Greystones/Wicklow Greenway - a disaster in the making!

Wanderer78 · 23-01-2019 5:54pm

Working class heroes wrote: »

You made a serious allegation and you can't back it up.
You should probably stop digging now.

digging what? i dont have to back anything up. either believe me or not, shur i dont care either way:D. hahaha people are nuts on the internets

the only advice id give to local groups that may have a greenway on the way in their area, is to be extremely vigilant at all stages of the development, concerning environmental matters

OpenYourEyes · 23-01-2019 7:34pm

Mod Note: Can we keep it back on topic, rather than this rather futile over-and-back we've had for the last number of posts?!?!

Del.Monte · 23-01-2019 7:47pm

@ Working class heroes - why are you thanking the Mod - you're the one **** stirring on here. :rolleyes:

Working class heroes · 23-01-2019 7:53pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

@ Working class heroes - why are you thanking the Mod - you're the one **** stirring on here. :rolleyes:

I’ll thank who I like.
I seen a nonsense thread started and I strongly disagred with the opening post.
If you think that’s stirring ****e by all means report it.
Or are you trying to keep this forum like Kilcoole beach, i.e. for yourself?

Birdnuts · 23-01-2019 8:23pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

lobbyists and lobbyists groups should be on top of this, immediately, making sure environmental rules and laws are adhered to at all times, and be aware of opposing lobbyists at all times, as they will try undermine this process at all times. ive been made aware of possible environmental infringements on other greenway projects around the country, investigations are ongoing, but i suspect their findings will be swept under the earths crust, completely bypassing the carpet.

Its a full time job as it is making sure state entities like the OPW follow basic rules, wildlife laws and best practices

Del.Monte · 23-01-2019 8:31pm

Working class heroes wrote: »

I’ll thank who I like.
I seen a nonsense thread started and I strongly disagred with the opening post.
If you think that’s stirring ****e by all means report it.
Or are you trying to keep this forum like Kilcoole beach, i.e. for yourself?

I never said that you couldn't thank who you like but I asked why you did? Also, I have no desire to keep Kilcoole beach for myself and that is not what this thread is about but then you're not interested in the topic just stirring.

Srameen must be having a night off as he hasn't thanked your latest post yet.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 23-01-2019 8:39pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I never said that you couldn't thank who you like but I asked why you did? Also, I have no desire to keep Kilcoole beach for myself and that is not what this thread is about but then you're not interested in the topic just stirring.

Srameen must be having a night off as he hasn't thanked your latest post yet.

I'm not sure what your problem is but I will thank whatever posts or posters I wish, if their post is well made or in any way valid - even if I don't fully endorse all of it.
I have kept from making any comment due to your inability to discuss the matter in any fashion other than that sticking rigidly to your own view. I would kindly ask you to desist with the snide comments about me, particularly as I was never party to the discussion.

bilbot79 · 23-01-2019 8:42pm

Isnt there a site used by some protected species of bird after kilcoole? How could they bulldoze through that?

OpenYourEyes · 23-01-2019 8:53pm

Mod Note: In general, please don't reply to posters ignoring Mod instructions - let the Mods look after it or report it if necessary.

Now, if we can get back on topic for this thread please....

OpenYourEyes · 23-01-2019 8:55pm

bilbot79 wrote: »

Isnt there a site used by some protected species of bird after kilcoole? How could they bulldoze through that?

Little Terns (and ringed plover and oystercatcher) nest on the beach at Kilcoole, and there are important wetlands along the majority of that stretch of coast immediately in land from the train tracks. You can be sure that these will be a focal point of discussion by NPWS on the task force, and by other environmental groups once this project is in the planning system.

magicbastarder · 23-01-2019 9:13pm

that was one of the reasons i suggested earlier in the thread about moving the path inland - not only would it avoid the sensitive areas, it makes more sense to have 'stops' in the villages along the coast, where there are facilities and businesses who might benefit from the passing traffic.
you can see that on the waterford greenway - there's a pub near durrow which was probably dead and now has queues out the door for refreshments (mainly ice creams and ice pops, from what i could see)

Working class heroes · 23-01-2019 9:21pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I never said that you couldn't thank who you like but I asked why you did? Also, I have no desire to keep Kilcoole beach for myself and that is not what this thread is about but then you're not interested in the topic just stirring.

Srameen must be having a night off as he hasn't thanked your latest post yet.

I am very interested in the topic as per the thread title.
And stop accusing me of trolling please.
This is the second time you have accused me of this and I will be reporting it, again.
As is evident on other forums around here you seem to have a serious problem with people disagreeing with you.

