Monday, September 10, 2007
“It would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to proceed further in the circumstances..”
The winning architectural design for the proposed Visitor’s Centre at the Giant’s Causeway was announced in October 2005 and, presumably, that’s what they still intend to build [Adds or perhaps not..]. But the question of who is to build it looks like being another battle-ground within the NI Executive.. and outside as well. On Saturday SF MLA Daithí McKay complained about the delay, today we have a quick one-two of statements from the DUP representatives in the Executive - firstly from the Environment Minister Arlene Foster, and then from DETI Minister Nigel Dodds. The upshot of which seems to be that their preferred choice is for a private development company, Seaport Investments Ltd, to take on the project.. and the costs involved in building it. BBC report here Update SF’s Daithí McKay wants clarification from the DUP.. and the BBC have just reported that Seymour Sweeney, of Seaport Investments Ltd, has confirmed he is a member of the DUP and signed nomination papers for a councillor in Moyle, but he also stated that he has not donated “a penny piece” to the party. [added link and photo of Mr Sweeney with Ian Paisley Snr and Jnr] And another link with this quote from Environment Minister Arlene Foster [statement here]
Updated From a 2003 UNESCO-IUCN report on the Giant’s Causeway [PDF file]“A minister, when making decisions, cannot and should not investigate party affiliations of applicants, and I did not do so in this case,” the minister said. “I do not know the applicant, have never met him, and know nothing about him. “If anyone impugns my integrity in this matter I will be seeking legal advice and will act accordingly.”
However, a number of potential threats exist, including development proposals, which could threaten the values and the integrity of the site. None of these proposals have been through the full planning process and have been approved. No approval should be given without reviewing a proposed development within the context of the protection and safeguarding of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the World Heritage site and its management.
From the Environment Minister Arlene Foster
The Minister said: “I have recently received a report from the Planning Service on a planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a new Visitor and Study Centre at the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. I have given this report my fullest consideration and have also taken the opportunity to visit the site.
“Having done so, I have concluded that there is considerable merit in what is proposed and I am of a mind to approve it. I have asked my officials to engage with the developer and key local stakeholders on some aspects of the proposal so that I can make a formal decision on it at the earliest opportunity.”
The Minister added: “I am of course conscious that this announcement will have implications for the public sector proposal which has been under development by DETI and the NITB but which has not yet led to a planning application. I understand that my colleague, Nigel Dodds, will be making a separate statement on this issue.”
And from the Tourism Minister Nigel Dodds
The Minister went on to explain what this decision meant for the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Tourist Boards’ proposals for developing a visitor centre; he said: “The Department and NITB became involved as a potential developer of last resort. This was at the request of the key stakeholders who were unable, over an extended period of time, to reach agreement.”
The Minister continued: “It would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to proceed further in the circumstances, given Minister Foster’s position on the private sector planning application. The DETI/NITB project would cost in excess of £21million.
“The people of Northern Ireland will no doubt look to all local stakeholders to work constructively to deliver the facilities expected by visitors to this magnificent tourism asset.”
Pete Baker @ 03:03 PM
Comrade Stalin
Yes, and the first question the Shinners have to answer is why they support a system that prevents the exclusion of parties if they are found to be engaged in improprietyThe answer is very obvious as the unionists have an 85 year history of trying to exclude the republicans from everything all the time(jail being the exception)with out rhyme or reason. Secondly their would have to be very specific list as to why a party could be excluded or the next time a republican stubs his toe and swears on the high street the loyalists would be calling for exclusion
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:51 PMBigger Picture as Nevin’s work suggests the danger is that this sets a precedent for green field development at the Causeway site.
