New Advertising in Dublin

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

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:33 pm

phil wrote:Incidently, Ctesiphon, what does OTM mean? You have obviously brushed up on all the fancy new terms!

On The Money.

It originally said OTFM, but I changed it for reasons of propriety (I'm sure you can guess the missing word). I could have said QFT, or IAWTC, but, y'know...;)

ctesiphon- FTW!
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 Feb 06, 2007 9:59 pm

I have done a little research in to this and JC Deceaux are not the only providers in this field elsewhere

I have obtained the revenue streams usually payable in such situations; Hutton find out how much they are paying DCC and send me a pm as if my suspicions that the sums payable are meagre by international comparison then the lected reps will want to know why proper research was not conducted into the income potential and why it was not tendered as a 70 site contract should have been under EU law ; I think that in some locations bus-shelter scale posters could be a very good source of revenue for the council to fund libraries etc. But Grafton Street and other important city centre locations cannot suffer this proposal.

My rationale on this is that the line has been spun that this is a new and innovative product; it isn't it has been around for years but most cities have refused it on the grounds of visual amenity. The advice I have received is that demand is led more so by footfall than traffic but that junctions which experience congestion are also sought after. There are no examples of this that I have heard of at a height of less than 2.5m from the ground. The technology is going to LED and that they are banned outright in all conservation areas.
PVC King
 

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

Postby lostexpectation » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:00 am

[quote="PVC King"]I have done a little research in to this and JC Deceaux are not the only providers in this field elsewhere


My rationale on this is that the line has been spun that this is a new and innovative product]


these metropoles having nothing to with the bike funding ads right?
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

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

Postby hutton » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:01 am

lostexpectation wrote:these metropoles having nothing to with the bike funding ads right?


Aha thats the very root of the confusion, lostexpectation - see the original post, and then see what I found out and posted on Friday.

It was councillors understanding that the advert aspect was only going to be a small part of the bike scheme]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7509568322806821099&q=journeyman+bicycles+is%3Afree+genre%3ADOCUMENTARY[/url]
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 publicrealm » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:14 am

hutton wrote:
publicrealm wrote:
Dublin City Councillors have been excellent in recent times - look at Moore St etc, the problems have been with officials.

With respect, either I did not make myself clear, or I totally disagree with your analysis as to section 183 - disposal of local authority land is a reserved function of the councillors, not simply "an administrative" matter, and therefore requires mandate by councillors voting on it. It would be my opinion that in this case the law has not been applied - simple as that.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA37Y2001S183.html


I'm afraid I was the one who was unclear - I'm not suggesting that land disposal is an admin function - merely that planning permission does not require land disposal (i.e. does not require the applicant to be the owner). What it does require is the consent of the owner - in this case DCC. The giving of that consent is an admin function.

If it is the case that DCC have agreed to dispose of the land then you are quite correct - such an agreement would require the agreement of the Councillors. Have DCC agreed to dispose of the land? If not my point stands.

I do not know if DCC Councillors are better than others - certainly their tribunal history is not good. I recently noted that the South East Area Committee did everything in their power to frustrate plans for the new Lansdowne Road Stadium - while pretending to be in favour of it. I don't believe they were motivated by the National interest? Or even the interest of Dublin. I'm sure there are some good ones but they have a long road to travel (in my view).
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

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

Postby GrahamH » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:03 am

hutton could you clarify how the 25 bicycle stands are to be funded, if this 70-strong advertising scheme is unrelated? You note that "funding for the bike project was set aside specifically just over a year ago", and is unconnected with this current project - in which case how/who is paying for the cycling scheme? Thanks.

Yes I noted the Grafton Street application today in disbelief, given the context of the recently drafted Area of Special Planning Control, and ACA. Reading through the former document (which is even more comprehensive than its northside equivalent), it would leave any reasonably-minded person incredulous as to the brazenly two-faced stance being adopted here by DCC - on the one hand rejecting outright any attempts by retailers and property owners to advertise in a format anything other than discreet, highly self-contained International Post-modern Uber Chic (TM), including an unfavourable outlook on 'internally illuminated signs including box signs [or] illuminated scrolling signs", and reels and reels of stipulations regarding other forms of advertising structures, and yet on the other hand are willing to bend the rules to suit their own cash cow development, in a much more exposed location in the middle of the public domain! And, as it happens, near the entrance to the southern end of the street, the very part of the thoroughfare of critical importance in generating first impressions!

