Forum Replies Created
Yawn….this â€™10 year permissionâ€™ will keep the ball rolling for another decade. Just goes to show, you can fool most of the people all of the time!
Would this be the same council that reputedly sold Navigation House to Owen O’ Callaghan with the proviso that he provide a multi storey car park so the city hall workers and councillors can park for free?
Right on. And also the city council that sold land in Mahon at a discount to OCP because we were to get a conference centre for one Punt as part of the deal.
remains to be seen whats in the Finance Bill i suppose but the Seveso should have been done ages ago (Health & safety will be delighted, they wont have to keep sending pointless letters every time there is an application within a seveso zone) and if there is nothing for the rest of the docklands in the bill, well, thats just an out and out disgrace. Its bad enough we got landed with the airport debt and they still havent appointed a chairman to the airport authority. Remember, local elections next year. Dont hide from the councillor at the door, ask him what are they doing about the docklands. (Answer: Nothing, as they have no power).
Cork City Council last night voted in favour of rezoning a sports ground at Farranlea Rd in Wilton for a 100 bed facility for the HSE. Councillor Dave McCarthy questioned the move when he said Our Ladys Hospital is lying idle. Councillors have said its not setting a precedent though. (Presume they are hinting at O’ Callaghans plans to get Cork Con rezoned).
McGonigle, Shannon, Shields, Corr et al will do as they are TOLD at the end of the day.
And from today’s Cork Independent.
What a coy city councillor is Fine Gael’s Laura McGonigle!
Take a dekko at her website to see why. She tells us the Corpo lads and lassies met reps from Owen O’Callaghan Properties to discuss his plans for the Temple Hill Cork Con site, The 93 houses, the 354 apartments, the offices, the shops. Etc, etc.
What’s more, the co-opted councilor would “be most interested to hear your views on the O’Callaghan proposal”. More to the point, we’d be most interested to hear her views particularly in light of the fact that the Council and City Manager have already said no more rezoning of green acres. Not even over their dead bodies. Is she for that, or not?
Has she got a solid opinion on the thorny subject or has O’Callaghan already got carte blanche for his very controversial project?
Or is she merely trying to gild the Lilly? She claims to represent punters in the Ballinlough/Silverdale area who are already up in arms at the traffic chaos in a section of the city that can no longer cope with poor planning,
They certainly would like to know where she really stands on O’Callaghan’s plan.
She says we can be assured she’ll be voting against the development in its current form. But what does she mean by “in its current form”?
Oh, and she’d also welcome your views on the Osprey Properties plan to construct 128 houses and 127 apartments at ChurchLane just down the road,
No doubt also in its “current form”.
@demolition man wrote:
Why do people have to put the Elysian down all the time?To me,while there may be some flaws such as the white cylindrical tower piece and the dank panelling on the west side, is still a welcome addition to the city’s skyline.
Considering the bland tripe being built in the dublin docklands and being proposed in kennedy quay we should be appreciating this development and be encouraging new developments to show similar uniqueness. I don’t know how some people get off on critiscising the Elysian when there is nothing else bettering it in terms of design (that is on a similar scale) in the city or even in the entire country.
It’s the best of a bad lot eh?
I accept the Elysian as an everyday, run of the mill buildind design. It should never have been put out there as the “best of Irish”.
It is a nice block of apartments with shops underneath, nothing more, nothing less.
And when they try to train in new drivers, the existing ones go on strike.
Spot on, and there are more than enough drivers, but antiquated work practices dictate that more than one driver per train is listed on the work roster at any given time to ensure that a train might definitely have a driver (you know in case one stubbed a toe on his way to work etc) The other drivers then go home if there is no train to drive, days work done!
Long live the Union eh?
If our Jerry is talking through his h**e, will he do us all a faviour and resign?
If he is right I will vote for him again next time aroundâ€¦â€¦
Cork Airport rejects claims of business slump
By Eoin English
CORK Airport strongly rejected claims last night of a slump in business.
Just a week after the release of record passenger figures, Fine Gael Senator Jerry Buttimer said he has received figures which show that in the past 12 months:
* the airportâ€™s retail revenue has fallen by 12%;
* its car park revenue is down 16%;
* and airport operations are down 4% compared with this time last year.
Mr Buttimer said the figures were presented to the Cork Airport Authority this week and point to a financial crisis caused by continuing uncertainty about the airportâ€™s debt levels and its battle to secure independence from the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA).
The CAA has submitted a draft business plan to the Department of Transport, factoring in its controversial decision to accept â‚¬113 million in debt.
However, significant issues need to be clarified before a final plan can be prepared.
But the airport rejected Mr Buttimerâ€™s claims and said passenger figures for the first six months of the year are up 7% for the same period last year.
â€œThe airportâ€™s trading performance broadly reflects this,â€ a spokesperson said.
