take that right from people?

What other rights would you like to abolish? Maybe voting rights for the minorities?
Heck while you are at it why not abolish all voting rights for the male gender!

That would be different!.

Jeeze! :eek: :rolleyes:

Road-Hog

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You apparently have no concept of the whole procedure.

It is within our rights to raise objections, and appeals.

You wish to take that right from people?

What other rights would you like to abolish? Maybe voting rights for the minorities?
Heck while you are at it why not abolish all voting rights for the male gender!

That would be different!.


Jeeze! :eek: :rolleyes:

There is no problem making submissions/objections and I know what I’m going to say is impossible to make a call on but how many objections-submissions are made ‘ bona fide’? In a lot of cases objections are vexatious in nature and some down to personal grips that an individual/organization has against a state body ( as would be the case here) or another individual in other cases....they will be written/wrapped up in language that makes them appear that they are for the ‘greater good’ but deep down it’s a potential for greater monetary gain through compensation or a selfish grudge that is the motivating factor.....

Johnboy1951

Road-Hog wrote: »

There is no problem making submissions/objections and I know what I’m going to say is impossible to make a call on but how many objections-submissions are made ‘ bona fide’? In a lot of cases objections are vexatious in nature and some down to personal grips that an individual/organization has against a state body ( as would be the case here) or another individual in other cases....they will be written/wrapped up in language that makes them appear that they are for the ‘greater good’ but deep down it’s a potential for greater monetary gain through compensation or a selfish grudge that is the motivating factor.....

If there are no solid grounds for the objection/appeal then it will be quickly dismissed ...... even if put forward for vexatious reasons.

If there are solid grounds for the objection/appeal, then it should be considered on its merits and not dismissed because of the attitude of the appellant/objector.

Let's not discard everyone's rights just because a few take advantage of the facility.

Deiseen

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Road-Hog wrote: »

There is no problem making submissions/objections and I know what I’m going to say is impossible to make a call on but how many objections-submissions are made ‘ bona fide’? In a lot of cases objections are vexatious in nature and some down to personal grips that an individual/organization has against a state body ( as would be the case here) or another individual in other cases....they will be written/wrapped up in language that makes them appear that they are for the ‘greater good’ but deep down it’s a potential for greater monetary gain through compensation or a selfish grudge that is the motivating factor.....

If there are no solid grounds for the objection/appeal then it will be quickly dismissed ...... even if put forward for vexatious reasons.

If there are solid grounds for the objection/appeal, then it should be considered on its merits and not dismissed because of the attitude of the appellant/objector.

Let's not discard everyone's rights just because a few take advantage of the facility.

Read the objections. One of them is bull poop.

Wanderer78

Deiseen wrote: »

Read the objections. One of them is bull poop.

unfortunately some of them can be, and id have to agree with johnboy, these are quickly forgotten about in the later stages of the process, they effectively dont cause any real problems for progression of the process.

cactus jacks

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You apparently have no concept of the whole procedure.

It is within our rights to raise objections, and appeals.

You wish to take that right from people?

What other rights would you like to abolish? Maybe voting rights for the minorities?
Heck while you are at it why not abolish all voting rights for the male gender!

That would be different!.

Jeeze! :eek: :rolleyes:

I've read the submissions from the two individuals mentioned in previous posts and they're baseless, but you're correct they're well within their rights to make these objections. Waterford has suffered very badly over the last ten years and has to fight tooth and nail for parity with other cities on education, healthcare, jobs etc and this development could go a long way towards addressing these issues by enabling population growth etc. I was just a bit disappointed to read that another objection has been lodged, so yes I shouldn't have made the statement I did, but there's really no need for the over the top response.

On a different note I've read that it will take at least 18 weeks for ABP to make a decision regarding the objections and that there's a possibility they could change the scheme and as a result it may become commercially unviable. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

mooseknunkle

The news and star are going to get some mileage out of this

Johnboy1951

I don't know enough about the use of the port and what limitations the development might place on it, or indeed what plans are in place to alleviate the effect on the use of the port, to make comment.
It certainly sounds, on the surface, that there is something to consider in that appeal.

On the matter of a CPO ...... lands have been bought under CPO throughout the country, sometimes dividing farms in two permanently. Everyone was compensated .... fairly from what I have read and heard.

It appears this appeal is just 'not my land/business'.
I would not have a great deal of sympathy for this. Certainly not enough to put the whole development into jeopardy.

BBM77

I really think this will be sorted out and the appeal withdrawn.

sillysocks

Mentioning things like Tall Ships and cruise liners surely is clutching at straws.

Yes the Tall Ships was amazing, and it’s great to see cruise liners dock and tourists come ashore but if it was a choice between those and hundreds of jobs, better shopping, better office space and in general a much improved city I know which I would choose.

Tall Ships would be once every 5/10’years maybe, for a few days, and I’ve heard from plenty of businesses who claim cruise ships don’t always bring big revenues because the tourists pre book tours on board, and often have meal plans etc on board so don’t want to be spending more on meals onshore.

Anyway I’m rambling but as reasons for objections to such a huge project they seem daft.

Harry Palmr

The Tall Ships can still use the Quays if the bridge is opening (as they say it will be) and as far as I recall the event was overwhelmingly based on the South quays last time, so the new exciting NQ development would mean more of the associated activities would be shared across the river.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

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.

Looks like I was on the right track - the fella is getting CPO'd

TheQuietFella

Maybe a fishing boat could be hired, put these two guys on with their feet
set in concrete, brought out to sea and eased overboard! That's what we
used to do to......oops! That's another story!!!:rolleyes:

Johnboy1951

sillysocks wrote: »

Mentioning things like Tall Ships and cruise liners surely is clutching at straws.