Seymour owns most of the land ringing the site - if he establishes a bridgehead in the form of a ‘soft’ development in the form of the visitors centre he’ll likely pursue a policy of developing his other lands in a way which could change the whole character of the area. And I don’t think anyone could argue that Seymour has a record as an energetic developer with an ability to wear down statuatory agencies until he gets his way.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:53 PMIf Arlene Foster is going to consult widely about the private developers proposals, maybe she needs to include a visit to the Planning Appeals Commission before she visits gay Paree. If my memory does not fail me, they commented on the Arts, Crafts and Heritage Centre proposal mentioned by Nevin - 11th July 2002 - on the proposal described variously as the Dump in the Lump and TellyTubby Land. I quote from the final report:
“notwithstanding the “underground” design concept, the new landform which
would be created would not be typical of the area and the proposal would appear
as an alien feature out of place with the character of the area when seen from the
critical view points identified by the appointed Commissioner. The visual impact
of the proposed development is particularly important, given the sites location
within the Causeway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting of
Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. These considerations add considerable
weight to the unacceptable visual impact of the proposal”
The Dump in the Lump was to be situated some 50 yards away from proposed Visitor Centre site - does anyone think that the Commission was trying to say something?Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:53 PMK
Planning’s under DOE so im guessing you actually mean she?
Anyway try and keep up been there done that
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:56 PMNevin,
Excellent work.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:02 PMUndoubtedly all above board, but it appears that Seaport Investments also seems to have been a beneficiary of the sale of the former Coleraine Borough Council HQ:
http://www.hallidayramsay.com/residential/cloonavin.shtml
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:15 PMMick, as part of my research I popped into the Nook this afternoon for some apple-pie and ice-cream and was served by one of the Nookie damsels.
The model for the new Visitor’s Centre was sitting rather forlornly in one of the little nooks. It reminded me of the set for the Teletubbies.
Later on the model was carried outside for filming by the BBC. When the top was raised I’m sure I spotted Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky Winky asleep inside. You don’t suppose they’re card-carrying members of the DUP? ;)
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:23 PMWe all know that if the businessman had links to Sinn Fein IRA, then most of the posters on here would be quiet.
And in the past, SF IRA used threats of legal action against people all the time - anyone who dared to expose their illegal dealings. Before SF IRA can be taken seriously on this issue, we need them to hand over all the bank money they have stolen over the years including all the properties and businesses they have bought with it.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:36 PMIndeed this was strongly resisted in the negotiations towards the SAA. Though I also take it that you are speaking speculatively.
Mick, yes I am. Nothing’s proven yet.
Dawkins:
I’ve difficulty with this; it doesn’t strike me as being all that democratic.
Yes it is. There are several occasions where Irish governments (for example) have collapsed over allegations of corruption. I would also point out that it wasn’t necessary for any corruption or misdeed to be proven in court before the government went down. While I’m being careful with what I say, I don’t think the regular laws of defamation and slander apply to governments, surely.
Unless it’s shown that the rot permeates the entire DUP (which I doubt) we should only go after those members who’ve been naughty boys and girls.
That’s not how it works in real life, as Albert Reynolds found out.
I don’t think we can apportion blame to an entire party if one or more of its members misbehaves.
If a party member misbehaves, ie brings the party into disrepute, then the onus is surely on it to remove that person from the party. This is why the Conservative Party have been ruthless in booting out people making racist comments, no matter how tame they seem. If they did not do that, they would be seen to be endorsing those comments.
Bigger picture:
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why a govt cutting spending and getting increased development is a bad thing? There’s £20m saved plus a visitor’s centre is still going to built quicker and run with a greater efficiency.
No, the profits from running the facility will be diverted into private hands. The developer wouldn’t be proposing any development unless there was some financial benefit to him. Remember that the vast majority of the land around there is owned by the National Trust, which has to foot the bill for maintenance. It makes more sense to me that any profits derived from the site should be put back into it’s upkeep.
ÂŁ20m is short change to the government, which has a ~ÂŁ7bn budget.
People on this site need to move away from the socialist controlled economy that they are all imagining and realise that this system of government is ensuring that more resources are being plowed into the NI economy with less central govt investment.
I am all for the private sector providing services. We need more of that. What I don’t believe in is having the private sector make a fast buck off a world heritage site which the taxpayer foots the bill to maintain. There is no evidence for your claims about plowing in resources, or that ill-defined word “efficiency”.
Sean:
The answer is very obvious as the unionists have an 85 year history of trying to exclude the republicans blahblahblah
But that’s bollocks. Sinn Fein are only in power because the DUP have agreed to it. If the DUP wanted to exclude Sinn Fein, then they could simply walk out of the executive, and it would collapse.
Let’s imagine an executive party turns out to have been involved in something very shady. Sinn Fein are guilty by association, because by remaining in the executive they are allowing that party to hold onto power.
The executive still has to retain credibility with the electorate. At the moment, to me, that credibility appears to be eroding. The institution is incapable of making decisions over critical but reasonably straightforward matters, such as academic selection or the location of the Olympic stadium. When it makes mistakes, it is incapable of imposing self-correcting measures upon itself to bolster it’s credibility. I am not sure how much more of this bad stuff it can take. Clearly you think that none of that stuff matters as long as you think there’s equality. Well, equality is what you got - everyone has to equally suffer the same shit administration.
Even a system of executive rotation between groups of parties (where everyone gets a shot) would be better than this crap. Hell, it seems to work on the councils.
Secondly their would have to be very specific list as to why a party could be excluded or the next time a republican stubs his toe and swears on the high street the loyalists would be calling for exclusion
If a republican stubbed his toe and the loyalists called for exclusion, that could easily be achieved by the DUP walking out of the executive. That’s precisely what they would do if, for example, a police officer somewhere got shot dead and people pointed at the IRA. Don’t be too trusting of your DUP pals.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:43 PMBTW on another note, it’s interesting talking about the need for people to be careful about slandering and defamation.
There was no such concern during the spy-ring allegation business at Stormont. I wonder what parallels can be drawn between the various players during that particular crisis, and during this one.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 10:45 PMHere are some images taken from the 2002 Visitor’s Centre application and provided by the Planning Service:
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 11:00 PMCS
I understand your point and that is why Moyle DC, National Trust and Seaport should all be round the table in this and getting the best solution for the site in a PPP strategy. What some people on here are arguing though is that this private development should never have been considered which is outrageous in the liberal economy we live in.
SF should take note that the arguments Daithi McKay put up in the debate today was nothing more than controlled sector economics that made them fail so badly in the Republic. Learning nothing are we?? DETI under SF might have included 5 year plans and the such!
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 11:20 PMComrade Stalin
Sean:
The answer is very obvious as the unionists have an 85 year history of trying to exclude the republicans blahblahblah
But that’s bollocks. Sinn Fein are only in power
Because the DUP have agreed to it. If the DUP wanted to exclude Sinn Fein, then they could simply walk out of the executive, and it would collapse
This is true but that would leave the DUP with out power and infact loyalists outside with their noses pressed up against the glass just like the republicans. Power sharing is not about INCLUDING republicans, its about NOT being able to EXCLUDE them
Secondly their would have to be very specific list as to why a party could be excluded or the next time a republican stubs his toe and swears on the high street the loyalists would be calling for exclusion
If a republican stubbed his toe and the loyalists called for exclusion, that could easily be achieved by the DUP walking out of the executive. That’s precisely what they would do if, for example, a police officer somewhere got shot dead and people pointed at the IRA. Don’t be too trusting of your DUP pals.
SEE note above plus I believe its the Loyalists who are shooting cops but they arent linked to any party are they Nudge Nudge Wink Wink
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 11:20 PMPerhaps the Taoiseach can offer the northern ministers some consolation as ‘siteseers’ traipse around Bertie’s Bowl, Paisleys’ Pit and Foster’s Folly.
Are our ministers more in need of a few Sir Humphreys and a few less ‘political advisors’?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 06:37 AMA number of issues arise out of this.
