PVC King wrote:Hmmmmm
Not the wording I would have expected Ctesiphon.although I can understand your feelings on this which are not unique.
Over the weekend I considered editing that post to soften the language, but in the interests of historical accuracy I'm going to let it stand.
The revised version would have read:
This is the wrong decision. I can't believe that the various planners involved in determining each of the 120 applications had no issues with any of them, whether on grounds of 'serious traffic hazard' or otherwise. This smacks of direction being handed down from above within DCC. It has been suggested on this forum recently that An Bord Pleanala has become the de facto planning authority in high profile / controversial planning cases, with LAs shirking their duties. However reprehensible that tactic might be for your Lansdownes and your Ikeas, it positively stinks in this instance owing to the prohibitively high costs of a comprehensive appeal.
I give it two years before some enterprising solicitor stands up in court and says 'Your honour, my client does not deny that he hit the cyclist who, he acknowledges, had right of way at the junction, but he contends that the internally-illuminated advertising hoarding at the junction distracted him. According to a decision of An Bord Pleanala in 2005** in refusing permission for a similar sign:
"It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its bulk, scale and visual impact, including impact of illumination and scrolling, on a major distributor road, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.
Having regard to the location of the proposed development adjoining a major distributor road, it is considered that it would tend to distract road users, compete with statutory road signage and would thus endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard."
For this reason, my client contends that Dublin City Council shares responsibility for this accident and should be included in proceedings accordingly.'
Or, put more simply: Fuckwits - blood on your hands.
Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong!
(Also, Condition 2 as highlighted by PVC King, if read in a purely legalistic way, does indeed mean that for every metropole granted 100 billboards should be removed. It's obviously a mistake, but I'd love to see it enforced. 'You mean you've only removed 100 billboards and there are none left? Then all you get is one metropole. Choose carefully...'
**For the curious, that ABP decision referred to a grant from South Dublin County Council for an 'internally-illuminated monopole' on the Long Mile Road that was refused on appeal by the Board.
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can't find the actual ABP ref. no.
If anyone's appealing, this ABP case would be key to your argument. In essence, the Board has set down very simply why a sign virtually identical to the metropoles should be refused, so it would seem that similar logic should apply to any appeal on a similar proposal.