Yes the Tall Ships was amazing, and it’s great to see cruise liners dock and tourists come ashore but if it was a choice between those and hundreds of jobs, better shopping, better office space and in general a much improved city I know which I would choose.

Tall Ships would be once every 5/10’years maybe, for a few days, and I’ve heard from plenty of businesses who claim cruise ships don’t always bring big revenues because the tourists pre book tours on board, and often have meal plans etc on board so don’t want to be spending more on meals onshore.

Anyway I’m rambling but as reasons for objections to such a huge project they seem daft.

I would hope that due consideration has already been given to such subjects.

If the existing bridge opening could not accommodate the tall ships passing through (I have no idea if it could or not) then ships of that size could not pass above the new 'local transport' bridge.

But I expect that has already been considered and answers would be available.

It could mean that the space, on both quays, between the two bridges could be developed for smaller craft ......

No answer is going to be acceptable to all ....

Max Powers

My view is no objection insurmountable,I do think the fella in the n&s going on about the tall ships seems a bit strange, his complaint that is, south quays still there, surely arrangements can be made without objections for ships. The top garage fella in ferrybank is plain and simple looking for more money, he's entitled to decent compensation,I always thought CPO would give you price and a half which seems fair to me, maybe a new petrol station located for him in the area.either way, I'm really disappointed and I hope these two aren't responsible for losing us this massive opportunity.obviously no one wants to see a witch hunt and they are entitled to their objections, I'm not sure they are responsibly thinking of the opportunity or bigger picture here. I hope the council talks to them and they withdraw their complaint, if it results in disaster for Waterford, it will certainly be a disaster for all businesses in the city, not just ferrybank

iseegirls

How much was it for them to put in an objection?

Max Powers

iseegirls wrote: »

How much was it for them to put in an objection?

Not much I'd guess, available on bord pleala website I'd guess.
Third valid ones now according to wlr.
I don't know if council can or should do deals or try satisfy individuals to be honest.

Johnboy1951

I really do not know what all the 'panic' and hyperbole is over a few objections/appeals.
It is the norm.
They will be worked through as normal.

sillysocks

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I really do not know what all the 'panic' and hyperbole is over a few objections/appeals.
It is the norm.
They will be worked through as normal.

I think if there hadn’t been the hype about the development having no objections then these would have totally been expected and people wouldn’t have given them half as much thought.
Just a mess from ABP and showing up their ‘wonderful’ organization skills.

Max Powers

True silly socks and John

spaceCreated

Feel like we should all head down to the sea and harvest the oysters seeing as one of them is an oyster farmer... oh wait that might threaten his livelihood, hate to do that to someone. Imagine threatening to do that to an entire region, takes some neck, they could line him up at the guillotine and itd probably take more than one go

Wanderer78

spaceCreated wrote:

Feel like we should all head down to the sea and harvest the oysters seeing as one of them is an oyster farmer... oh wait that might threaten his livelihood, hate to do that to someone. Imagine threatening to do that to an entire region, takes some neck, they could line him up at the guillotine and itd probably take more than one go

Democracy always was a bad idea anyway!

Harry Palmr

Is democracy the tyranny of the few?

Wanderer78

Harry Palmr wrote:

Is democracy the tyranny of the few?

Interesting debate, but probably not for this thread, I'd argue, we don't actually have true democracy, and that's probably not possible to have due to the complex nature of human behaviour, but what we actually have is a somewhat dysfunctional form of plutocracy operating under the guise of democracy, resulting in 'the tyranny of the few'.

fricatus

Lads, I have to say I'm not really comfortable with all this talk of concrete shoes and guillotines. These people have a right to object under the law as it stands, and I think we all need to take a step back. We might be joking around here, but it's easy enough to stray into threatening territory, or else egg on some lunatic who's reading what we're posting here.

Hopefully the objections will be noted and dismissed, and we can all move on...

Max Powers

fricatus wrote: »

Lads, I have to say I'm not really comfortable with all this talk of concrete shoes and guillotines. These people have a right to object under the law as it stands, and I think we all need to take a step back. We might be joking around here, but it's easy enough to stray into threatening territory, or else egg on some lunatic who's reading what we're posting here.

Hopefully the objections will be noted and dismissed, and we can all move on...

True,I think understandably people are annoyed especially after BPs wrong info, plus,when you look at their submissions to council (every thing including the kitchen sink) and then trying to say,I just really care about this one thing.people can question if that was so important to you, good luck, but what about all the rest of what could generously be described as spurious complaints.I think the petrol station fella deserves reasonable compensation for loss of his asset.odd that the two of them are practically from same area.

BBM77

Max Powers wrote: »

True,I think understandably people are annoyed especially after BPs wrong info, plus,when you look at their submissions to council (every thing including the kitchen sink) and then trying to say,I just really care about this one thing.people can question if that was so important to you, good luck, but what about all the rest of what could generously be described as spurious complaints.I think the petrol station fella deserves reasonable compensation for loss of his asset.odd that the two of them are practically from same area.

You are correct it is understandable people are annoyed. The petrol station fella is getting the market value of the site plus some. If people were not getting a fair price for CPO’d property, then the whole CPO system nationally would fall apart. I think it is fair to say that he is chancing his arm to get more money. Also, the fella objecting because of cruise liners is talking nonsense. I don’t know what his motivation for objecting is. Frankly I think they are both looking to be paid off to solve the problem.