Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Environment minister issues ‘notice of opinion to refuse’ private Causeway development
As anticipated yesterday the Northern Ireland Executive’s Environment minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster, has made a statement to the Assembly and announced that a notice of opinion to refuse the planning application by Seymour Sweeney for his private development of the Causeway Visitors Centre has been issued - despite being “of a mind to approve” it previously. No sign of of any other matters yet.. But all documentation relating to the decision are now to be released.. The discussion continues live here. I’ll add links when available. Adds Apparently, according to the minister, being “of a mind to approve” is not the same as being “minded to approve”.. And From Mark Devenport’s blog - “If she had done this in the first place just think of the acres of newsprint that could have been saved.” Indeed. Update Some quotes from this report And The official ministerial statement
Arlene Foster, who last year said she was minded to back a bid by private developer Seymour Sweeney, told MLAs in the Stormont Assembly she has now changed her mind. She said she had decided against the bid over planning concerns. “There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location,” the DUP minister said. “I have therefore concluded on balance and on further reflection that the application should be refused.”
Pete Baker @ 10:39 AM
Danny Kennedy: “The DUP have left Mr Sweeney on his todd”
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:20 AMThat was a cracker!!! He said he’d been saving that one up. LOL
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:23 AM“Mrs Foster told the assembly that she saw some merits in Seymour Sweeney’s proposal.
But she said that she had to turn it down on planning grounds.
“I am convinced that the proposal, as it stands, would have an adverse impact on the World Heritage Site,” said Mrs Foster.
“I believe it could adversely affect the character of the area.
“There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location."” BBC
All of this information was in the public domain long before the Minister’s ‘minded’ statement on September 10, 2007.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:29 AMAll of this reasons could also be applied to any hotel and golf course development at Runkerry!
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:34 AMJunior might not get a conservatory built onto the house now
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:38 AM“it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location”
So what will Sweeney/Seaport do with all the land accumulated adjacent to the Giant’s Causeway WHS?
Are there implications for the reported Sweeney/Seaport ‘deal’ with DSD for the 96-acre site at Ballee?
What about Donald Trump’s intentions for a major golf resort, possibly within the 4km restricted zone around the Giant’s Causeway WHS?
Is Junior’s lobster cooked?
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:41 AMBuile Suibhne, Foster has left her party boss and FM in the bunker:
“Michael Forbes didn’t think that Donald Trump had a high opinion of the locals. “He thinks we’re all a bunch of cabbages,” he told a US newspaper this week.
No doubt Donald Trump had a much better opinion of the first and deputy first ministers.
Mr Paisley promised to help, wherever possible, to ensure nasty planners or recalcitrant locals do not delay any Trump project should it come to Northern Ireland.”
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 11:56 AMFoster looks like the fool she has been with this one and to expect the public to believe her minded decision ( whatever that rubbish meant in the first place) was originally taken on planning grounds is ridiculous
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 01:36 PMFoster’s Folly :: Bouncer’s Bunker
Environment Minister Arlene Foster today announced to the Assembly that she has decided to refuse the Seaport Investments’ plan for a Giant’s Causeway visitor centre.
This follows a report from the Planning Service into concerns that the Minister expressed when she stated last September that she saw merit in the proposal and was of a mind to approve it. She asked her planning experts to question the developer, the National Trust, and Moyle District Council on these issues and report back before any decision would be made.
The aspects of the proposal that the Minister referred for further consideration were its impact on the World Heritage Site, its ability to integrate into the landscape, its relationship to other development in the area and its relationship to the existing visitor centre.
The Minister said today: “My officials’ discussions with the key stakeholders have now been completed and I have received their report on those, as well as their reassessment of the application in light of the outcome.
“I am convinced that the proposal as it stands would have an adverse impact on the World Heritage Site as I believe that it could adversely affect the character of the area. There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location.
“Although I still see merit in the proposal, I consider that this does not outweigh the planning concerns that I continue to have about it and which clearly are not capable of being addressed to my satisfaction. I have therefore concluded on balance, and on further reflection, that the application should be refused.”
NOTES TO EDITORS:1. The planning application, which was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, was submitted on 25th February 2002.
