A notification of decision to grant pp for retention for unauthorised use in Tailors Hall has been issued by DCC (3642/09).
Is it possible that An Taisce has been holding weddings and dances in Tailors Hall without planning permission?
Might this impact on the setting or fabric of a protected structure? Might it have impacts on adjacent amenity? (I imagine AT would have predictable views on this if a nasty commercial owner was applying.)
The planning application asserts that they have pp for 'community use' (?) (but their planning application form does not record this permission).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Happily the matter has been appealed by a concerned citizen - so the Board will have an opportunity to adjudicate on the matter. (It appears that AT have also appealed - presumably against the â‚¬57k or so in development contributions?
Oh what a hoot!!publicrealm wrote:Re: Retention application for unauthorised development at Tailors Hall???
Devin wrote:Oh what a hoot!!
Except that the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use. This was required due to changes in licensing laws in relation to holding of small dances/private events.
The Tailors' Hall is as gunter alludes to actually purpose built for these type of small theatrical events and concerts, which have taken place in it for more than 300 years. The application is to permit continuation of this use into the future.
It's a licensing issue rather than a development issue.
The individual who appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala is also apparently unaware of this ...
Perhaps this poor ignorant soul is just carrying out the AFT maxim of read application, object, read grant, appeal. He has learnt at the hands of the masters - why shouldn't they be hoist by their own petard
Alternatively he may live nearby and be thoroughly sick of noise pollution and disturbance. In which case he is using legitimate means to further his ends within the wonderfully democratic planning system
in any event I'm willing to suggest that this will be out of ABP with a positive outcome within the allocated time period - unlike anything else in the vacinity
it is indeed an established use. In fact my wife wanted to have our wedding reception there until I reminded her of her 3 friends redundant in the most part due to interminable ABP dithering over vexacious AFT appeals (allegedly)
publicrealm wrote:. . . . . especially as they style themselves as 'Ireland's National Heritage Organisation'.
Devin wrote:wearnicehats, the first version of your scheme got a pretty poor reception when it was put up here on archissek in 2007.
Maybe an image of the revised scheme should be reposted in this thread to see if people think an appeal against it was "vexatious".
An Taisce whose public utterances are nearly always - arrogant put-downs- and almost never - positive lessons.
let someone else sort out your shit. that's the system.
You're perfectly entitled to come on the internet and gripe over someone .. that's what it's for. But I think where it gets a bit stretched is where you can do this about AT due to their appeal against your scheme - as you have in three threads - but disassociate yourself from the scheme in question at the same time.wearnicehats wrote:happy to stand over anything - wouldn't have the first clue where it is but you obviously know so repost away.
Devin wrote:You're perfectly entitled to come on the internet and gripe over someone .. that's what it's for. But I think where it gets a bit stretched is where you can do this about AT due to their appeal against your scheme - as you have in three threads - but disassociate yourself from the scheme in question at the same time.
......... btw I'd be pretty confident no one would think AT's appeal against that scheme was "vexatious", "read application, object, read grant, appeal" or any of those things ....
Devin wrote:That's the other beauty of the net of course .... a username and talk about what happened to you in the 3rd person.
Lol!!!wearnicehats wrote:Your blood pressure will not be so high
faceless obdurant and unapproachable
careful now...ABP it lies in bed with
Smithfield Resi wrote: careful now...
Smithfield Resi wrote:Who else is actually fighting the battle for heritage in this country?
Smithfield Resi wrote:I would love to see the people you mention prick the An Taisce 'bubble' and become involved. I would also love to see a more structured community have a voice BEFORE planning is granted - at the moment An Taisce is the only national organisation filling that void.
Smithfield Resi wrote:The hard truth is this. In relation to planning An Taisce doesn't represent anyone except the Development Plan. That is to say it insists that the legally binding contract that was made between the people and those who administer their local area is upheld by legal process.
no need for (substantiated) threats.
Another solution would be to put in place a some kind of umbrella group, under which all shades of heritage opinion, from militant ATs on one side to gentle academics on the other, can feel comfortable and useful. A conference once or twice a year could be convened to review progress, re-energise the troops and hammer out strategies for elevating heritage to the position we all know that it should have.
Legalese is the lowest form of argument. We will never communicate the value of heritage to the broader community if we rely of the footnotes of zoning objectives to win planning battles.
Smithfield Resi wrote:http://www.collierbroderick.ie/Articles/HRUpdate-0210-Irish-Blogger-Settles-Libel-Case-For-100k[/url]
is it really also acceptable to keep someone hanging on for 2 years before totally refusing the whole thing?
Smithfield Resi wrote:Isn't that the point of development plans and zoning? I'm sure he would have had permission long ago if the development proposed was within the zoning objectives. On the other hand, why shouldn't someone who picks a figure out of the air for what he'll pay for a site (with everyone shaking their heads at the time and saying that's stupid money) and then rides roughshod over the zoning, context and local sentiment for the area in proposing something totally inappropriate.
Why shouldn't the 'system' give that applicant a pretty bloody hard time.
Or do you consider development plans optional?
Archiseek beers?? When and where?? Heritage pub?
Should I start a thread??