Developments in Cork

@samuel j wrote:

would you know if that covered the relocation of just say the south jetties,penrose quay areas or included
Tivoli/container berths. Could be wrong but can imagine the Tivoli end move would be very costly.

Marine berthage/docks call it what you will are by nature expensive /due to their harsh environment and use can seem very high if comparable to say road or industrial projects.

Would be interesting to know what is in the lets say 100mil…..

😮 The docks area adjacent to the Custom House Quay (occupied by the POC tenants, Cork Bonded Warehousing), these warehouses really are the “Jewel in the Crown” of the docklands area of Cork and one has to wonder why POC are willing to allow this listed building fall into the river when the dilapidation schedule built into the CBW lease makes the tenants liable for repairs?
Also somebody in CCC should be sent to jail for allowing our heritage fall to pieces like this.

What has happened since this letter from POC to CBW since the year 2000 (other than a change in CCC management?)

24th March, 2000.
Mr. William O’Mahony,
Managing Director,
Cork Bonded Warehouses Limited, Custom House Quay,
CORK.
RE: Your Lease dated 27th March. 1918.
Dear Mr. O’Mahony,
We received a copy of letter from Mr. John Power, Building Control
Officer, City Hall, Cork addressed to you.
As you are aware, under the terms of the 1918 Lease under which you hold the property there is an obligation on you that you “will (subject as hereinafter mentioned) well and substantially repair cleanse maintain amend and in good and tenantable repair order and condition keep the said premises and all new buildings and works which may at any time during the said tenancy be erected on and all additions made to the said premises and the fixtures therein and the walls fences vaults roads sewers drains and appurtenances thereof with all necessary reparations cleansings and amendments whatsoever (damage by fire excepted) and the said premises so repaired cleansed maintained amended and kept as aforesaid will at the expiration or sooner determination of this demise quietly yield up to the Lessors together with all additions and improvements made thereto in the meantime and all fixtures of every kind in or upon the said premises or which during the said term may be affixed or fastened to or upon the same ..”.
We now call upon you to comply in full with the above covenant having regard to the terms of the aforementioned letter from Mr. John Power, Building Control Officer, with particular reference to the south east corner of your premises and the Schedule of Dilapidations dated June 1999 which was served on you from this office.
We require confirmation from you within 14 days of the receipt of this letter that you will immediately take such steps as to remedy the breach of the above detailed covenant
We are awaiting hearing from you.
Declan Owens

@samuel j wrote:

Am I wrong in saying that the Custom House itself, offices etc, of the POC or were last time I was up there have been maintained, hence their use for many a fuction during the 2005 Cultural events.
Its the warehouses that are in a state… If a long term tenant does not comply to lease clauses it can a hell of a nightmare for a landlord regardless of who/she is.
would it not have been the job of the CCC to enforce or would you reckon it was a legal minefield they wanted no part of..
Does seem odd for all to go to trouble of letters of this and that but nothing physically done… who were these designed to placate…..

The Port of Cork headquarters on Custom House Quay is a truly amazing building in its own right.
However the Port of Cork fought tooth and nail last year to stop a takeover of the Bonded Warehouse lease by a London based business man.
😮 It’s an awful pity that they did not give a sh*t about this landmark building before, or since winning this High Court case.
As for the CCC, they would be jailed for incompetence were it not for the mitigating circumstances of their lack of intelligence.

@samuel j wrote:

Last time I was in it, it was magnificent…a while back paying mooring fees…
Its unlike them not to maintain property in their control (and I don’t work for um in case you were worried)
as generally throughout many nooks and crannies in the vast Harbour they do their bit… alot more than can said for the various councils who control adjoining properties/areas…but lets not go there.

There must be something else we are not aware of as it is not consistent with their usual manner…
forgive me but what are the plans or possible planned usages of Bonded warehouse if the bigger picture Docklands plan does come to fruition….I’m just not sure.
I can imagine they have earned a pittance in rent from it if was a long term lease….this not an excuse but it does make it harder to balance the books, and/or leases title open to legal cases. When did they win…is it even occupied now…

I have absolutely no connection with the POC, the CBW or the court case of last year.
I do however want to see the docklands proceed, and the key (no pun) between the existing City and the new city i.e. the Docklands is the CHQ site.
It is still occupied by the Bonded Warehouses who have to handball every item in and out of the stores due to the low headroom (Victorian times or what?)

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H107.html

@samuel j wrote:

The judgement makes interesting reading…
If bonded lads still in it would their existing lease terms not apply in maintenance… i.e they should be doing it.

Key yes but do you know or have you seen any proposals for it ultimate use in a docklands scenario..bulldoze away as many warehouses on the Dublin quays were… perhaps they were of not sufficent condition or architectural value ot retain… but dublin quays changed radically.. for the good I Feel as IFSC etc. alive again
I presume you are for the retention and renovation of the Bonded warhouse or do you see it as an acceptable casualty if it was the key to the overall development.

Presume you’ve seen this pdf, it gives a fair idea of size of development needed to move downriver

• The “lads” are still there and the terms of the lease and the dilapidation schedule still apply (unless a “sweetheart deal” was done before or during the HC case)
• Proposals (including plans) were shown in confidence to the CCC planners, and were printed by the EE (in error I believe) with a photo of a FF TD proclaiming “his vision” for the Docks!!
• Bulldozing was not on the agenda back then. The plans submitted were VERY endearing to the existing listed structure of the CBW
• This building should not be a casualty of speculative greed, but should be redeveloped / extended / transformed utilizing the existing structure. The likes of this building will never be built again in the future. (a half trained monkey could design and build the likes of Victoria Mills), :rolleyes: SORRY Monkey, for the insult.

@samuel j wrote:

Well hopefully the next few months will see a clearer picture of where it all heading and regardless than something good comes of it all and Warehouse section gets some lease of life…..
My main point was and still is, is that in general Port of Cork are probably one of the better organisations around and again in general not one known for feet dragging… so still wonder if we are seeing the full picture.

You did mention them holding the city to ransom…. I think this is unfair…. the investment needed to create a downriver port is immense. Whereas I would agree that an upriver Dublin style dockland rejuvenation is needed and welcome, Dublin was a much different csse as most of the docklands there that were given life had been dormant for years and were not working berths/quays as effectively Dublin Port had already moved to Alexandra Road long before.

Overall I agree with you on it being the way forward but just don’t feel POC should be blamed for all ills

I could agree with you were it not for the fact that the overall responsibility for planning, looking after our heritage, etc. is in the hands of Cork City Council and the CEO of same, Mr. Joe Gavin.
The crossover of responsibilities, wages (expenses), and members of the board of the Port of Cork leaves a lot to be desired, especially when these guys are coming to the taxpayer of the city looking for a handout to relocate while leaving one of the most important buildings (a listed building) in the city fall into a serious state of disrepair.
:rolleyes: A conflict of interest or what?
Management of these type of company’s never seem to just retire on a huge pension for sitting on their asses for years, but are “appointed” to other Boards, charitable organizations, the arts etc without a care for the destruction they have left behind.

😉 Where is a former City Manager employed?
😉 Where is a former CEO of the POC employed?
😮 Where will J.G. end up now that Dublin rejected him?
:rolleyes: Will, (can) things change in the future?

@kite wrote:

I the overall responsibility for planning, looking after our heritage, etc. is in the hands of Cork City Council and the CEO of same, Mr. Joe Gavin.

A case of ménager le chevre avec les choux!

@samuel j wrote:

A few cabbages involved alright

yes indeed, A little bit too much nibbling perhaps!

@carrigdhoun wrote:

Is there any news on the Water street developement? This was due for a decision by An Bord Pleannana last Friday. They received the appeal in May 2005, thats over a year and a half ago and have put back the date a number of times.

Just noticed this morning that they are taking another week, it is due to be decided next Friday 1/12/2006. Hopefully a positive result that will kick start development on the Northern Quays.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Enough of the slanderous JG knocking tone. It’s getting old. Fast.

I’m sorry but I cannot subscribe to the “Emperor’s new clothes” type agenda of some posters.
Mr. Gavin has done a lot of good for Cork City in many areas, but when the ultimate planning officer goes on solo runs pressing his own agenda it needs to be pointed out.
After all “Developments in Cork” rely on one man at the end of the day..Joe Gavin.
With power comes responsibility, with ultimate power comes ??? 😉

@d_d_dallas wrote:

quote: “Herr Joe Gavin’s ambition for city domination must have received a serious setback (as did his performance related pay bonus, i.e. development levies & extracting the proposed 2 euro bin tag levy from the poorest of our city’s population…”

Ever considered writing for the Daily Mail?!?

Seriously though, it’s possible to call the Emperor naked without descending to hysteria (or gloating on his or anyone’s annual bonus).

Mr, Gavin was asked in the Council chamber to disclose his 2004 bonus which is performance (income to CCC) related, he refused.
It may be difficult for some to feel that planning decisions are fair when the bigger the levy etc,etc;)