Forum Replies Created
August 10, 2006 at 8:09 pm in reply to: Much fuss about nothing #782912
The Carpark is the real asset given current planning regulations.August 9, 2006 at 8:17 pm in reply to: Much fuss about nothing #782909
HTMeaghar O’Reilly acted for Stringfellow so I presume they are disposing of the demise by way of an assignment or may entrtain a sub-letting depending on the covenant behind you interest.
Intersting location that could do well for the right operator once the poles are replaced with something more nativeAugust 8, 2006 at 3:57 pm in reply to: Planning permission/ownership #783973
Timescales are crucial get legal adviceAugust 8, 2006 at 1:32 pm in reply to: Roches Stores gone! #783979
I’m sure that a suplus unit in the Jervis Centre will be least of Debbenhams worries and I’m sure that subject to landlords consent that the unit could be divided into two units i.e. one at ground and a second relating to the upper floors.
It is however a pity to see a great Irish retailer dissapear and really highlights the success that Clearys and to a greater extent Arnotts have acheived by being profitable enough to resist the many approaches they have doubtlessly received over the years.
Henry St is really emerging as a very intensive retail pitch on a large scaleAugust 6, 2006 at 5:16 pm in reply to: Ã‚â‚¬2bn plan to develop Galways docklands #783905
It sounds perfect doesn’t it
The relocation of the port would give the city new docking facilities and would allow Galway to accommodate the lucrative cruise-liner business. Revenue of â‚¬25m a year is forecast from cruise liners alone.
It is also envisaged that Galway would become a major international hub for sea angling, sailing and related marine activities. Galway already hosts the headquarters of the Marine Institute.
Where is the location for the new port surely it is totally premature to talk about redeveloping the old port until a site has been secured for the new one.August 5, 2006 at 7:38 pm in reply to: Poolbeg Chimneys #783929
Like the Bank of Ireland ad 😉August 4, 2006 at 11:21 am in reply to: Ã‚â‚¬2bn plan to develop Galways docklands #783903
Where is the new port going I’m not sure if a bungalow free 32 acre site exists anywhere close to Galway i.e. this side of KylemoreJuly 30, 2006 at 4:42 pm in reply to: Cork Harbour #783654
This would make a good site for some decentralisation given the public transport and air connections close by. the real question is whether this is an aspirational idea or a concrete plan to be backed up by real jobs.July 29, 2006 at 9:09 pm in reply to: where is the tunnel #782960
yeah very messy job notjim, most of it is cut & cover, its much closer to the surface than our own port tunnel.
wikipedia.com is great by the way, check it out ! do a search for ‘the big dig’ …July 29, 2006 at 8:17 pm in reply to: where is the tunnel #782958
Lads the boston ‘big dig’ is 5.6km long & cost 14.6 billion dollars, the most expensive road project ever in the US, taking 13+ years to construct.
ah but sure delays & over runs only happen in Ireland.
The port tunnel has been reasonably well executed, delays are inevitable with projects of this scale.
Half of the stuff in the indo article is complete bull shit & its about the 3rd time they’ve done it with regard to the port tunnel. How they continually get away with publishing straight up lies, i don’t know.
And they do it all the time, it is such a shit paper. Couple of weeks back they published a story, with usual large sensationalist headline stating that the dublin cork motorway would be delayed by 5 years, so on i went to read the article, which contradicted the headline, stating the exact time line for completion of each section, all of which are on schedule to be finished in late 2010. Bit of an agenda there i think.
Construction of continuous motorway / dual carriage way from dublin to the main cities is underway, all scheduled to be finished by end of 2010, will have to wait and see on that one.July 28, 2006 at 6:12 pm in reply to: where is the tunnel #782951
In fairness that is what Dublin City Council did when they effectively took the NRA out of the process by instructing legal counselJuly 28, 2006 at 1:25 pm in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783424
Its already been done by the Munster Branch only for TP to emerge bigger and betterJuly 28, 2006 at 12:58 pm in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783421
It effectively was a public park for running dogs and hitting a sliotar as the gates were never maintained for at least another deade before.
The council were ‘holding over’ which means that their tenancy is intact and rights of renewal are still held by the tenant until vacation possession is held by the holder of the reversion.