Just related to this scheme, people may have noticed that many of the planning notice signs about the city are mounted on brand new aluminium boards and clamped over with polycarbonate screens – a very recent innovation.

Image

They’re made, erected and maintained by a service provider by the name of Site Notices Ireland: you select how often (if at all) your notice is maintained, even up to daily, so it’s no wonder they came in handy with this advertising scheme, with the notices being erected in highly vulnerable areas.

Here’s their site – a single notice erected and maintained once a week costs €410, with costs decreasing per additional sign. An example of a current private property use is the Georgian building next to Merchant’s Arch, another highly trafficked location, which is currently seeking to restore the facade and granite steps.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4589
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

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

Postby hutton » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:31 am

410 quid per notice????

*heads off to print out cards advertising such service + sets up shop*

Thats some wheeze! :D

Anyhow to try to clarify - there is still confusion but details are emerging; I understand DCC set aside funding for this bike program, possibly to be part funded by advertising on the side (my supposition) - this was what councillors were sold. However there was a small shortfall...And then somehow we are here, where councillors claim they were unaware of the initial 70, since followed by another 50 simultaneous applications - the locations of which are not related to the bike facilities, as they have yet to be decided. The criteria of site selection is a total mystery :confused: , and there has not been a 183 vote which is necessary in terms of ceding ownership to JCdec, who are now acting as if they effectively already have beneficial ownership of the sites. :eek:

So thats my understanding as to where things are at. Poor Dublin. :(


It all throws up some very urgent questions :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 PVC King » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:33 pm

It does such as:

Did the City's elected councillors sanction disposal of 120 prime sites for commercial purposes?

What return are DCC receiving for this?

Was the conservation officer consulted?

Was this project tendered?

Was this project entered in the EU tender journal?

What term is this arrangement for?

Were the relevant stakeholders consulted?

What independent analysis of the transaction was undertaken?
PVC King
 

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

Postby fergalr » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:45 pm

A councillor I know says they haven't voted on it yet and the plan was drawn up by an independent company for the council.
fergalr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Howth, Co. Dublin

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

Postby PVC King » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:09 pm

I am not so sure that any council official would have the ability to grant lanowners consent for a third party to make an application for municipal planning consent without authorisation from the elected councillors as such consent is in itself a ' legal interest' which is generally accompanied by a premium.

All applications should therefore be declared invalid on the basis that landowners consent has not been granted
PVC King
 

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

Postby StephenC » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:52 pm

This is a very good point.
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

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

Postby publicrealm » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:25 pm

StephenC wrote:This is a very good point.



I'm afraid it's not accurate.

See my previous post: Consent = Officials [not Councillors] (and confers NO rights whatsoever - other than the right to make a valid planning application).

Therefore (am I labouring this somewhat??) the granting of PP does not require any agreement relating to land ownership - only CONSENT to make the planning application from the land owner (which can be provided by the Officials etc etc.)

Invalidation simply does not arise.

Also I would be very surprised if DCC had any intention of ceding public land in this case.
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 » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:43 pm

publicrealm,your well entitled to you opinion, but I think you are alone with this one. The fixed structures will be owned by JCDecaux, and therefore impossible for DCC to remove without CPOs . For all intents and purposes JCdeC* are exercising control over the public domain in a manner that indicates at minimum a claim of beneficial ownership.

I am with PVC King on this one - the neccessary consent has not been granted by the custodians at council level and thus the case can be in objections made that "all applications should therefore be declared invalid on the basis that landowners consent has not been granted". That said, council members really need to now look at proposing the JCD deal at council meeting by means of a section 183 - in order to specifically vote it down.
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 PVC King » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:48 pm

PR

The issue is the ability of an official to grant consent in the absence of a city council vote; if a fund manager at a property fund gave consent to a development company to APPLY FOR CONSENT TO redevelop an investment holding without it having cleared a board vote it would be similarly invalid.
PVC King
 

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

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:13 pm

I think this argument about ownership is a bit of a red herring (ftr, I think I'd agree with publicrealm- as long as there's a letter of consent, then there's no problem). Assuming it gets sorted out (if it even needs to be), we're still left with the proposal to erect 70 signs. This is the substantive issue. Trying to scupper the proposal by the back door seems to me to be the wrong approach.