OpenYourEyes · 23-01-2019 9:27pm

Working class heroes wrote: »

I am very interested in the topic as per the thread title.
And stop accusing me of trolling please.
This is the second time you have accused me of this and I will he reporting it, again.
As is evident on other forums around here you seem to have a serious problem with people disagreeing with you.

Mod Note: Can EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE drop the personal stuff once and for all. It has been dealt with. The correct thing to do in these situations is to report to the Mods rather than dragging the thread further if course.

I won't post any more warnings in this and have little interest in who started it, but rather who is continuing it.

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2019 6:56am

Birdnuts wrote:

Its a full time job as it is making sure state entities like the OPW follow basic rules, wildlife laws and best practices

I do realise this, and I'm very grateful to those that put a large amount of their personal time into these type of actions. I'm aware of people that have actually even gone to the bother of continuously bringing some of these state entities to court, only to be eventually defeated, largely due to finances and fatigue. It's very important that we as citizens are always extremely vigilant, and hold all stakeholders to account, greenways are and can be a great addition to our amenities, but environmental rules, laws and regulations are there for a reason.

On a side note, I'd advise against tarmac for such projects, I personally think it isn't appealing to the eye, and doesn't look natural in such environments, there are other materials than can be used, work very well, and are much more appealing.

Zoo4m8 · 24-01-2019 9:57am

The proposal as outlined is a nonsense, it concerns me that as the gentleman concerned talks about talking to landowners that it’s envisioned already that it would go on the landward side of the railway.
From Greystones among the owners to talk to would be the driving range, golf course, two farms , that’s to Kilcoole..then it’s the ECNR, the Breaches etc etc to the Morrough in Wicklow, (as a landowner in the proposed area I have to declare a certain bias:rolleyes:)
A path already exists between Kilcoole and Wicklow with the single file walkway attached to the Breaches Bridge. From Greystones to Kilcoole is a different matter completely, on the seaside of the railway is rock armor all the way, a single path is of course feasible but again at what cost..
Of course what could be going on here is the old ploy of seek more with the intention of accepting less..
Having used this area all my life I could go on and on about this but suffice to say while a pathway from Greystones to Wicklow would be no bad thing as this stands at the moment with all the variables involved it looks like (to me) as badly researched pie in the sky.

Donatron · 25-01-2019 2:32pm

I imagine the project could potentially have difficulty getting planning from an Appropriate Assessment perspective, as the route goes directly through both the Murrough SAC and SPA and would constitute habitat loss along certain sections.

I think having some sections further inland, as mentioned before, could be a solution. But this would require landowner agreements etc. which would be an obstacle.

Working class heroes · 25-01-2019 2:37pm

Donatron wrote: »

I imagine the project could potentially have difficulty getting planning from an Appropriate Assessment perspective, as the route goes directly through both the Murrough SAC and SPA and would constitute habitat loss along certain sections.

I think having some sections further inland, as mentioned before, could be a solution. But this would require landowner agreements etc. which would be an obstacle.

The points you make are fair ones but, the Murrough will disappear into the sea soon if nothing is done.

magicbastarder · 25-01-2019 3:38pm

Donatron wrote: »

I think having some sections further inland, as mentioned before, could be a solution. But this would require landowner agreements etc. which would be an obstacle.

one benefit at least for landowners is that - as far as i know (citation required) - any landowners whose land the greenways pass by or through have their public liability insurance paid for them.

recedite · 05-02-2019 9:28am

bilbot79 wrote: »

Isnt there a site used by some protected species of bird after kilcoole? How could they bulldoze through that?

The existing path skirts around the tern's nest site.
Besides, for most of the year the site is unused by terns.

recedite · 05-02-2019 9:39am

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

..just one of a dozen issues that instantly come to mind, for instance how would the Breaches Bridge be dealt with? On the landward side the Breaches mudflats, a perfect wildlife refuge and the other the beach and the sea with a tidal river running under the bridge..
If there was the land between the railway and the sea it would be something to aspire to, but the cost to reinstate and provide the amenities suggested and protect from the sea would be imho astronomical..

Build a new greenway bridge east of the railway track. A pedestrian bridge does not have to be a very large structure.

The current situation of having pedestrians and cyclists detouring onto the edge of the railway track to cross the river is not very satisfactory.

BTW I think Del Montes assertion that the strip between the railway and the sea is "an environmentally sensitive area" and a great wildlife refuge is overstated. Apart from the terns nesting behind a double electric fence for a few weeks every year, its a fairly bleak and windswept place.
It is well used by dogs and dog walkers, and fair play to them, its ideal for that.