1. Why did it take so long to get disagreement on car parking etc between Moyle and the NT?
2. Who was involved in the negotiations and are there any minutes / notes of these meetings?
3. Did Moyle vote on the outcome of negotiations, or was it all left to Council Officers ?
4. Has Dodds actually withdrawn the offer of funding in advance of any decision by Foster ?
5. How was the “minded” decision of Foster communicated to DETI? Was it through OFMDFM whose role it is to ensure joined up government ? Did DFP comment on the matter ?
6. How was the Sweeney application raised within the Planning Service and how were other known interests in the area considered, including DETI?
7. What was Fosters responsibility to ensure that the Unesco report was considered?
8. Is the Departments advice to Foster publicly available ?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 06:56 AMTS, your first two questions lack clarity. Do you mean ‘disagreement’?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 07:17 AMI understand your point and that is why Moyle DC, National Trust and Seaport should all be round the table in this and getting the best solution for the site in a PPP strategy.
No, no, no! I have seen no evidence whatsoever indicating that PPP provides any overall benefit to the taxpayer. It’s nothing more than public sector borrowing, contrived and hidden to make it look like something else.
Private developers only get involved when there is profit. The only profit here is money which would otherwise be returned to the taxpayer for reinvestment. The developer pockets the cash, the burden on the taxpayer is increased.
What some people on here are arguing though is that this private development should never have been considered which is outrageous in the liberal economy we live in.
I disagree. This isn’t another housing development. It’s a world heritage site, which is a special case; and in any case the taxpayer is already footing the bill for it’s upkeep.
Sean, I’ll reply to you later.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 08:13 AMInteresting, on the Nolan show NT have suggested that there is a signed contract between Moyle and the NT ( and the DTI ? ) to provide a centre. The Chair of the Council appeared to suggest that Moyle’s decision to sign the contract was taken by a vote in council which he did not support.
Apparently, DTI were responsible for taking this contract forward and seeking planning permission, but there was no movement.
I was concerned initially that Planning were setting Tourism policy, now it looks as though DTI have questions to answer.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 08:55 AM“Sweeney has watered and wined the Paisleys at numerous times in North Antrim.”
Dr P will be the one on the water of course. Not much cost there.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:00 AMLooks as if the same cronyism may be developing in NI like what we had in the south regarding politicians, business deals, property etc.....
(An old gaelic name is Sweeney .....aka O’Suibhne, ....and also an old gaelic king who went mad.)
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:10 AMBigger Picture
I think it was made quite clear that SInn FĂ©in favour the public proposal just in this particular instance and this position is the same one backed by Coleraine Council last night. SF are clearly not opposed to private development per se and the DUP are trying to play the ‘reds under the bed’ card to divert attention away from their own party for obvious reasons!!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:22 AM”Glenn Bolcáin or Glen Bolcan, Glen Bolcáin
Valley of exiled madmen mentioned in several early Irish narratives, identified with Glenbuck, near Rasharkin, Co. Antrim. Suibne lives here in Buile Shuibhne [The Frenzy of Suibne].” .. Answers.com
But that’s a yarn about Rasharkin, GrĂ©agĂłir, not the Causeway Coast’s Artihannon - the height of the house of St Ian [OOPS] St Enan :)
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:50 AMComrade Stalin,
I see where you’re going with your responses to my earlier post and agree in part.
That said, you’re absolutely right to say that a party should be ruthless in its housekeeping and get rid of the peeps who bring it into disrepute—or threaten to—before the entire party topples.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:50 AM“The Chair of the Council”
Alan, David McAllister, who appeared on today’s Nolan Show is not the chair of Moyle DC; the post is held by Madeleine Black.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:54 AM“the taxpayer is already footing the bill for it’s upkeep”
CS
I understand your point again but the upkeep will be outweighed by the ÂŁ20m that will enivatbly be saved.
You say in relation to PPP that the tax burden would increase, how so?? Surely if MDC and NT were on board the Public and Private sectors would be working together to provide the best service at the Causeway without the need for sporadic injections of DETI funding??
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:58 AM
