• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Greystones Harbour funding

Lennon

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
334
The Greens are in power! Great things are in store for us all. The days of developer led planning is at an end. Everyone is smiling again! :lol:

Assuming that the planning board doesn’t give the green light to the proposed harbour development at Greystones will the Green Party now guarantee that funding from the public purse will be provided to remove the need for the kind of massive development that’s being proposed at the moment? :D
 


LowIQ

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
286
They do for Tara.
 

Norfolk Enchants

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
100
It could quite easily be funded by the savings from C0ck R0che's expense account. A ministry which Wicklow will not miss as the only beneficiaries were the developers.

Irish people are an absolute disgrace to sit by and watch as Sispar and Wicklow County Council destroy a public beach by gifting it to developers. You should all be very ashamed if this goes ahead.
 

Lennon

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
334
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
 

Minister3

Active member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
145
Lennon said:
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
Unfortunately it probably in all likelihood will go ahead.Gormley nor any other Minister cannot intervene in decisions of Bord Pleanala thats why it was set up as independent body in the first place -to stop political interferance in the planning process.
 

muiris

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
33
Minister3 said:
Lennon said:
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
Unfortunately it probably in all likelihood will go ahead.Gormley nor any other Minister cannot intervene in decisions of Bord Pleanala thats why it was set up as independent body in the first place -to stop political interferance in the planning process.
MIN 3, I think what Lennon is stating is that should the Bord throw out
the present proposals that he/she is hoping for the harbour be repaired
without the sell out of public land and ameneties to developers ie that
central government (opw) fund the needed repair.
 

Lennon

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
334
muiris said:
Minister3 said:
Lennon said:
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
Unfortunately it probably in all likelihood will go ahead.Gormley nor any other Minister cannot intervene in decisions of Bord Pleanala thats why it was set up as independent body in the first place -to stop political interferance in the planning process.
MIN 3, I think what Lennon is stating is that should the Bord throw out
the present proposals that he/she is hoping for the harbour be repaired
without the sell out of public land and ameneties to developers ie that
central government (opw) fund the needed repair.
This is exactly what I am saying Muiris. The foreshore is a very important public amenity, an integral part of our natural heritage. It must not be given to private developers to destroy. Central Government should commit to preserving the foreshore for future generations in a sustainable fashion.

I understand that The DCMNR has recently commissioned a review of foreshore management arrangements in Ireland with the aim of establishing a modern framework and improved system for coastal management in Ireland. A strategic review will be carried out of the legislative framework, structures, and procedures in place to manage the State owned foreshore which will assist in achieving an Integrated coastal Zone Management system for the state. I believe that there needs to be moratorium on all foreshore developments such as that proposed for Greystones pending the completion of this strategic review.
 

alonso

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
2,550
Minister3 said:
Lennon said:
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
Unfortunately it probably in all likelihood will go ahead.Gormley nor any other Minister cannot intervene in decisions of Bord Pleanala thats why it was set up as independent body in the first place -to stop political interferance in the planning process.
well the original proposal had a constructive refusal from the Bord. They had to revisit the scheme and redesign it and reopen the hearing. There is huge political pressure put on the Bord from outside. Planning laws are also changed to permit developments that are contrary to good planning, such as IKEA and the M3.

I predict a refusal also. But that doesn't mean the mechanics of the development and ownership will change.
 

muiris

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
33
Lennon,

I agree with you.

Unfortunately given the wicklow constiuency results it did not rate
as a major issue in the county. Of the recent elected TD's only McManus
is on record in her opposition to the development.

Regarding the need for a co ordinated approach to coast lines etc you
should definetely contact John Gormley's office and asked for Ryan Meade as John is probably up to his tonsils today. John's office is 01 -6184247.

The problem though is that a lot of these coastal issues are dictated by
Finance (OPW). They completed mapping the country in relation to flood risk last year.
 

Minister3

Active member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
145
muiris said:
Minister3 said:
Lennon said:
Now that Dick Dastardly has departed Environment I am hopefull that common sence will prevail and the hideous harbour development will be refused.

There is so many planning issues with this proposed development that it will almost certainly be refused by the Bord.

When this happens the public sector should then ensure that funding is provided to refurbish the Greystones harbour area to stop the developers returning in the future.
Unfortunately it probably in all likelihood will go ahead.Gormley nor any other Minister cannot intervene in decisions of Bord Pleanala thats why it was set up as independent body in the first place -to stop political interferance in the planning process.
MIN 3, I think what Lennon is stating is that should the Bord throw out
the present proposals that he/she is hoping for the harbour be repaired
without the sell out of public land and ameneties to developers ie that
central government (opw) fund the needed repair.
Sorry Lennon I thought you were of the belief that a minister could change this.Muiris thanks for clarifying this.Lads/Lassies what ever the case may be.
I agree what is planned down in Greystones is a scandal from the point of view of the public foreshore being c.p.o.ed and turned over to developers.Quite apart from wrecking the Victorian aspect of the whole Harbour area.
I did a bit of historical research on the particular harbour and it in its current orientation is totally useless as a harbour shortly after it was built it was of no use. The north easterlys blow straight into it and wreck every thing in it of any size and silt it up.There are several examples logged as well as loss of life as a result and it was abandoned commercially and by harbour masters soon after it was built and hasnt been used in any commercial sense since the 1870s.
I cant see the need for the marina development as planned,with Dun Laoighre Howth and Malahide just up the coast and Arklow down the coast As far as I can see the Harbour is not the issue but the builders making profit from the apts is.
I agree whole heartedly with you guys.Quite apart from the O.P.W. doing anything with it W.C.C. should be made do something.
I was down there at Easter and the amount of development in the area is frightening W.C.C. must have tens of millions in, from development levies there. Yet in the town itself the roads look like a penny hasnt been spent on them in a decade.
 

alonso

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
2,550
I know. I feel dirty too :)
 

Lennon

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
334
The value for money calculations used as part of the Greystones Harbour Public Private Partnership “PPP” is a fundamentally flawed process which has been widely condemned by accounting experts worldwide. The PPP process uses an experimental science whose aim is not to prove that it will deliver the best value for money for the taxpayer but that the alternative, traditional delivery by the public sector, will not.

Public Sector Comparator “PSC” is a technique used to quantify the cost, discounted to net present value, of delivering and managing a project to an agreed upon specification, for a fixed term and the extent of risk transfers to the private sector partner using the traditional procurement method. A Value for Money Comparison “VFM” is then carried out by the NDFA. PSC’s are meant to be the benchmark against which the value for taxpayer money is tested. The use of PSC in the case of the Greystones Harbour development is inappropriate for a number of reasons including:

• The PSC/VFM report made an invalid assumption that Wicklow County Council would build the same development as that proposed by Sispar under the PPP model. Local authorities do not normally engage in such speculative development. It was therefore a purely theoretical exercise of a development which would never be built by the council in practice;

• The PSC/VFM report has not been made available for public inspection. This has severely inhibited public scrutiny of decisions and actions made by the council. There has been a complete lack of transparency and accountability in the process;

• This PSC/VFM process assumed that cost overruns will happen under the traditional procurement method but not under the PPP. This assumption has resulted in a more favourable perception of the PPP option;

• PSC’s are often inaccurate and unreliable in assessing long-term costs. In the case of the Greystones harbour development the PSC/VFM calculations have omitted three significant costs which will ultimately be the responsibility of the council and the taxpayer as follows;

1. The ongoing annual costs of beach nourishment of the North beach which will be required in perpetuity.

2. The costs associated with protecting the development in a flood prone area from the effects of global warming and rising sea levels.

3. The possible costs of underwriting insurance risk if elements of the development prove uninsurable. Something which seems very possible based on the information in the Environmental Impact Statement.

• PSC’s are often out of date and do not take account of market conditions and material costs that change in the period from negotiation to project commencement;

• The PSC framework is a hugely complex ‘black box’ weighted against the case for publicly owned projects;

• The PSC has attempted to value risks transferred to Sispar for building the harbour which are regarded as taking the burden off the local authority. A value was placed on these various risks and this was then added to the calculated cost of the traditional public sector procurement. The calculation of these notional risks are subjective and the tendency is to overstate them to justify the value of the PPP.

• The Valuation Office carried out a valuation of the foreshore site at Greystones. However this important valuation figure has not been disclosed. The valuation placed on the foreshore land to be given to Sispar is deducted from the calculated cost of the PSB. This valuation may not have valued the intangible, qualitative factors associated with the loss of a public beach. It is therefore probable that this valuation figure has been understated thus lending further justification in the PSC/VFM of the Council/Sispar PPP.

The use of controversial PSC in the calculation of the VFM for the Greystones harbour development is yet another example where the biased assumptions made in the PSC have given results which appear to offer better value for money but which in reality offer very poor value for money to the taxpayer. In the long term, this clearly unsustainable plan will be a huge burden on the resources of the cash strapped Wicklow County Council.
 

muiris

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
33
Lennon

I note you reference Wicklow Co Council as cash stapped.
Do you know where the infrastructure levies (mentioed by Mnister3 ) for development in the area have been going..from Black Lion to EdenGate/Wood and Charlesland.

Muiris
 

Lennon

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
334
muiris said:
Lennon

I note you reference Wicklow Co Council as cash stapped.
Do you know where the infrastructure levies (mentioed by Mnister3 ) for development in the area have been going..from Black Lion to EdenGate/Wood and Charlesland.

Muiris
They say they are cash strapped - but it is hard to say if this is correct or not. Since the abolition of domestic rates in 1977 local authorities rely on funding from central government. There is a huge incentive therefore for them to push as much developement to get the levies. This is resulting in inappropriate and unsustainable developments throughout the country.

Also you should bear in mind that central government is under spending constraints from the EU. PPP's are a source of Off Balance Sheet finance for central government - so the incentive is for them to push through inappropriate and unsustainable PPP's.

These two factors have resulted in the hideous harbour development proposed fro Greystones.

As far as I am aware development levies are used by WCC to fund expenditure throughout the county. Very little of it actually stays in Greystones. I believe that the WCC accounting system is very poor and does not produce any very meaningfull information.

The bottom line is that either central or local government (or a combination of both) should fund the refurbishment of the harbour at Greystones.
 

Minister3

Active member
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
145
They have over 163million in levies and further revenue part of it made up from the developments mentioned above by muiris Lennon I 100%concur with your last point.On top of this I spoke to someone who is building a once off house in wicklow on.3 of an acre his levy was exacrly 20000.They are sanctioning 40 or 50 of these planning pemissions a week at present.So I cant see how they are cash strapped.
 

CJH

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
214
It's a terrible plan, that hopefully will be thrown out by ABP. The idea of privatising foreshore is abhorrent to most Irish people, I would imagine
 

civilservant

Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
70
muiris said:
Lennon,

Unfortunately given the wicklow constiuency results it did not rate
as a major issue in the county. Of the recent elected TD's only McManus
is on record in her opposition to the development.
Isn't it galling to think that if Evelyn Cawley had been elected as an Independent TD (she campaigned on the Greystones Harbour issue), Bertie would more than likely have been able to find money and solutions for Greystones Harbour in exchange for her support
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top