New Hotel Refused Planning

kneemos · 01-05-2019 5:46pm #1

New Hotel at Wexford Bridge has been refused planning permission.
Bit of a monstrosity of a thing in fairness. What was all that thing in front about?

https://www.southeastradio.ie/2019/04/planning-refused-for-wexford-hotel/

Eggs For Dinner · 01-05-2019 6:46pm

It wasn't in keeping with the area, because it looked well, was modern and is needed in the town. The quay could be a wonderful resource but it looks shoddy and used by the wrong businesses. I don't know how anybody could think the current view coming over the bridge of the grotty rear vista of the Main St buildings and the faded Chan's sign is better than the proposed hotel

kneemos · 01-05-2019 7:35pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It wasn't in keeping with the area, because it looked well, was modern and is needed in the town. The quay could be a wonderful resource but it looks shoddy and used by the wrong businesses. I don't know how anybody could think the current view coming over the bridge of the grotty rear vista of the Main St buildings and the faded Chan's sign is better than the proposed hotel

Probably redo the facade if it's just the design that's the problem.

Corvo · 02-05-2019 9:42am

However, An Bord Pleanala has ruled that the design would be highly obtrusive and visually incongruous and would detract from the natural heritage of the area

They are right, lets just leave it as is. Gombeens.

vicwatson · 02-05-2019 1:56pm

How did they propose to manage the traffic there?

How did they propose to deal with the flooding issues there?

kneemos · 02-05-2019 2:04pm

vicwatson wrote: »

How did they propose to manage the traffic there?

How did they propose to deal with the flooding issues there?

There was an underground carpark. Don't know how it would work if it's prone to flooding though.

Eggs For Dinner · 02-05-2019 4:47pm

vicwatson wrote: »

How did they propose to manage the traffic there?

How did they propose to deal with the flooding issues there?

They are valid concerns, but given they were not the reasons planning was refused, I'm sure they were addressed to the satisfaction of An Bord Pleanala

wexfordman2040 · 02-05-2019 5:06pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

They are valid concerns, but given they were not the reasons planning was refused, I'm sure they were addressed to the satisfaction of An Bord Pleanala

This is correct. Any of the issues that were brought on appeal were not the actual issues that the decision was refused on as far as I can remember. I read the report from An Bord Planeala and it seemed like any of the reasons used for appeal were rejected i.e. height of the building, loss of direct sunlight, flood risk etc. All these issues were deemed satisfactory by the Bord and had sufficient thought and planned action during the construction of the hotel.

It seems that they decided the horizontal scale of the building was the sticking point and the sheer mass of it, in comparison to other buildings in the area and were afraid of setting a precedent for more of the same.

In fairness, even though I would of loved to of seen it built, the actual look of the building itself was just the bog standard square boxes on top of each other with two awful sails/ bishops hats on the front of it. Still, this would of been much better than what was currently there!

The Nevilles have said it will take them a few weeks to brush themselves off and then they'll start looking at what they can do to get this back through planning with success. Lets hope that happens, because Wexford cannot let proposed investment like this go to the wayside because of people stuck in the past and wanting the place to remain stagnant.

Eggs For Dinner · 03-05-2019 1:18pm

Couldn't have said it better myself

kneemos · 03-05-2019 6:01pm

Should be room for modernisation. You can't forever plan to fit in what's already there,or you'll never get progress.

The design of that thing though is more Abu Dhabi than Wexford.

Rows Grower · 03-05-2019 6:12pm

Jaysus that looks terrible, really out of place design.

Eggs For Dinner · 03-05-2019 9:58pm

Rows Grower wrote: »

Jaysus that looks terrible, really out of place design.

But it's out of place with the shlte that is beside it. The buildings on the quay are an eyesore

Rows Grower · 03-05-2019 11:02pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Rows Grower wrote: »

Jaysus that looks terrible, really out of place design.

But it's out of place with the shlte that is beside it. The buildings on the quay are an eyesore

No the 1970’s block of flats look that they are trying to disguise with the giant Metallica symbols is what looks out of place.
It’s like a creation from a crèche toy box.

Eggs For Dinner · 04-05-2019 7:39am

Sure leave the whole quay front as it is so

wexfordman2040 · 07-05-2019 4:08pm

What are they going to do to amend the building? Who knows... They could resubmit the same plans as is to ABP and get a different engineer who will probably pass the thing, that's how ridiculous this process can be at times. :rolleyes:

Interesting times ahead but I hope something gets the green light in there. Apparently 200 permanent jobs on the line for this hotel.

vicwatson · 08-05-2019 1:52pm

wexfordman2040 wrote: »

What are they going to do to amend the building? Who knows... They could resubmit the same plans as is to ABP and get a different engineer who will probably pass the thing, that's how ridiculous this process can be at times. :rolleyes:

Interesting times ahead but I hope something gets the green light in there. Apparently 200 permanent jobs on the line for this hotel.

No, afaik, Judicial review in the High Court is the only next route.

wexfordman2040 · 08-05-2019 2:14pm

vicwatson wrote: »

No, afaik, Judicial review in the High Court is the only next route.

Ouch! I presume it will be a whole new application then with some minor changes.

Rows Grower · 08-05-2019 8:28pm

wexfordman2040 wrote: »

Ouch! I presume it will be a whole new application then with some minor changes.

What kind of a clown would apply again for planning with only minor changes for that monstrosity?

And how in the hell was it justified charging hundreds of thousands of euro on planning and designing something that did not get planning permission?

wexfordman2040 · 14-05-2019 11:01am

Rows Grower wrote: »

What kind of a clown would apply again for planning with only minor changes for that monstrosity?

And how in the hell was it justified charging hundreds of thousands of euro on planning and designing something that did not get planning permission?

Sheesh, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

Well, as far as I can remember a group out in Drinagh had applied for planning permission for a restaurant that was refused on a couple of occasions by Wexford County Council as it was deemed 'not a landmark development' and not right for the area, but they kept resubmitting the same plans with just minor to no changes at all, went to ABP and won!

That kind of clown.

Hundreds and Thousands of euro for a planning decision? I presume there is a lot of work and analysis involved in researching a proposed development and a lot of man hours. I agree with you there though, a lot of money. AFAIK, it was €80,000 to lodge the application. The extra you're quoting is probably inclusive of architects etc. and everything else surrounding the application. Drop in the ocean for these guys.

Rows Grower · 14-05-2019 12:36pm

wexfordman2040 wrote: »

Sheesh, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

Well, as far as I can remember a group out in Drinagh had applied for planning permission for a restaurant that was refused on a couple of occasions by Wexford County Council as it was deemed 'not a landmark development' and not right for the area, but they kept resubmitting the same plans with just minor to no changes at all, went to ABP and won! That kind of clown.

Hundreds and Thousands of euro for a planning decision? I presume there is a lot of work and analysis involved in researching a proposed development and a lot of man hours. I agree with you there though, a lot of money. AFAIK, it was €80,000 to lodge the application. The extra you're quoting is probably inclusive of architects etc. and everything else surrounding the application. Drop in the ocean for these guys.

This isn't a restaurant they are seeking planning for though.

I don't know if you read the link in the opening post but it's an 8 storey, 137 room hotel that An Board Pleanala has already ruled would be "highly obtrusive and visually incongruous and would detract from the natural heritage of the area". One look at the proposed exterior of the building is all that's needed to understand why they made this decision.

It would take a special kind of clown to think they will change their ruling because of some minor or even no changes to a new application for that eyesore.

The figure of hundreds of thousands of euro I quoted is also in the link from the opening post, and no matter how rich anyone is no one considers hundreds of thousands of euro "a drop in the ocean".

Eggs For Dinner · 14-05-2019 1:15pm

Rows Grower wrote: »

It would take a special kind of clown to think they will change their ruling because of some minor or even no changes to a new application for that eyesore.
QUOTE]

I know it is only one opinion, but I don't consider it an eyesore. It is far better than the state the location has been left in for many, many years now. Modern developments need to be on a large scale these days to make them economically viable. This type of decision will ensure that the first glimpse people will see of the town, coming over the bridge, shall remain they way it is, disappointing.

McLoughlin · 14-05-2019 2:43pm

It doesn't like nice and neither did Whites when it was built and it looks worse now. New buildings need to find a balance and fit in with its surroundings but at least this time the site is just empty as for nearly 40 years it had the remains of a burn out courthouse on the location.

wexfordman2040 · 15-05-2019 2:59pm

Rows Grower wrote: »

This isn't a restaurant they are seeking planning for though.

I don't know if you read the link in the opening post but it's an 8 storey, 137 room hotel that An Board Pleanala has already ruled would be "highly obtrusive and visually incongruous and would detract from the natural heritage of the area". One look at the proposed exterior of the building is all that's needed to understand why they made this decision.

It would take a special kind of clown to think they will change their ruling because of some minor or even no changes to a new application for that eyesore.

The figure of hundreds of thousands of euro I quoted is also in the link from the opening post, and no matter how rich anyone is no one considers hundreds of thousands of euro "a drop in the ocean".

"a drop in the ocean" Well it really depends on how rich you are. We'll have to 'disagree to disagree' on that point. :eek:

Reading through the ABP report, all through it, the points made were over-ruling the appeals on height, loss of light etc. Then at the end, the BOMB drops out of nowhere, no success for this application blah blah.

I agree that the building was not exactly something you could picture in venice, but it's definitely better than what is already there i.e a derelict site and an eyesore coming over the quay for one of the main arteries into the town. All modern buildings are the same, boxy and not much interest in detailing the external facade. The sails I have to agree were not nice to look at. They just seemed naff.

I was also disappointed to see that they hadn't used the opportunity to use the height for a top floor level bar / restaurant for the views. Maybe they can incorporate that into the new design!

New Hotel Refused Planning

Comments