Attention should instead be concentrated on the planning aspects of the case, viz. intrusion into the public realm, visual clutter and, most importantly IMO, the very real traffic hazard that these will constitute. All of the signs should be refused on one or all of these grounds.

Land ownership, relationship to the free bikes scheme, even the tendering process- all of this is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that these signs will be a blight on the city. Period.
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 » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:22 pm

I agree with all the points you have made in relation to the visual aspects of these proposals.

But would argue that because the applicants have deliberately split the proposal into individual applications to use procedure to make it difficult to defeat the proposal that they have opened the issue of procedure up for scrutiny. There is no way that this discussion would be taking place if they had made a single application.

However that a council official saw fit to grant consent without gaining clearance from their employers is not only disgraceful it is also beyond what they have the authority to do.

As always conservation groups will be landed with the task of submitting carefully drafted letters citing specific site concerns on multiple applications. For a member of the public to have their say they must pay €20 per application. Therefore it is in the public interest for the city councillors to vote this proposal down
PVC King
 

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

Postby hutton » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:34 pm

ctesiphon wrote:I think this argument about ownership is a bit of a red herring (ftr, I think I'd agree with publicrealm- as long as there's a letter of consent, then there's no problem). Assuming it gets sorted out (if it even needs to be), we're still left with the proposal to erect 70 signs. This is the substantive issue. Trying to scupper the proposal by the back door seems to me to be the wrong approach.

Attention should instead be concentrated on the planning aspects of the case, viz. intrusion into the public realm, visual clutter and, most importantly IMO, the very real traffic hazard that these will constitute. All of the signs should be refused on one or all of these grounds.

Land ownership, relationship to the free bikes scheme, even the tendering process- all of this is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that these signs will be a blight on the city. Period.


Fair enough, but I dont think getting it voted down at council is dealing with it by back door - imo the scheme has been planned by back door and in theory it could take over €20,000 just to have the scheme properly adjudicated at Bord level.

I agree with you on the planning aspects, and that should all be used in any objection - however for this scheme to be opposed in a multi-layered manner - so while tactical objections are one key, so too is a review of the process in that if it is flawed then the whole scheme should be sent back to the drawing board.

If it goes ahead as is, Hutton puts his money down that there will be appeals to BP, law cases, complaints to Europe, judicial reviews etc. I just hope that sense will prevail. :(
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 hutton » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:45 pm

Just one other thought in relation to this being resolved at council chamber level - there is of course the option of councillors copper-fastening rejection by tabling a section 140 motion as well as a 183 just to make sure it is comprehensively voted down. Section 140 is of course the means by which councillors can over-rule official advice - and that along with a 183 deliberately voting down any proposed sale would resolve this. There is more to emerge on this yet...

This thread really doesn't cool down, does it?
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 kite » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:00 pm

publicrealm wrote:I'm afraid it's not accurate.

See my previous post: Consent = Officials [not Councillors] (and confers NO rights whatsoever - other than the right to make a valid planning application).

Therefore (am I labouring this somewhat??) the granting of PP does not require any agreement relating to land ownership - only CONSENT to make the planning application from the land owner (which can be provided by the Officials etc etc.)

Invalidation simply does not arise.

Also I would be very surprised if DCC had any intention of ceding public land in this case.



I agree with you.
We had a case in Cork recently where a question was asked of the City Manager (and the city law agent) to clarify whether or not a third party without legal title, beneficial ownership or rights to a site could apply for planning independent of the rightful owner.

The managers and the law agent advised (rightly or wrongly) that any person can apply for permission, have it validated, and a decision made by the LA, BUT the grant of permission could not be acted on without the consent of the legal owner of the site.
kite
Senior Member
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:33 pm

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

Postby publicrealm » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:32 pm

kite wrote:I agree with you.
We had a case in Cork recently where a question was asked of the City Manager (and the city law agent) to clarify whether or not a third party without legal title, beneficial ownership or rights to a site could apply for planning independent of the rightful owner.

The managers and the law agent advised (rightly or wrongly) that any person can apply for permission, have it validated, and a decision made by the LA, BUT the grant of permission could not be acted on without the consent of the legal owner of the site.



Thank you Kite (and Ctesiphon etc).