More than 1.6 million passengers used the airport in the first six months of the year â€” up by 100,000 people, or 7%, on the same period in 2007.
The airport said last week that it is on schedule to break last yearâ€™s record of 3.2 million passengers.
But Mr Buttimer said he stands over his figures and he called on the Government to address the situation. Years of Government dithering over the airportâ€™s debt and the refusal by the DAA to give the CAA independence are responsible, he said.
He called on the Government and DAA to take leadership by immediately filling the vacant CAA chairmanâ€™s position and by clarifying the status of the airportâ€™s debt.
â€œCork Airportâ€™s business plan is now effectively redundant due to the current recession, and a new plan must be drafted urgently to address the crisis,â€ he said.
â€œThere is currently no chairman of the CAA and therefore no-one in situ to provide leadership.
â€œEven more seriously, the issue of Cork Airportâ€™s outstanding debt has not been addressed and the Government has refused to provide any clarity on this issue for the last three years, in spite of initially promising to relieve the debt in full.â€
CAA chairman Joe Gantly stepped down on Monday. Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, said he hopes to appoint a successor soon.
:)Interesting proposal before CCC from Comrade Mick Ahren;
â€œRed Mickâ€ is calling for all cycle lanes to be protected from other road users by the provision of â€œplastic road furniture, poles about one metre high, set at intervals of every two metres along the cyclewayâ€
:oSure it is light years ahead of Dara Murphyâ€™s and Brian Birminghamâ€™s traffic proposals to; ban the Mayfield bus from going to Bishopstown where it would get delayed on its return journey to the north side and the provision of a San Francisco cable car to transport the great unwashed to the top of Patrickâ€™s Hill.
:rolleyes:Rumour has it that another of our â€œelected fathersâ€ is looking into getting Scotty to rebuild the transporter form the USS Starship Enterprise to transport our elected officials between important meetings. Concerns have been raised with all the â€œhot airâ€ on board that Scotty will get hoarse from shouting; â€œI can no stop her from overheating Captainâ€
Doesn’t the a lot of the docklands have to be raised anyway due to the effects of future tidal flooding?? Maybe this 1m skimming would work if it doesn’t have bad effects on the environment.
The Docklands Local Area Plan states:
Chapter 7: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT
MATERIAL AMENDMENT MA17: FLOOD RISK
Amend the section of the plan relating to flood risk (7.26-7.28 /
ENV9) to take account of revised food policy for South Docks area:
7.26 Flooding results from a combination of human activity and natural physical
conditions. There is mounting evidence that the global climate is changing as a result
of human activity, which will lead to an annual increase in sea level of between 4 –
6mm. Flood risk will therefore need to be considered at all stages of the land use
planning process and managed in an environmentally sensitive way.
7.27 A flexible approach is needed to take account of flood risk to ensure that
appropriate measures are taken wherever the need arises. When considering
development in flood risk areas regard should be had to both the â€œPrecautionary
Principleâ€ and â€œSequential testingâ€. Those proposing developments in areas where
there is a flood risk should:
7.28 Provide an assessment of whether the proposed development is likely to be
affected by flooding and whether it will increase flood risk elsewhere and of the
measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks. Satisfy the planning authority
that any flood risk rising from the proposal will be successfully managed with the
minimum environmental effect, to ensure that the site can be developed and occupied
7.28A Guidance in relation to the flood risk management and protection measures
for the South Docks is outlined in the South Docks L.A.P. and Infrastructure Strategy.
A detailed study of flood risk in the Lee Catchment is also being undertaken by
consultants for the O.P.W., in conjunction with Cork City and Cork County Councils
(Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assesment and Management Study). This Study will give
the definitive guidance on best practice for the assessment and management of flood
risk in the Lee Catchment, including Docklands. The guidance contained in the SDLAP
shall be reviewed in the context of the final Lee CFRAM Study.
Amend Policy ENV 9 be addition of following sentence:
Policy ENV 9 Flood Risk
Development will not normally be permitted unless appropriate flood protection and
mitigation measures can be put in place to ensure that the site can be safely
developed and occupied and flood risk as a result of the development is not increased
elsewhere. The City Council will require that key flood protection infrastructure be
developed on a phased basis within the South Docks. Flood protection measures as
outlined in the Infrastructure Strategy for South Docks include the raising of ground
levels with perimeter protection of the site.
My understanding of the contaminated land issue as it relates to the Cork Docklands is as follows;
Best practice in this case would require a 3meter skim to be removed and exported for de-contamination. This of course would be very expensive and could make many parts of the Docklands site uneconomic.
CCC are suggesting that a one meter skim be removed and â€œdisposedâ€ of, and backfilled with fresh soil but no one is quite sure what impact (if any) this would have environmentally, or in raising funds from financial intuitions to purchase units that would be built on land that may be classed as dangerous.
I would like to post photos of the Cork Docklands johnglas but I am unsure how to do so.
I know where you are coming from on that, BUT I wish Howard Holdings and all the other stakeholders the very best of luck for the Docklands. What I am bitter about is the total incompetence of CCC in wasting 8 years on foreign junkets to see far away dockland regeneration when they should have been sorting out the contaminated land and other issues in Cork to help, not hinder the stakeholders.
May I ask why
I feel he is 100% right, i was being factitious on all the points mentioned.
Kite, you’ll have to explain yourself on that one, I’ve had a look at the Further Info required and would have had a much more optimistic view. I’m not an engineer or developer but I dont think there is anything insurmountable there bar changing the mix to more residential, which might be tricky in current downturned market.
The Seveso site is definitely a stall for time by City Council as the developers were simply asked to explain how the Seveso site issue would not affect them. Even more positively, I think the height of the 3 residential towers was agreed in principle with some small few floors knocked off, the retail / office buildings appear to require 1 floor knocked off and the rest of the info seems to be details required of the event centre, noise, traffic, waste management, lots of small detail
The issue will be whether the funding is granted for the new bridge and the further info request seems to hint at that, as the developers were asked for details as to how they would go ahead if the new bridge wasnt built for a while
Now that, is Fianna Fail procrastinating and Cork getting rubbish transport and infrstructure funding as per usual
No wonder this thread has gone to the dogs,
CJH was a pillar of society,
The Emperor has new clothes,
The Cork Docklands will be up and running soon.
PIGS WILL FLY…
I think it was very very unfair of Howard Holdings to submit a surprise planning application with Cork City Council for the Docklands.
If our city officials had any prior notice that somebody was to try and redevelop this derelict part of the city they would of course have been prepared for same.
Have we really got officials with such intelligence that they get dizzy when placed in a round room and asked to piss in a corner?
Did the Health and Safety Authority submission point to a contaminated land time bomb that CCC forgot about?
Didnâ€™t anyone foresee a Green Minister for the Environment?
:mad:Thanks to Cork City Councils total incompetence I think it is safe to say; Cork Docklands RIP.
Howard Holdings have been asked to submit further information to CCC regarding the Atlantic Quarter proposal.
As I understand it this Seveso situation will only really be sorted out once the City (or County?) Council nominates some poor god forsaken place as the future location for Seveso developments. Is this right?
Whatever site is going to be declared a Seveso in the future does not remove the very serious headache we now have to sort out.
If our officials and Councillors were to be held personably liable for future loss for granting planning against EU safety directives then this mess would have been sorted out years ago, BUT as always, if the worst happens and there is a liability issue it will be taxpayers money that will be spent / wasted while the decision makers will be spending their salaries / pensions / pay related bonuses on a golf course somewhere (hopefully well away from contaminated lands)
I think it very unfortunate for Cork City Council that all these Seveso sites appeared in the docklands overnight.
If our city officials and Councillors had advance notice that somebody was going to flytip these Major Hazard sites in the middle of the jewel of Corkâ€™s crown maybe Joe Gavin could have instructed a litter warden to be on the lookout and fine them 125 euro. That would go a long way to pay for the clean up!!
If the contaminated sites were in place for say 30-40 years then our ultra efficient officials and Councillors would of course have begun the decommissioning process 8 years ago when the Cork Docklands project was launched.
;)Or maybe itâ€™s the case of nobody foresaw John Gormley as Minister for the Environment!!
@nimbus 2008 wrote:
What did they say?
The Health and Safety Authority submission states:
â€œOn the basis of the information the Cork City council has supplied to the HSA, and the information obtained from Alleyquay Investments Ltd. the HSA ADVISES AGAINST the grant of planning in the context of major accident hazardâ€
(capital letters as above used in HSA submission)
Does the HSA submission on the HH application mean it will not be possible for the planners to grant permission?
Not at all, EU directives and the Planning and Development Act mean absolutely nothing when it comes to planning in Cork.
Just think of all the lovely development levies the city will receive from such applications?
Why spoil the party on safety matters?
An Taoiseach has suggested that his successor should consider a new government jet because with the current one “you canâ€™t stand up” and it “has no toilet”. He is referring to the Learjet 45 purchased new in 2004 for â‚¬ 8.5 million.
He also critisised the Beech Kingair 200 which enterned service in 1980 for having suffered a number of electrical fires, including one in flight.
Wonder if Cork can have the old crocks as is the case with our cast off buses from Dublin?
:oThat genius Cllr. Dara Murphy could use them to fly from the city centre to Mayfield. That should sort out his major worry in life, i.e. the delay suffered by the Mayfield bus getting caught up in the Bishopstown traffic, traffic caused by silly decisions taken by him and other city lightweights.