New Advertising in Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby archipimp » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:16 pm

im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.also if most these bike shelters were on the southside the argument would be "typical they get all those facilities down there the northside gets nothing"
also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!
archipimp
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Bray

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:12 am

archipimp wrote:im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.also if most these bike shelters were on the southside the argument would be "typical they get all those facilities down there the northside gets nothing"
also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!


Have you not read anything in this thread after post 16?
These are NOT bike shelters - they are 120 BILLBOARD sites;
the point is its not "Northside vs Southside", but how shitty adverts are to be dumped on working class areas - which tend to be on the Northside.
The 25 bike shelter locations have yet to be decided.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby phil » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:47 am

archipimp wrote:also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!



Archipimp, why do you assume that cycling should only be for the less well off as a mode of transport? I thought you wanted to think about the benefits of this scheme for the whole city?
phil
Old Master
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:32 pm

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby publicrealm » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:27 pm

archipimp wrote:im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.!


Absolutely. Time to move on from the old ways, rising tide levels playing pitch etc.

For years now many northsiders have been living happily in Ranelagh, and my neighbours and I fully accept them and consider them a colourful addition to the area.

Their sunny and carefree outlook makes a pleasant contrast with that of the indigenous population and, when treated properly, they prove very loyal.
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:47 pm

publicrealm wrote:Absolutely. Time to move on from the old ways, rising tide levels playing pitch etc.

For years now many northsiders have been living happily in Ranelagh, and my neighbours and I fully accept them and consider them a colourful addition to the area.

Their sunny and carefree outlook makes a pleasant contrast with that of the indigenous population and, when treated properly, they prove very loyal.


Hear hear. LMAO :D
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby manifesta » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:40 pm

[quote="hutton"]I see theres a big piece in Phoenix magazine on it (page 5, under the heading "councilors taken for a ride")]

Originally posted in PHOENIX MAGAZINE

COUNCILLORS BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE

A REMARKABLE row has emerged in Dublin City Council over a contract already agreed by officials with advertising firm, JCDecaux, in what has been described as a “free bike” scheme for Dublin: that is “free” in exchange for 120 billboard sites. So controversial is the scheme that denizens like Bertie Ahern – as a Drumcondra resident – has objected to it.

While media reports have concentrated on the bicycles, the real story is that councillors are outraged at the deal being already agreed by officials, with councillor Tom Stafford’s criticisms of the plan as a “terrible, terrible application” typifying representatives’ views.

Councillors were simply not aware of the scheme’s details – that is until 70 simultaneous applications to erect billboards was made by JCDecaux during December, with another 50 in January. These roadside units are to display adverts on one side, with “civic information” on the other – and all to be located on public footpaths.

Strangely there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment, nor a council motion selling public land – while councillors are also puzzled as to why, if the council is to be a beneficiary, that the applications were not addressed to Bórd Pleanála.

More interesting is that by virtue of the project being applied for as more than 120 individual applications, it would cost over €25 grand for total adjudication by the Bórd.

However, Executive Planning Manager Ciaran MacNamara has been busy at council meetings defending the “public realm enhancements”. Describing the proposed billboards as a “new departure for the industry”, MacNamara claims that along with the 500 rental bikes, the city will get 4 public toilets, “a family of way-finding signage”, and JCDecaux would reduce their current billboards by 25%.

Yet despite the contract having been already signed, MacNamara is refusing to release it to councillors on the basis it as “commercially sensitive” – with councillors now resorting to FOI requests.

Mr MacNamara also claims that “very few” objections had been received; maybe he didn’t see the one from Bertie Ahern, or from Tony Gregory, or the one from Councillor Larry O’ Toole. Councillor Tom Brabazon has been very busy getting in a dozen objections – while dozens of other interests have also objected, such as Dublin City Business Association whose members – Arnotts, Clerys, and Eason’s – have all filed objections.

Then there’s the Dublin Transportation Office’s submission regarding the 70 15-feet high “metropole” applications, which states “the DTO is totally opposed” as illuminated signage “is considered to be a safety hazard”.

Now councillors have begun to do their own sums regarding the advertising revenue potential; Tom Stafford estimated €13 million per annum – which over the 15 year terms is over €200 Million; i.e. enough to buy 2 million bikes...

Anybody feel as if they have been taken for a ride?


[align=center]* * *[/align]

Taken for a ride? Goodness, I've no idea what happened to me. Last thing I knew I was sailing around the streets of Dublin on my 'virtually vandal-proof' bike. Then I woke up with a massive head wound with not a soul around but this cluster of huge glowing ads for deodorant featuring sweating male athletes and scantily clad ladies, from which I smartly intuited that surely, surely I had ended up (somehow, someway!) on the northside. Now if only there was 'a family of way-finding signage' to help me get back home! Oh, how convenient, I see they've provided some for me. Thanks, JC Decaux. Wow. Once again, you've thought of everything.

'Public realm enhancement'. . . 'commercially sensitive' . . . 'a family of way-finding signage' . . . If that isn't the wooly rhetoric of sheep's clothing, I don't know what is.

Boo, hiss.

m
manifesta
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:13 pm
Location: in transit

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby StephenC » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:32 pm

These are all going through this week.
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby newgrange » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:48 pm

I have never been involved in planning things before.
I have objections lodged against two of these. Will they contact me to tell me what has happened? How long do I get before I have to appeal if they are passed?
newgrange
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:41 am

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:33 pm

Stephen,

When you say 'going through' do you mean that they will be passed or that the decision is due?

newgrange,

You should get a letter from DCC acknowledging receipt of your submission, then a notification of their decision to grant or refuse, which will tell you how long you have to appeal if you choose to do so- it's 4 weeks.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby StephenC » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:13 pm

I mean that decisions are being made..... a number have been granted. Among the conditions are that a number of the large billboards be removed.

Planning decision Amiens Street
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:45 pm

Steven

The decision page on the link is Blacberry proof could you please clarify the result.
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby newgrange » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:04 pm

I'll copy it here. Hope I've copied all the important bits.

**********************************************************************************
From Dublin City Council site.
Web Reference
Application Date: 11-Jan-2007
Planning Application Reference: 1115/07
Registration Date: 11-Jan-2007
Decision Date: 28-Mar-2007
Application Type: Permission

Main Location:
car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1

Proposal Permission for extension of footpath and advertisement structure

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION

Decision Date: 28-Mar-2007

1.Insofar as the Planning & Development Act 2000 and the Regulations made thereunder are concerned the development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars and specifications lodged with the application, save as may be required by the conditions attached hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shown on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and extent of which has not been adequately stated in the statutory public notices. REASON: To comply with permission regulations.

2.The developer shall remove one hundred 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings within one year of the final grant of planning permission of the metropole advertising structure. Details of the existing 48 sheet hoardings to be removed (including location map and photograph(s) of each structure) together with a dated photographic record of their removal shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within one month of their removal. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the prevention of visual clutter.

3.The metropole advertising structure and associated fittings shall be removed not later than 15 years from the date of erection of the advertisement structure and the site of the structure reinstated unless planning permission has been granted for its retention prior to that date.A written and photographic record of the erection of the structure shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within one month of erection. Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4.Notwithstanding the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,any change to the display panel including any increase in the number of posters to be displayed, the scrolling mechanism, internal/external illumination will be subject to the receipt of a new planning permission from the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

5.The developer shall make satisfactory arrangements for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the advertisement structure. Reason: In the interests of amenity of safety and public safety.

6.The Developer shall accept responsibility for the removal of the advertisement structure at its own expense, if such is necessary for the purpose of road widening, reconstruction and repair or for the repair, replacement and renewal of any service installed in the public footpath/road, for at the request for the Planning Authority. Reason: in the interests of road maintenance and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

7.The panels shall be lit in such a manner so as not to cause excessive glare or distraction to road users or adjoining property owners. Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

8.The Applicant shall make satisfactory arrangements for the maintenance repair and upkeep of the bus shelter. The Applicant shall be responsible for the removal of the advertising panel at its own expense, if such is necessary for the purposes of road widening, reconstruction and repair or for the repair, replacement of and renewal of any services installed in the public footpath/road. The advertising panel shall be removed from the site in the event of the road immediately in front of the shelter ceasing to function as a bus stop. The panels shall be lit in such a manner so as not to cause excessive glare or distraction to road users of adjoining property owners and the hours of lighting shall not extend beyond the hours of lighting of the adjoining street lights. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and public safety.

9.The applicants shall comply with the following conditions of the Roads and Traffic Planning Division, Dublin City Council: i.The proposed structure shall not impede 70X3m vehicular sight lines. ii.The proposed structure shall not impede any road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, vision along kerb edge lines or any other road infrastructure. This may require a slight adjustment in the proposed location as submitted. iii.The proposed structure shall not impede pedestrian desire lines or reduce footpath width below 1.8m, absolute minimum. (This figure will vary upwards depending on pedestrian and vehicle volumes). iv.The proposed structure shall be subject to a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit at the applicants expense. This will be done by an approved auditor through a public procurement procedure, which shall audit the entire permitted signage. Any failure shall be removed. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

10. The site works and building works required to implement the development shall only be carried out between the hours of 07.00am and 18.00pm Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00am and 14.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. Furthermore, heavy construction equipment / machinery including pneumatic drills shall only be operated on or adjacent to the construction site between the hours of 07.00am and 18.00pm Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00am and 14.00pm Saturdays and not anytime on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. REASON: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

There are no appeal details for this application
**************************************************************************************

Checking the ones I objected to, they both seem to have gone through with exactly the same conditions, implying they were done as a job lot.
newgrange
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:41 am

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby jimg » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:12 pm

newgrange got in ahead of me.
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby newgrange » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:21 pm

The advertising panel shall be removed from the site in the event of the road immediately in front of the shelter ceasing to function as a bus stop.

Are Dublin Bus responsible for siting bus-stops?
newgrange
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:41 am

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:29 pm

Thanks this device is great for e-mail but can be a bit selective on we access.

I suppose this was always going to come down to a horse deal. And if I am honest I would prefer to see 100 billboards go per metropole than a few million go into the City Coffers. The major concern I have so far is the wording of condition 2 which states 'the developer shall remove one hundred 48 sheet hoardins and associated fittings within one year of the grant of permission of the metropole'.

This wording is too loose as multiple permissions may be interpreted as having all complied once 100 48 sheet hoardings are removed. This needs to be tightened up considerably by alteration to '100 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings shall be removed within one year of the grant of this metropole for the avoidance of doubt this shall mean that 100 specific 48 sheet hoardings shall be linked to the grant of this permission.'

Thanks again
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby jimg » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:06 am

This wording is too loose as multiple permissions may be interpreted as having all complied once 100 48 sheet hoardings are removed. This needs to be tightened up considerably by alteration to '100 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings shall be removed within one year of the grant of this metropole for the avoidance of doubt this shall mean that 100 specific 48 sheet hoardings shall be linked to the grant of this permission.'

It seems obvious to me that this is deliberate. If the trade was 100 per installation, you'd be talking about removing 7000 such billboards from around the city; I doubt there are a tenth of that number. They are trading 100 billboards for the entire swathe of 70 on street advertising installations.

The other thing I love is the "committment to civic information"
Full Development Description

The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2.

I love the "The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement" bit. :rolleyes: Yes I can just see JCDecaux foregoing the use of the structure for advertising. While they were at it they should have inserted a a committment to the effect that the structure would display advertising or solve world poverty.
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:07 am

Fuckwits.