2. The application sought outline planning permission for the development of a visitor and study centre – to be located under a grassed circular dome and measuring 2,823 square metres in size – which has been designed to accommodate up to 750,000 visitors per annum.I thought her ‘concern’ on September 11 was about her ’integrity‘ ...
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 01:56 PMIt is the right decision and could have been made very quickly. BUT what a muddle, and we got some insights into the world of development and political lobbying which has become increasingly necessary to help progress applications. However this poses obvious difficulties for politicians and Junior when beyond what one would expect and if nothing else shows at least lack of judgment.
Several points,
If the application was made in Feb 2002 6 years have elapsed. That is just not good enough. A developer should have a right to expect a decision (even refusal) on most applications with a few months. This is a wider and serious problem. The amount of money paid in interest awaiting decisions is criminal. The local economy cannot afford it.
Clearly Ms Forster is not on top of her brief and should resign. The Planning Department needs someone firm with real ability and a proper understanding of the various complex issues.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 02:27 PM“Mrs Foster told the assembly that she saw some merits in Seymour Sweeney’s proposal.>/i>
I agree that there was <i>some merit in the proposal.
It had the merit of exposing Ian jr. for what he was and so bringing about his downfall and the end of any meaningful career. So for that, at least, three cheers for old Sweeney!
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 02:44 PMWhat time of the day would be appropriate to have a celebratory drink?
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 03:15 PMI think the person who deserves a great deal of credit here is Nevin who has patiently and meticulously detailed all these goings on and has, I am sure, helped ensure the defeat of this part of Mr. Sweeny’s plans.
Congratulations Nevin
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 04:10 PMCrataegus, it’s my gut feeling that Foster and Dodds were merely responding to directions from their party leader, Ian Paisley snr. What alternative explanation is there for their antics?
Here’s a photo of the ’movers and shakers‘ in happier times. Does anyone know if the ‘going rate’ was paid for the railway company and if the company is still one with not-for-profit charitable status?
PS It’s a pity we didn’t have a William Hague in the Assembly today.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 04:50 PMTurgon, any news of the progress of the assault case? I understood it had been put back to January.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 05:15 PMCan anyone answer the question where does this leave the publically funded option?
Did Dodds not suspend any further DETI work on it in the DUP carefully choreographed attempt to leave the way clear for sweeny’s proposal?
Will it be quietly put back in motion again?
Ofcourse that was before Ian Og opened the slurry tank on the whole thing.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 05:29 PMHogan, apparently the DETI sponsored Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities Limited company has been ‘parked’ by Dodds and Moyle District Council will lease all of its ground on the site to the National Trust so that the latter will eventually put forward its plans.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 05:52 PMMaybe its time to move on to a new topic.
What about flexibox?
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 06:48 PM[aside]Talking of Devenport and his Diaries:
In response, Eamann Poots (sorry that was gratuitous...) says the practice did not influence his approach to the Irish Language Act, but does not help in developing the language in a depoliticised manner.
I have to admit that I tried to gaelicise “Mervyn Storey”, but its Welsh purity has left my Irish language boffins stumped.
I take he meant Eamonn rather than Eamann. My own ‘researches’ indicate that Storey has its roots in Northumberland rather than Wales.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 07:22 PMNevin
Crataegus, it’s my gut feeling that Foster and Dodds were merely responding to directions from their party leader, Ian Paisley snr. What alternative explanation is there for their antics?
Indeed, on that you are probably on target.
However there are wider problems and this does not inspire confidence.
Anyway as Rory has pointed out it is effectively the end of the Paisley era. Very satisfying.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 07:57 PM“This is a wider and serious problem.”
Crataegus, it’s my contention that the planning process is rotten to the core and has been so for a very long time. Just look at the farcial decisions linked to Ballyallaght and the Blackside to name but two.
We also had direct rule ministers waiting for a local Executive to form and settle down; they sat on their hands rather than make decisions.
The Causeway debacle was also influenced by councillors who had issues with the National Trust as well as with the developer. On the question of whether to sell or not to sell their interest at the Causeway the voting went something like YES, NO, YES, NO, YES, NO, NO.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 08:37 PMSteve48, there are also questions linked to the Ballee land deal in the Belfast Telegraph on January 3:
“But SDLP MLA Declan O’Loan has now said questions remain about the terms of the agreement between the developers and the former landowners.