Hutton - I have no argument with you and generally agree with the visual amenity argument you make. However the matter of ownership is simply not one of opinion - it is a matter of fact. And the facts do not support that particular angle.

Planning Permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights. Section 34 (13) of the P&D Act is quite clear on this:

(13) A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any development.

I imagine that the intention of DCC is to grant a licence to the Applicant (if permission is granted) - so even then the Councillors may have no real say.

Seeking invalidation is certainly barking up the wrong pole in this case.
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

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

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:51 pm

Re all of the posts since my last one (edit- kite and pr posted while I was typing)-

Almost everything about the application procedure for this proposal stinks, from the sneaky way DCC/JCD submitted 70 single applications, to the clustering of applications to maximise the chances of success (5 No at the west end of Bolton Street alone, as I said above), to the arguably socially-motivated location policy, to the insufficient info submitted in many cases (see invalidations), even to the arm's-length way DCC got JCD and a consultant to take on the job rather than doing it in-house.

But I still maintain you're getting sidetracked by procedural issues here, rather than focussing on the substantive issue, which is the absolute undesirability of this proposal. Or, put another way, would you be happy to see these signs all over the city as long as the proper procedures had been followed (single application, correct tendering, accurate photomontages, etc. etc.)? My answer to that is a resounding NO, thereby fundamentally refuting the statement that "There is no way that this discussion would be taking place if they had made a single application."

And even if the intervention of the councillors has the desired effect (no guarantees, btw, however much it might be wished for emotionally), who's to say a similar proposal won't emerge, revised in light of all that's been discussed here in the last few weeks (you allude to this in your 'back to the drawing board' comment, hutton)? In which case, I return again to the fundamental question of the desirability of the proposal. This is the key as I've said and will, if necessary, say again.;)

Also, ftr hutton, by 'the back door' I didn't mean the councillors getting involved. I meant specifically the tactic that's emerging here of attacking the flawed aplication procedure instead of attacking the plain stupidity of this propopsal (it's not ad hominem, but similar- I just can't think right now of the correct term for the logical fallacy being employed here).

Lastly, PVC King- other statutory bodies have an interest in this too, aside from the conservation bods. The DTO, for one, would surely have traffic concerns (probably similar to those I mentioned above), and the tourism groups might also have an opinion. I haven't checked the observations / objections to see- does anyone know who objected?

Yours etc.,

The People's Front of Judea.
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 publicrealm » Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:28 pm

ctesiphon wrote:
Yours etc.,

The People's Front of Judea.


Splitters!
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

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

Postby PVC King » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:13 pm

Lastly, PVC King- other statutory bodies have an interest in this too, aside from the conservation bods. The DTO, for one, would surely have traffic concerns (probably similar to those I mentioned above), and the tourism groups might also have an opinion. I haven't checked the observations / objections to see- does anyone know who objected?


The DTO were neutered after they objected to the Liffey Valley extension in 2000; they haven't taken many appeals that I am aware of since they had a muzzle applied from DoEHLG. The appointment of the latest transport quango has also downgraded their status and authority in real terms. I will have €100 with you that they submit nothing on this if you wish.

The substantive issue here is how to ensure that this rash is not applied to the City without having to submit 70 observations and possibly 70 appeals at a cost of €230 per application.
PVC King
 

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

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:26 pm

I don't think DEHLG has any say in the running of the DTO- it falls under DoT, afaik. You might be mixing it up with the artist formerly known as Duchas when you say it has been muzzled on submissions (though in 2000 I was a pastry chef with only a passing interest in planning, so I'm open to correction on this).

PVC King wrote:I will have €100 with you that they submit nothing on this if you wish.

Why not! I'll give mine to charity if I'm right (or to anyone who wants to object to five of the next batch!:) )

Anyone know if An Taisce or others objected? I'm thinking of the statutory bodies, as they're the only organisations that don't have to pay to submit, so the split nature of the applications shouldn't affect them.
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 » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:41 pm

They did pay the salaries at the time of muzzeling and it is very possible that this function has now transfered to DoT just like Bertie pays for the tribunals through retention of control through the department of An Taoiseach. Regardless of who the minister is they still fall under more or less direct government control.

I would imagine that An Taisce could use some help in this and the skills of a pastry chef would be particularly useful come AGM time although your planning skills would be more useful the other 364 days of the year :D
PVC King
 

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland