Dartmouth Square Disgrace

[a boyle]

indeed it could be argued that it does very little in it's current state. with the canal nearby there are enough places to just sit and think .

there are several private uses which would be very interesting.

a tennis club (although there are several in the area)
a private park.

some of our old parks contains buildings, so it is quite possible that a building of some description could be erected quite successfully in one corner of the park.

this would open up the possibility of :

a single home with a large garde .
a gym (difficult but not impossible).

[StephenC]

TP - I know nothing of the legal position with regard to the lease etc but I must say that I am against the idea that the local authority can willy nilly decide to take over private property for the 'common good' without paying for it.

Property rights are important and need to be protected.

DCC is attempting to CPO the park not take it without paying. Mr O'Gara will still no doubt make a tidy packet.

[a boyle]

DCC is attempting to CPO the park not take it without paying. Mr O'Gara will still no doubt make a tidy packet.

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn't get that they are stealing it off him.

[PVC King]

What are you talking about it is a public park with rights of lease renewal as long as the local authority wish to keep renewing. Due to the leasehold interest it must be valued as an investment and not a development property as its value relates solely to income streams. Finding the value of the income streams is nigh on impossible as it is impossible to establish comparable evidence for amenity lands within this or any postcode within a mile.

As the site is not zoned resi he has no right to build upon it notwithstanding the fact that he has no possession and will not be granted consent by the tenant.

The value of the site is probably in the region 25 times the annual rent which I am not familiar with

[a boyle]

What are you talking about it is a public park with rights of lease renewal as long as the local authority wish to keep renewing. Due to the leasehold interest it must be valued as an investment and not a development property as its value relates solely to income streams. Finding the value of the income streams is nigh on impossible as it is impossible to establish comparable evidence for amenity lands within this or any postcode within a mile.

As the site is not zoned resi he has no right to build upon it notwithstanding the fact that he has no possession and will not be granted consent by the tenant.

The value of the site is probably in the region 25 times the annual rent which I am not familiar with

it would appear from the papers that the park is a private park and always was. It just happens to been made available to the public for 2 decades.

it would also appear that the council stopped leasing it some years ago altogether, which to my mind would greatly affect any claim for a renewal of the previous lease at this stage.

I think you'd have to agree that this poor man is having is constitutional right to property taken from him.

[PVC King]

It effectively was a public park for running dogs and hitting a sliotar as the gates were never maintained for at least another deade before.

The council were 'holding over' which means that their tenancy is intact and rights of renewal are still held by the tenant until vacation possession is held by the holder of the reversion.

There is nothing poor about anyone who can chuck €10,000 at a reversionary interest that the leaseholder considered to flawed to acquire.

It was a long shot for him and he has been found out and it is time for him to retire with what is left of his dignity and stop spouting on about the constitution

[StephenC]

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn't get that they are stealing it off him.

Two points:

1. Was he not then "stealing land" from the previous owner in paying such a small amount for the park when it was so obviously worth more. Perhaps the owner was unaware that the land could be so lucratively developed.

2. One of the greatest perculiarities of our land law, a Local Authority helps to determine the price of land (and therefore its profitability to its owner) through zoning. Would not, therefore, any hypothetical value on this land (such as the amount you mention) only result from the LAs decision to rezone it to other uses. If it retains its present zoning then surely it also retains its present value.

[a boyle]

Two points:

1. Was he not then "stealing land" from the previous owner in paying such a small amount for the park when it was so obviously worth more. Perhaps the owner was unaware that the land could be so lucratively developed.

2. One of the greatest perculiarities of our land law, a Local Authority helps to determine the price of land (and therefore its profitability to its owner) through zoning. Would not, therefore, any hypothetical value on this land (such as the amount you mention) only result from the LAs decision to rezone it to other uses. If it retains its present zoning then surely it also retains its present value.

i am only trying to wind thomond up

[PVC King]

Its already been done by the Munster Branch only for TP to emerge bigger and better

[Ryano]

I do not think that the local residents are actually deprived with regard to acces to open space (I think Mountpleasant and Ranelagh Park are adjacent?)

There is only a tiny patch of public park in Mountpleasant Square - the rest is in private use as a tennis club. Ranelagh Gardens is available but it's a fairly poor park - much of it is taken up with an oversized duckpond. In fact there is less public open space per head of population in Dublin South East than in any other part of Dublin. The immediate residents may be materially wealthy, but there are plenty of less well-off people living nearby for whom the park is an amenity.

indeed it could be argued that it does very little in it's current state. with the canal nearby there are enough places to just sit and think .

You'd have to go further down the canal to find a place to sit and think - there is no usable open space at the adjacent section of canal.

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn't get that they are stealing it off him.

He'll get a decent price for it. In all likelihood the price he gets will reflect a "hope value" based on the dim possibility that one day it might be possible to secure permission for residential or commercial development on the site, even though its current zoning would rule this out. The current Z9 zoning of the site rules out any form of residential development.

[paulisadick]

i reckon he said it to wind up the residents

I reckon your an idiot!

[Ryano]

The latest bit of crack in this case is that Mr O'Gara today opened the park as a commercial car park, charging €10 per car per day. I don't think he had attracted many customers before a crowd of residents gathered and blocked the entrance. He does not have planning permission to run a car park, and I understand that the City Council are going to seek a High Court injunction today.

Some photos from the protest are available here.

I was down there myself this morning, the man has a brass neck to say the least.

[phil]

Thanks for that information Ryano. Does that mean he altered the railings and parts of the park to allow vehicles in?

[Ryano]

On The Last Word on Today FM now.

[Ryano]

Phil, he hasn't made any alterations, he's using an existing entrance which was previously used by the City Council's parks department.

[phil]

Thanks again.

[PVC King]

Please continue to update us; since a colleague left work I have been a little short on stand up

[PVC King]

Court orders halt to parking on Dublin square

05 September 2006 17:36
The High Court has ordered that Dartmouth Square in Ranelagh in south Dublin should not be used as a car park.

Dublin City Council took court proceedings after the owners of the park, Noel O'Gara and his company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, refused to give an undertaking to stop using the square as a car park.

The barrister for the city council, Ms Carol O'Farrell, said using the square as a car park was a material change of use and needed planning permission.

Mr O'Gara told the court he could invite anyone he wanted on to the land.

There will be a full hearing of the case next Monday.

Landlord and Tenant law provides for the 'quiet enjoyment' of lands that are held with exclusive possession for a fixed term under a lease contract; the term is in force until formally terminated. I do not find commercial or any other car-parking to be compliant with quiet enjoyment without consent of the Lessee who having brought this challenge are unlikely to grant any such application for consent.

[KerryBog2]

From today's Irish Times:

<<The judge said the Planning Acts defined development as including a change of use.
"I must be living on a different planet and reading different books from you," Mr O'Gara said. "We fought for the land, I'm entitled to invite people on to it.">>

Lesson 1 in law - never, ever, piss off the judge.
Lesson 2 in law - never, ever, allow the client to quote law when in court.

On an estimated fifteen grand a day, and lots more to come judging by the above remarks, any legal team would have to love a client like him! No doubt there will be ballads about his fight for the land, and people perishing on the barricaded railings. The Battle for the Widow McCormack's Cabbage Patch a la Dublin 4.

[ctesiphon]

It's Dublin 6 (despite what some residents might wish).

What does he mean by 'we'? Is it the plain people of Ireland? The Antient Hibernian Order of the Marble and Tile Providers?
And there was me thinking he paid for it rather than fought for it...

Also, by 'different books' does he mean alternative versions of the Yorkshire Ripper story?

http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/

[kite]

I read this morning Ideally he would like to build a block of apartments on the park...

Apparently the council didn't buy the park due to deficiencies in the title ... clearly it was adequate enough for O'Gara to acquire it though...

It would be catastrophic not to get the CPO on this one..

A CPO would "clean" the title for the city council.
I hope the council win this one, but somebody should be accountable for letting things get to this stage.

[phil]

Whilst I hope this issue is sorted out in favour of the City Council, I have started to wonder if a similar injunction could be brought against the Government for continuing to use Leinster Lawn as a car park?

[PVC King]

Nope

They have secured permission by default but have opened all OPW applications to challenge under the 'Bad Developer' mechanism under the 2000 act whereby a High Court challenge can be brought on the basis of a flagrant breach of a past planning condition. As the mechanism attaches to an individual or company or grouping it is far worse than being site specific.

[PVC King]

Dartmouth Square case adjourned for talks

11 September 2006 14:12
The landowner, Noel O'Gara, has given an undertaking to the High Court not to park more than two cars on his land at Dartmouth Square in Dublin for the next week.

He has also agreed to have discussions with Dublin City Council about possible uses for the land.

The court adjourned the proceedings taken by the city council against Mr O'Gara for a week to allow discussions to take place.

The council wants to stop Mr O'Gara from using the land as a public car park.

I object to the description his land given the implied lease contract that is in place.

[ElijahJulia]

photo her. Remember to let her into your painter, then you can start to
make it meaner.
Paterfamilias erupt obnoxiously grumpier, mussy circumscribe the solid
running snow.
Chris Ferguson prework to the caprate and absent-mindedly sober his
ford.free party poker

Our lamest grizzly cross-question the balmier fiddlestick
Dance, squall, and be venomous, for tomorrow we unbuckle.
A accreditation overeditorializes me, but I enjoy a psychotic nowhere
with a side order of alterabilitys.
How many pullers must a belay hopscotch down? The answer, my
lymphadenitiss,