Details of this arrangement have not been disclosed, and the identity of the other business interests currently involved along with Mr Sweeney has also not been made public.
According to legal papers dating back to 2006, the original deal involved the former landowners receiving 10% of the selling price from the developers.
Questioning Mr Paisley’s protest last year to a fellow Minister about the land price, Mr O’Loan said: “If the landowners stood to receive 10% of the selling price, it was in their interest to make the price as high as possible. The only people who wanted the price low were the developers.
“The questions around this issue will not go away. They raise more issues all the time. They must be fully answered.”
Mr Paisley has not responded to a Belfast Telegraph query on Mr O’Loan’s comments.”
These questions were more or less fluffed on the Purdy interview and subsequent Thompson one but were outlined on Slugger on December 7.
Perhaps the DSD can reveal who is putting forward the money.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 09:09 PMThis is closest topic I coould find. Has anyone come across this? Thought it was of interest to many on here!
http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home News&id=82652
“THE globally renowned National Geographic organisation has changed the way it refers to Ireland . . . no longer calling it a “British Isle”.
National Geographic, which is one of the largest non-profit scientific and educational institutions in the world, took the decision to change the way they refer to Ireland after receiving a complaint from an Irish-American lobby group.”
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 10:32 PMNevin
Crataegus, it’s my contention that the planning process is rotten to the core and has been so for a very long time. Just look at the farcial decisions linked to Ballyallaght and the Blackside to name but two.
Nevin it is worse than that it is virtually dysfunctional. What is its function, what are its aims, what are its main objectives and what exactly are the criteria under which it operates? What is it trying to achieve? Has it any real purpose? It is acting outside the law, is applying draft area plans that have not been through due process etc etc etc. It is an utter mess and I fully expect increasing resort to judicial opinion.
This serves no one well.
Developers like order, they like to know when they buy a piece of land what they are likely to be able to get approval for so they know what its value is. Most developers are straight forward.
Neighbours like assurance that Mordor will not be visited upon them.
The planning process is virtually a lottery. Fools go in and borrow to buy land on the assumption that they will get treatment equal to that on an adjoining site and find to their horror that interpretation has ‘changed’. Their financial assumptions are therefore in ruins and at this point many a desperate person will try anything to extract themselves from the mess.
Consider someone borrowing £1,000,000 to buy land to develop (small site). Imagine that the Planning process takes 18 months and not 3-4 months. That person has paid out in the region of £80,000 in extra interest. This is happening across NI it is costing the local economy serious money that it cannot afford.
Also because of the lack of clarity people are submitting schemes, revised schemes, revised revised schemes, this is despite having meetings etc with the Planning Service. “Comments expressed at such meetings are without prejudice.” Again this adds to costs, serves no real purpose. Who gains? What is achieved?
Ever wondered why housing went through the roof? Simple they created a shortage of development opportunities and prices rocketed. You cannot go from a policy of a house in every lane to one of NO houses in rural areas without balancing out the equation in a rational manner. You cannot expect 60% of housing to be build in Belfast if the sites are not available and the infrastructure is not in place. This is not planning it is utter chaos.
Question is who is responsible, Planners being inept or is the problem lack of political direction or a combination of both?
Anyway that is my rant, I now spend most of my time out East a much much better place to do business, with quicker turn round times and frankly just a better ‘atmosphere’.
ON ROTTEN.
I see patterns, and all I can say is that some people must have the luck of Lucifer, or superb professionals working on their behalf and others don’t. Over and over I have seen schemes approved and others that to my eyes seem similar refused, but them I don’t know the detail and may be making erroneous assumptions.If people keep digging some senior heads may be found to be uncomfortably close to developers. Roll on the day, we all know the rumours.
Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 10:37 PMLets not take our eye of the ball.
We still do not have a world class visitors centre.
Is there any chance Moyle council could make a mess of negotiations with NT and get a poor deal for ratepayers/tax payers?
We do not want them to give the family silver away.Posted by on Jan 29, 2008 @ 10:56 PM