Most of the bird life, as Del Monte will be well aware, is on the west side of the railway, on private land (and water).
And for whatever reason, the birds don't even seem to prefer the small Birdwatch Ireland site to any other stretch along the coast. I suspect there is something wrong with the way they manage it.

Del.Monte · 05-03-2019 7:50pm

As this project continues to build up an unstoppable momentum and still concerns me, I have been turning over the matter in mind as to why I am so opposed to it and it comes down to this:

What have the vast majority of existing/proposed greenways got in common? They are on former railway routes and constitute new walking/cycling routes where no such path trail previously existed, whereas the Greystones/Wicklow route has always been accessible to walkers whatever about cyclists/wheelchairs users and pram pushers. In all instances, the other greenways are not channelling people into an unspoilt, environmentally sensitive area.

Some greenways (Waterford, Westport/Mulrany and the Great Southern Trail) have brought in visitors to avail of local facilities - pubs/accommodation providers etc but there are none between Greystones and Wicklow!

It's a daft proposal but it will go ahead if the lethargic response of the 'stakeholders' like Birdwatch Ireland is anything to go by. In recent weeks I repeatedly emailed Birdwatch to inquire about the Little Tern summary for 2018 to eventually be told that the information was confidential and I would have to contact the NPWS. Last week I was in a friend's house and happened across a copy of the latest Birdwatch magazine - a full summary of the Little Tern project was contained therein.

No response to my inquiries about their position regarding the greenway and not a peep from An Taisce which lets the local muck savage politicians climb on the greenway bandwagon unopposed. Why do I bother.

Working class heroes · 05-03-2019 9:03pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

As this project continues to build up an unstoppable momentum and still concerns me, I have been turning over the matter in mind as to why I am so opposed to it and it comes down to this:

What have the vast majority of existing/proposed greenways got in common? They are on former railway routes and constitute new walking/cycling routes where no such path trail previously existed, whereas the Greystones/Wicklow route has always been accessible to walkers whatever about cyclists/wheelchairs users and pram pushers. In all instances, the other greenways are not channelling people into an unspoilt, environmentally sensitive area.

Some greenways (Waterford, Westport/Mulrany and the Great Southern Trail) have brought in visitors to avail of local facilities - pubs/accommodation providers etc but there are none between Greystones and Wicklow!

It's a daft proposal but it will go ahead if the lethargic response of the 'stakeholders' like Birdwatch Ireland is anything to go by. In recent weeks I repeatedly emailed Birdwatch to inquire about the Little Tern summary for 2018 to eventually be told that the information was confidential and I would have to contact the NPWS. Last week I was in a friend's house and happened across a copy of the latest Birdwatch magazine - a full summary of the Little Tern project was contained therein.

No response to my inquiries about their position regarding the greenway and not a peep from An Taisce which lets the local muck savage politicians climb on the greenway bandwagon unopposed. Why do I bother.

You really have a nasty tone to your posts. If this is the tone you use when contacting certain organizations it’s no wonder they ignore you.
Personally I hope proposed development, with input/agreement from all parties, gets the go ahead.
I’ll be contacting as many local representatives (muck savages) as I can to push this project.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 05-03-2019 9:13pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

As this project continues to build up an unstoppable momentum and still concerns me, I have been turning over the matter in mind as to why I am so opposed to it and it comes down to this:

What have the vast majority of existing/proposed greenways got in common? They are on former railway routes and constitute new walking/cycling routes where no such path trail previously existed, whereas the Greystones/Wicklow route has always been accessible to walkers whatever about cyclists/wheelchairs users and pram pushers. In all instances, the other greenways are not channelling people into an unspoilt, environmentally sensitive area...

I'm not naming locations but we have walking and cycling paths in several places where they were not existing paths, railway tracks etc. Some has access to walk but were very restrictive until proper walkways and cycle paths were provided, And many pass, successfully, through what you would consider previously unspoilt areas.

If done correctly these pathways are a brilliant amenity and improve access to Nature for many people.

Pretzill · 05-03-2019 11:49pm

They do improve access to nature, even highlight it but what damage is done in the necessity to bring a neat outlook on nature - will it encourage wildness and eventually a more bio diverse coastline? Or will it just be a nice place to walk, cycle? I just hope there is care taken to preserve first.

Del.Monte · 06-03-2019 8:23am

Working class heroes wrote: »

You really have a nasty tone to your posts. If this is the tone you use when contacting certain organizations it’s no wonder they ignore you.
Personally I hope proposed development, with input/agreement from all parties, gets the go ahead.
I’ll be contacting as many local representatives (muck savages) as I can to push this project.

This is a discussion forum and my posting style here bears no relation to how I approach bodies such as Birdwatch/An Taisce etc. I am well used to dealing in a professional manner with these organisations but find their unprofessional handling of issues and failure to respond to correspondence atrocious. As for my points above - no answers from you?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 06-03-2019 12:21pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

In recent weeks I repeatedly emailed Birdwatch to inquire about the Little Tern summary for 2018 to eventually be told that the information was confidential and I would have to contact the NPWS. Last week I was in a friend's house and happened across a copy of the latest Birdwatch magazine - a full summary of the Little Tern project was contained therein.

No response to my inquiries about their position regarding the greenway and not a peep from An Taisce which lets the local muck savage politicians climb on the greenway bandwagon unopposed. Why do I bother.

Purely my curiosity. Are you a member of Birdwatch Ireland? It just seemed odd to only see Wings in a friend's house. Not the topic in hand, I know, but I would have assumed that someone looking for the likes of the Little Tern report from them, as opposed to going to the NWPS, was a Birdwatch Ireland member. As I said, just curious and surprised.

Del.Monte · 06-03-2019 1:09pm

@ Srameen

PM sent/

recedite · 06-03-2019 1:14pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

.. I have been turning over the matter in mind as to why I am so opposed to it and it comes down to this:

What have the vast majority of existing/proposed greenways got in common? They are on former railway routes and constitute new walking/cycling routes where no such path trail previously existed, whereas the Greystones/Wicklow route has always been accessible to walkers whatever about cyclists/wheelchairs users and pram pushers. In all instances, the other greenways are not channelling people into an unspoilt, environmentally sensitive area.

I'm not seeing any substantial difference here, or any new reason to oppose it.

I'd say its the sight of that manicured "tarmacadam and streetlights look" in the "artists impression" of the OP that is putting some people off the whole idea. If its any consolation, I suspect this Greenway, if it ever come to fruition, will be a gravel surface with a footbridge, and not much else.

Del.Monte wrote: »

Some greenways (Waterford, Westport/Mulrany and the Great Southern Trail) have brought in visitors to avail of local facilities - pubs/accommodation providers etc but there are none between Greystones and Wicklow!

What is there between Westport and Mulranny?
What is there between Bray and Greystones?
The nature of these things is that they often only have refreshments/facilities at each end.

If all people wanted was "facilities" they could walk up and down the length of O'Connell Street.

Del.Monte · 06-03-2019 1:29pm

I think that you're overlooking the fact that the wilderness along this route is used by serious walkers/birdwatchers for all or part of its length; by joggers/dog walkers and pram pushers at each end - as makes sense but the proposers of the scheme see it generating up to 500,000 visitors per annum.

Working class heroes · 06-03-2019 4:44pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

This is a discussion forum and my posting style here bears no relation to how I approach bodies such as Birdwatch/An Taisce etc. I am well used to dealing in a professional manner with these organisations but find their unprofessional handling of issues and failure to respond to correspondence atrocious. As for my points above - no answers from you?

Well it obviously does as you are not getting any responses. Or maybe you are and you just don't like the answers. A confrontational approach generally doesn't end well in all walks of life. I've learned that I the hard way. Just some friendly advise to do with as you please.
I've gave my opinion on the matter in previous posts and don't feel the need to repeat it. Going around in circles is pointless.

Anyway, best of luck with you progress halting endeavours....

Working class heroes · 06-03-2019 4:51pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I think that you're overlooking the fact that the wilderness along this route is used by serious walkers/birdwatchers for all or part of its length; by joggers/dog walkers and pram pushers at each end - as makes sense but the proposers of the scheme see it generating up to 500,000 visitors per annum.

Very little, if any of this post would come under the definition of "fact"

Very much doubt the 500,000 per annum figure. I'd say they are over egging a bit there.....

magicbastarder · 18-12-2021 1:51pm

beit tentative about reopening a thread which had been ill-tempered, but this has received funding:

https://wicklownews.net/2021/12/funding-announced-for-greystones-to-wicklow-greenway/

Working class heroes · 06-01-2022 12:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118342517#Comment_118342517

Just seen this now, thanks for posting.

Working class heroes · 06-01-2022 12:19pm

"Chief Executive, Frank Curran, welcomed the announcement saying Wicklow County Council is very conscious of the sensitivity of the environment and the unique biodiversity of the area and aims to ensure that a key element of the Coastal Route will be recognition, protection and appreciation of this."

Probably the most relevant part of the article for this forum.

Greystones/Wicklow Greenway - a disaster in the making!

Comments