There is nothing poor about anyone who can chuck €10,000 at a reversionary interest that the leaseholder considered to flawed to acquire.
It was a long shot for him and he has been found out and it is time for him to retire with what is left of his dignity and stop spouting on about the constitutionJuly 28, 2006 at 12:45 pm in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783419
What are you talking about it is a public park with rights of lease renewal as long as the local authority wish to keep renewing. Due to the leasehold interest it must be valued as an investment and not a development property as its value relates solely to income streams. Finding the value of the income streams is nigh on impossible as it is impossible to establish comparable evidence for amenity lands within this or any postcode within a mile.
As the site is not zoned resi he has no right to build upon it notwithstanding the fact that he has no possession and will not be granted consent by the tenant.
The value of the site is probably in the region 25 times the annual rent which I am not familiar withJuly 28, 2006 at 10:00 am in reply to: where is the tunnel #782945
Is that from the Indo?
Bottom line DCC have forced the NRA to face the contractors head on; this is in the taxpayers interest and it will also give DCC time to consider what they will do with the city quays and some measured actions as outlined in Dubinspirations could really compensate for another few months of HGV activity within the City.July 28, 2006 at 9:35 am in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783414
The original property developer would stretch back to 1920 or so if not before
The council are not just taking things they are trying to secure quiet enjoyment of one of their leasehold interests that the current reversion holder seized in January in breach of lease covenent depriving the local residents of their amenity space.
The City Council in 1987 and 1988 invested significant sums in coverting this plot from a muddy field surrounded by rusting railings to one of the best kept secrets in the City in amenity terms.
Any discussion of development at this location is premature as the leaseholder has an automatic right of lease renewal which it is up to the reversion owner to acquire prior to any attempt to develop same. Given the reversion holders past behaviour it is strongly felt that this urban park should be acquired by compulsory purchase order to protect DCC from protracted and repeated breaches of the lease by this individual who has not complied with either his responsibilities under the terms of the lease or common sense.
I don’t blame DCC for not acquiring the freehold if it is seriously flawed they have protected the ratepayers interest by not purchasing an unworkable interest. DCC should however recover the costs of this process as it is a direct result of the individual in questions serious breach of the lease which forms an implied contract on the same terms as the original lease until possession is surendered.July 27, 2006 at 8:10 pm in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783410
But roadspace is not Dartmouth Road backs up every morning usually as far as the old McLoughlin & Harvey Building at the Luas bridge all the way from Dublins slowest traffic lights at the Junction of Leeson St Upper and Dartmouth Road (The lower section) To add two acres of underground parking or any additional parking at this location would be unrealistic and would put an undue strain upon
1> The Canal Westbound to provide access from the East of the City accessed by either Ranelagh Road or Dartmouth Place as the N11 cannot provide access due to permananent peak gridlock.
2> Ranelagh Road large numbers of right turns at Northbrook road would both hinder outbound traffic on Ranelagh Road and diminish residential amenity on Northbrook Road, Cambridge Terrace and Dartmouth Square itself.
3> Mount Pleasant Avenue and additional side streets would be rendered unpassable due to large numbers of right turns from the Canal at Cheltanham Place/Ontario Terrace/Canal Road. This would lead to the elimination of virtually all on street parking at this location to facilitate this parking that is located within 100m of a Luas stop.
4> Sallymount Avenue rendering Leeson Park an ineffective local access due to the queing time required to access Leeson Park.
I could go onJuly 27, 2006 at 10:16 am in reply to: section IV #783389
I believe you mean section 140 which is where a corrupt bunch of councillors form a cartel to over rule the council planners they are elected to oversee and vote en masse to put through a planning consent as a motion before a council meeting.
If this is your chosen route you have probably missed the boat as the next wave of them is unlikely to emerge before early 2009 and is limited to a very small number of councilsJuly 27, 2006 at 10:12 am in reply to: Dartmouth Square Disgrace #783395
What was the modest cost?July 24, 2006 at 7:17 pm in reply to: Matt Cooper: Developers get rich, buyers get shoddy homes in Nowheresville #783149
Always had the theory that you pay X for the key and then Y per square metre on a sliding scale thereafter