Blood on your hands, DCC, blood on your hands.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:29 am

Hmmmmm

Not the wording I would have expected Ctesiphon.although I can understand your feelings on this which are not unique.

The 100 removals for 70 far more valuable fittings is a complete capitulation by DCC.

There is a very high correllation between site assembly and short term income from billboards. The probable outcome of this deal is that JC Deceaux will remove 100 billboards that would have gone anyway as planning conditions attaching to those redevelopment permissions whatever happened.

JC Deceaux 70
DCC. 0

Time to get the calculator out again.
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:09 am

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.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(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.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:25 am

Didn't think of that one but a can see it happening in the future a couple of times for genuine reasons and then the Stephen Rossi Walsh types of this world realising that their is a credible angle in it and fabricating multiple whiplash claims once the precendent is set.

Good to see that JC Deceaux now have a monopoly on clutter and that DCC have belatedly seen the wisdom of the ABP decision listed above:

Dublin Council to ban posters on some streets
Monday, 2 April 2007 23:25
Posters advertising rallies or political meetings in Dublin are to be banned from three main city centre streets under a protocol agreed by City Councillors this evening.

Political parties or campaign groups like the Anti-War Movement will in future be banned from putting up posters in O'Connell St, Grafton St and Henry St.

They will also have to pay €100 annually towards public liability insurance.

The protocol imposes a number of conditions on such posters including requirements that they are at least 2.3 metres off the ground.

Any breaches of the regulations can lead to prosecutions under the Litter Act.

Residents' groups that put up less than 40 copies of A3 size notices will be exempt.

Posters for the forthcoming Election are subject to a different section of the act.
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby Alek Smart » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:01 pm

Would that Dublin`s Citizens could rustle up enough interest to march upon Civic Offices and torch the bloody place....!
Civic Information my arse....and I make little apology for reverting to ctesiphon like language.

Whilst many appear to believe Dublin is at the cutting edge of things urban,I am of the opinion that the City is currently at the edge of a very deep and wide crevasse into which it is about to fall.

Mind you,I did notice that at least one mould was recently broken as DCC Cleansing Operatives were to be regularly spotted pulling down the very hi-definition Pre-Ard Fheis posters in O Connell St.

It was quite funny actually to witness the Sinn Fein bill posters moving thru the Main St putting up,while being closely followed by two DCC staff pulling down the rather well crafted pictures of G Adams and ML Mc Donald.

Ah Joxer...the times has changed so dey haz.... :o

In the meantime DCC really does need to get a handle on its Inner City Regeneration policies as a recent late night stroll through Thomas St/ Cork St left me aghast at the level of deriliction visible in NEW unoccupied apartment developments.....:confused:
Alek Smart
Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Tallaght

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby newgrange » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:53 pm

I had two objections in to these - the one at the site of Mountain View flats on Summerhill (called 'Summerville' in documentation) and the one at Newcomen Bridge on the North Strand. 6768/06 and 6767/06

I would appreciate help from anyone here in how to formulate an appeal. I have never done this before and am a bit clueless. If anyone would like to help or perhaps co-ordinate a united approach to any appeals, please email or PM me.

Surely to God if they have mis-named a location in all documentation the application is invalid?? No?
newgrange
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:41 am

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:46 pm

Check your PMs, newgrange.

Alek Smart wrote:I make little apology for reverting to ctesiphon like language.

:D :D
Though I generally don't approve, there are times when cussin' seems like the only route. I save it for such special occasions.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:15 pm

ctesiphon wrote:Fuckwits.

Blood on your hands, DCC, blood on your hands.


Couldn't have put it better - an absolute scandal and probably the worst city planning idea since they tried to fill in the canals.

Fuckwits. :mad:
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:06 pm

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.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can't find the actual ABP ref. no.

Update:
The ABP reference number (if you search on http://www.pleanala.ie) is: 213886. Useful context.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron