Greystones Marina plan generates 5,500 submissions
A proposed €300 million development of Greystones harbour has generated much opposition both locally and further afield. 5,500 submissions were received by An Bord Pleanala at the deadline on 15th February.
The plan for the harbour area is proposed by Wicklow County Council and a private sector partner, Sispar. In return for development works in the area, the private consortium plans to build 375 apartments. The apartment blocks and other development blocks will rise to over 4 stories and dominate the landscape.
Wicklow County Council has decided to go ahead with the plan despite the huge amount of opposition of local people. The Irish Times reported a Wicklow County Council spokesperson saying that many of the 5,500 submissions had come from outside Greystones and a substantial number were copies of a similar standard letter. “It is not about who objected but about the issues raised in the submissions,” the spokesman said.
Could this be interpreted to mean that the volume of submissions is not to be taken into consideration? If enough citizens of Greystones or the rest of the county are concerned about the privatisation of public lands and views, this should be taken into account in oral hearings due to start in March.
In all probability, the development will go ahead and the real winners will be the developers and their bank balances.
Links:
Website of the Greystones Protection and Development Association :
http://www.greystonesmarina.com/
Wicklow County Council :
http://www.wicklow.ie/specialprojects/
Liz McManus TD Blog
http://lizmcmanus.blogspot.com/2006/02/greystones-harbour.html
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
The final tally of submissions on the Greystones Harbour EIS was 6,210!!!
Perhaps the policitions will now start to listen to the people who do not want their foreshore handed over to property developers.
Power to the people!!!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“It is not about who objected but about the issues raised in the submissions,” the spokesman said.
What WCC are basically saying is that the don’t give a (****) about what Greystones residents want, no matter how many object!
It makes one wonder who’s interests WCC are acting in..?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:26 pm
That was my take on it exactly Peter G. Really a very poor attitude for WCC to have.
Thanks for the update John.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
6210 objections speaks for itself and already WCC has begun to spin this saying that all submissions are not objections, etc, etc. They wouldn’t give a damn if there were 621,000 objections or submissions. The arrogance and ignorance of local councillors here is unbelievable, I never believed people acted in this way and I never thought I would come face to face with such a blatant misuse of power. Voting these people out at the next election is not sanction enough. They are a disgrace.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:04 am
As a fellow greystonian,i may say good news to progress
just a bit worried about the damage to the foreshore.
but we must always enhance new developement that
will bring more tourists to our shores.
As long as all building regulations are adhered to i dont see
any problem with this developement.
whats the number of submissions 5,500 thats a bit over the
top maby half of that would be realistic.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
see previous e mail on attempt to make oral submission.
“we have been through it all in Dun Laoire. They ruined the habour etc. and they could have built the marina in an eclosed area to the East of the harbour at a fraction of the cost. with TWO teams of consultants recommending it.
In Greystones this is a ‘cute excuse’ to allow property speculators in etc. The actual cost of a breakwater [see other e mail] would be MCUH LESS than that of Dun Laoire and the State could easily pay for it. Any facility in Greystones etc would not even have to be that large and flats etc to pay for it—-there were NONE necessary in Dun Laoire Tel 2800 534.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
as a little boy from greystones i have see all the changes around me disstroyed the loveley land cape i think wcc shoud lisen to all it people and not it self
yours peter from westbank childrens home
October 4th, 2006 at 12:48 am
As someone who was born and raised in Greystones, I was appalled and enraged when I found out about the proposed marina and apartment development at the harbour. I immediately sought to find out exactly what the plans and cost would be… …and my jaw dropped! Admittedly, the harbour is in great disrepair and requires a major ‘face-lift’, but there is no justifiable cause for the monstrous marina planned by WCC. Would they use an atom bomb to kill a fly? It is simply too much for a small town like Greystones. As for the apartments and the boardwalk; we have all seen pictures of, or have been to those Spanish resorts which consist of a beach (usually overrun with tourists) and row upon row of ugly, towering hotel fronts. What has happened their shore line? Where is their clean and mountainous view? GONE! Forever! Do we want the same? I shouldn’t think so.
There are a number of issues brought up by WCC’s proposal to ruin our harbour;
i) The Department of the Environment recently compared the Victorian Harbour to Architectural Conservation Area and said that:
“The Department seeks to ensure that the development on the immediate harbour area would not dominate or detract from the historic character of the Victorian village.”
There have been numerous calls for Architectural Conservation Area status which the council have, so far, refused. If this status were granted, any new development would have to be in HARMONY with the existing Victorian Harbour. WCC have instead proposed to designate the harbour a “Local Urban Interest Area”, which provides no protection from planning acts such as these. Four other areas in Greystones are being designated A.C.A.’s in the forthcoming Local Area Plan. Why not our picture-postcard focal point of the town?
ii) WCC are calling the development a “Public and Private Development. How can this be when 6,210 people have objected to it in a town of 12,500 people?
iii) WCC want more residential areas in Greystones. This is fine. Greystones needs more housing. BUT! Why there? Recently, the Charlesland development was completed creating hundreds upon hundreds of houses and apartments in an area that did not create an eye-sore or make an impact on the historic and cultural quality of the town. As you may have noticed, if you have been to the affore mentioned development, you will have noticed there are a number of roundabouts on the straight road leading up to it. On these roundabouts there are ‘dead’ turn offs, not leading anywhere. Why would the Council do this if there was no intention to build there also?
iv) Many years ago a plan had been proposed to repair/rebuild the harbour at a very minor cost, but WCC shot it down saying that they could not afford it. A look into their accounts at the time made it obvious that this was not so.
It is plain and obvious to anyone who looks at the facts of this proposed development that the only ones to profit from it would be WCC and their friends, the developers.
Dick Roche refuses to comment or even reply to anyone with these comments or questions.
The 2 Wicklow councellors against this development are also being ignored.
When the next Council elections come about, what say we give them a surprise and get rid of the money grabbers who care nothing for their country’s beauty and heritage.
I thank you in advance,
yours,
Ger Evans
October 13th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
This over-development in Greystones Harbour is a blatant destruction of natural amenities that those of us in Wicklow (and further afield) hold dear and regularly use.
Do not let Greystones be the precedent where it is established that Developers can BUILD ON BEACHES AND OUT INTO THE SEA (foreshore).
As far as I know, this has never been allowed in Ireland to date.
Please call on minister Dick Roche (www.dickroche.com) to become a DEFENDER of WICKLOW BEACHES or else step aside as Minister for the Environment and (alleged) Wicklow Public Representative. Incredibly, he and his party appear to support this destruction.
It seems that he represents the 2% of respondents to the Planning Hearing who did not object, rather than the 98% who objected.
Thank you in advance,
Keith
January 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
the new plans have been published and are on display. they are as bad as the original. there is an 8% decrease in apartment number only and the dump is to be dug up and moved upon itself, not removed as requested. the style and look is at odds with the area. all of the orginal reasons for objecting still stand. please see http://www.greystonesmarina.com for an objection letter and send your objections to bord@pleanala.ie before Jan 25th 2007. This is the last chance we have.