Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Andrew Duffy » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 am

PVC King wrote:Furthermore the applicant should learn that if it looks too good to be true that it probably is!


I don't think NOG realises that, rather than he having pulled a fast one on the corrupt, anti-constitutional planners and the wealthy fat cats who live in the small apartments, bedsits and corporation flats near Dartmouth Square, in fact the previous owner of the freehold pulled a fast one on him.
Andrew Duffy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby notjim » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:48 am

Andrew Duffy wrote:I don't think NOG realises that, rather than he having pulled a fast one on the corrupt, anti-constitutional planners and the wealthy fat cats who live in the small apartments, bedsits and corporation flats near Dartmouth Square, in fact the previous owner of the freehold pulled a fast one on him.


Is that true; but for his bullishness and greed couldn't he have likely gotten pp for a modest "park keepers lodge" and sold that on for a big profit while giving the park to the people of Ireland etc.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby alonso » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:55 pm

Tis all over for Noely "Q-Park" O'Gara

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/ogaran.html

Council moves to block Dartmouth development

Dublin's Dartmouth Square has been declared a special conservation area by the city council in a move that will block any development of the park.

The council has been in a legal dispute with businessman Noel O'Gara who bought the two-acre park and tried to open a car park there.

But the Architectural Conservation Area order passed this evening by Dublin Councillors means the park is now protected.

Owners of over 70 houses in the area will also face a number of planning restrictions imposed to preserve the character of the square.

From tonight, residents will not be able to put in PVC windows, use their front gardens for car parking or put satellite dishes on the front of their houses.

Meanwhile, a preservation order for 47 trees in the park is due to come into effect later this month.

The council has also obtained a compulsory purchase order for the park.
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby noel o'gara » Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:38 am

alonso wrote:Tis all over for Noely "Q-Park" O'Gara

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/ogaran.html

Council moves to block Dartmouth development

Dublin's Dartmouth Square has been declared a special conservation area by the city council in a move that will block any development of the park.

The council has been in a legal dispute with businessman Noel O'Gara who bought the two-acre park and tried to open a car park there.

But the Architectural Conservation Area order passed this evening by Dublin Councillors means the park is now protected.

Owners of over 70 houses in the area will also face a number of planning restrictions imposed to preserve the character of the square.

From tonight, residents will not be able to put in PVC windows, use their front gardens for car parking or put satellite dishes on the front of their houses.

Meanwhile, a preservation order for 47 trees in the park is due to come into effect later this month.

The council has also obtained a compulsory purchase order for the park.


I've been a bit busy this last while with a libel action taken against me in the Uk but as for the park I think the corpo have screwed up again as they never served me with any notices of their intention to do that.
I was notified about the trees but never intended to cut any down anyway.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=o%27gara+gregg+libel+hoaxer&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Police-framed-Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer.3738128.jp&w=o%27gara+gregg+libel+libeled+hoaxer&d=Hw2I4nDuQQCO&icp=1&.intl=us
noel o'gara
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:44 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:34 pm

Noel Gareth Pierce O'Gara defender of the innocent!!

Get outa that garden before the legal professionals clean you out of it and all else you have accumulated
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Alek Smart » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:18 am

Ah Now Pee Vee,don`t be all vindictive.....There`s a conspiracy under every bush...even around Dartmouth Square.
Then again,an earlier thread begun by me in relation to DCC`s contemplation on reducing footpath width to allow for Car Parking Bays has disappeared into (Very) thin air....WTF as they might say in the Hill Lounge !!! :D
Alek Smart
Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Tallaght

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:47 pm

Has the CPO completed yet?
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:30 pm

Council 'afraid to force Dartmouth Square sale'

By Kevin Doyle
Evening Herald

Wednesday June 11 2008

A SENIOR city politician has said that Dublin City Council is now afraid to use a compulsory purchase order to take back Dartmouth Square from controversial businessman Noel O'Gara.

Councillor Oisin Quinn has revealed that city managers do not intend to pursue a CPO obtained from An Bord Pleanala despite the fact that it expires on June 22.

He says that city manger John Tierney is not expected to meet a commitment given by his predecessor in 2006, meaning the park might not be available to the public for years.

In February 2006, then city manager John Fitzgerald committed himself to purchasing the green area from Mr O'Gara using a CPO.

However, Councillor Quinn (Lab) says that officials are now ready to let the CPO deadline pass because of an "irrational fear" that they will face a multi-million euro payout.

The council has until the middle of this month to serve Mr O'Gara with "notice to treat" informing him that the CPO is about to processed. The courts will then decide how much money should change hands.

The Westmeath businessman bought the two-acre site in Ranelagh in late 2005 for less than €10,000, from PJ Darley, whose ancestors built the square in the 1880s.

Last month, Mr O'Gara claimed that he would be allowed to keep the square, but the council said the "clock was still running". And when questioned yesterday, a spokesperson again said that a decision hadn't been reached about how to proceed with the park issue.

Now Councillor Quinn has told the Herald that the council officials must come clean about their intentions.

SETTLEMENT

The Herald understands that the council is worried that a settlement of over €20m could be enforced if the case goes to court. Mr O'Gara had told the council it would have to pay €100m to buy it off him.

However, residents in the square say this is not realistic.

Since Mr O'Gara acquired the land, the council have received a number of injunctions stopping him running a car park and marble shop.

They have also passed bye-laws protecting trees in the area and designated Dartmouth Square as an Architectural Conservation Area.

These moves have severely restricted Mr O'Gara's use of the park but the council have stilled failed to have it restored as a public amenity.

Councillor Quinn wants the council to be honest with residents, noting that they have been patient for two years on the basis that the CPO would take place. "The law is pretty clear on this and tallies with common sense," he said.

- Kevin Doyle



Get the finger out....
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:23 pm

I have no doubt that Cllr Quinn and the rest of the council majority shall question Mr. Tierney on this issue; no doubt with all party support.

I have no idea where the €20m figure comes from as the maximum permission that could have been secured could have been for a lone single storey cottage which was modelled loosely on the park rangers lodge at St Stephens Green.

Then came Bear Stearns and the complete collapse of residential land prices in the very limited number of tranactions taking place. Now is the time to serve the notice to treat as the price will be based upon the value on the date the notice is served long before prices recover.

Depending upon the scale of the price a choice can be made later whether the council considers the purchase to be in the public interest and whether it is prudent to complete based upon the award which lets face it will be based upon:

The worst speculative residential land development funding background in 30 years; that the subject property is situate in a conservation area and bounded on all sides by period railings, that the land is zoned amenity, that the title is subject to a lease and that there will no access for plant based upon the tree preservation order. Put simply you would have extreme difficulty placing a single dwelling within the site let alone delivering 100 clear sites to reach €20m based upon €200k per site.

I strongly hope that all party consensus emerges and that all councillors for Pembroke, Rathmines and South Inner City set up a cross party meeting as now is the time to get Tierney up off his backside. Bewleys was also a market reason why it was beyond preservation and Quinn delivered in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders; the question is can Chris Andrews?
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby johnglas » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:44 pm

Whether public or private, it must be preserved as open space; end of story. The lesson for Mr O'Gara? Due diligence and caveat emptor.
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:15 pm

Pay lawyers?

Did you not know that Pearse fought and died for the rights of land speculators to do what they see fit.

No land owner should ever need to pay lawyers unless it is to protect his constitutional rights.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Frank Taylor » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:05 pm

I disagree with PVC. Even a single house on these two acres with its mature trees and surrounding would be worth millions. Credit crunch or not.

There are other commercial uses other than housing that might accord with an amenity zoning. Other squares in the area have tennis clubs etc.

The hope value has to be taken into consideration and many irish speculators considering a long game would be happy to buy it for a few million with an eye to the future. After all, development plans are issued every few years, people come and go from the administration of planning and local politics.

O'Gara owns the land and his argument that article 43 protects his right to continued ownership is surprisingly strong - no moatter that he is not a lawyer. Some people are now forming the opinion that CPO may be unconstotutional in Ireland where there is no immediate infrastructural need. Read it yourself, particularly 43.2.2. I think it's very clever of him to spot this.

Ultimately, the council is at fault here for neglecting their ownership of this former public park. I'd prefer some of the ill will directed at this negligence than at Mr O'Gara.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby lostexpectation » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:10 pm

what the situation with the park at the moment, can people access it, is it being looked after by the council?

surely never buying it is the best tactic for the council, and it'll stay as is and o'gara doesn't can't do anything with it or get money out f it.
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:26 pm

lostexpectation wrote:what the situation with the park at the moment, can people access it, is it being looked after by the council?

surely never buying it is the best tactic for the council, and it'll stay as is and o'gara doesn't can't do anything with it or get money out f it.


The thought struck me after reading Frank's post it will rot should it stay in the current ownership and given the way O'Gara is talking there most certainly won't be any planning permission.

There are other commercial uses other than housing that might accord with an amenity zoning. Other squares in the area have tennis clubs etc
The destruction of the nearby Mount Pleasant Square over time and subsequent incremental programmes of work over a 30 year period is exactly why you would not secure this type of permission.

The hope value has to be taken into consideration and many irish speculators considering a long game would be happy to buy it for a few million with an eye to the future. After all, development plans are issued every few years, people come and go from the administration of planning and local politics.


Expressly excluded by all relevant case law; the most compelling argument for the cpo is that the current use and zoning are all that can be reasonably considered and the zoning, situation in an ACA and tree preservation order would completely kill all hope value in the eyes of a valuer. I'm not saying that two agents doing a set of heads on the back of a beer mat wouldn't find value after the 8th pint but hope value simply doesn't stack up in the CPO arena. It is for that reason that motorway accomodation works settlements where the works were never completed often were the only way that farmers being cpo'd for motorway schemes got to make money in the last tranche of the NDP; i.e. I need a bridge it costs €2m; change your mind and cry oh just give me the funds.

Even a single house on these two acres with its mature trees and surrounding would be worth millions. Credit crunch or not.
I'm not so sure given that any hypothetical house would be single storey, set back in a way incapable of making a statement, have no carparking and no doubt have a planning condition to maintain the 2 acres in a manner consistent with an ACA with a massive liability to maintain all the trees covered by the tree preservation order. Then factor in construction costs, multiple planning applications and very poor demand for unbuilt residential property.

I'm almost coming around to the idea of waiting for a planning application and I have no doubt that no council in my lifetime will alter the zoning on this space. However should the existing fittings not be maintained the cost of reinstatment could be much higher and for this reason it is crazy that the cpo was not served.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:54 pm

From Todays Irish Times - ignore the headline, the key story is DCC are not CPO'ing Dartmouth Square :mad:


Gormley to tighten law on parklands
STEVEN CARROLL

MINISTER FOR the Environment John Gormley has pledged to tighten regulations surrounding parklands and to assist the residents of Dartmouth Square after Dublin City Council decided not to serve a compulsory purchase order (CPO) on the Rathmines park.

The square has been a source of controversy since it was purchased by Westmeath businessman Noel O'Gara, who has since locked the park gates and said he intended to build a house or turn it into a cheap car park.

Mr O'Gara bought the park in 2005 for about €10,000 from PJ Darley, whose ancestors built the square - the last to be formally laid out in Dublin - in the 1880s.

A CPO granted on the park 18 months ago was not completed by Dublin City Council due to fears they might have to pay a settlement in the region of €20 million to Mr O'Gara for the land.

Mr Gormley last night told The Irish Times that he had met with the council and local residents.

"What I made clear was that if there are any measures or legislation they require, I will give them my assistance without any delay."

The Minister said he has been stressing the need for a parklands policy since he assumed the position last year. "Green spaces need to be adequately protected and I feel this has to be worked on. They are increasingly important now due to population increase which creates an extra need for such amenities," Mr Gormley said.

"We don't have legislation in place to give adequate protection to our green space and we are working with the heritage council on ensuring this is achieved."

The council said it was with regret that it announced the decision not to complete the CPO, but it has left the door open for further discussion in the future.

"We have been advised that if we proceed with the completion of the compulsory purchase process to arbitration stage we would expose the city council to the possibility of a substantial and financially prohibitive award.

"It should be noted that the city council remains amenable and open to holding further negotiations with Mr O'Gara to effect a reasonable settlement in order to keep the park open to the public," the authority said in a statement.

South Dublin Labour Party councillor Oisín Quinn said locals were not happy with the council's decision and that Dartmouth Square had become a health hazard. "It's in appalling condition. The square is overgrown, full of rubbish and has become a place where people gather to drink."

Mr Quinn said the sensible and prudent decision would have been to follow through with the order and bring the square back into public ownership. The councillor said fears over a potentially large settlement through arbitration were unfounded, as Mr O'Gara had paid very little for the park and because of the designation of it as a conservation area.

"A legal expert told us the conservation designation of the Dartmouth Square area means that the park, irrespective of the zoning, would have no development potential. It would only have nominal value," Mr Quinn said.

Attempts by The Irish Times to contact Mr O'Gara last night were unsuccessful.




It is disgraceful that DCC are so useless so as not to be able to close the CPO on this; what the blazes is the Law Agent Terence O' Keefe paid for? Why is it that CPOs that DCC get involved end up being a total fuck-up; remember the O Connell St Carlton saga where former assistant city manger Sean Carey quietly sold on without putting out to tender? It all stinks.

I dont know which is worse, DCC's total ineptitude - or the total xxxx, which Noel O' Gara you are - as we know you read this, and you are a miserable excuse of a person and a blight on the face of humanity
:mad::mad::mad:
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:10 am

hutton wrote:South Dublin Labour Party councillor Oisín Quinn said locals were not happy with the council's decision and that Dartmouth Square had become a health hazard. "It's in appalling condition. The square is overgrown, full of rubbish and has become a place where people gather to drink."


The public health acts and Derelict sites act seems the likely routes to go down now to re-open more traditional grounds for compulsory purchase; Should a cpo be undertaken the land if laid to waste as Cllr Quinn is suggesting could potentially have a negative value as the costs of reinstating and subsuquent inflated maintanance costs for the existing planting, trees and structures in a manner consistent with an ACA designation could be less than zero.

I'd further look for public liability insurance cover to be produced and the insurers views on incapacitated persons being present on the site in view of a highly litigious society most particularly when people under the influence damage themselves and we wouldn't want to see people being hurt most particularly given that the individuals are likely to be underage drinkers.

What are DCC doing to protect young and vulnerable people from an unscrupulous landlord who is determined to use any negative to attempt to pester the residents into submission?
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:25 pm

O'Gara: give me ¤10m for park or I'll plant vegetables
Mark Hilliard

CONTROVERSIAL businessman Noel O'Gara offered council officials the chance to purchase Dartmouth Square in south Dublin at a 'knock-down' price of €10m in the final days of negotiations between the two parties.

As revealed in last week's Sunday Tribune, Dublin City Council officials have decided not to go ahead with a Compulsory Purchase Order of the Ranelagh park because of concerns over the cost.

Last Wednesday, council officials responded with a maximum offer of €300,000 which was rejected by O'Gara as "an insult". Two days later, the council issued a statement confirming that they would not be executing the CPO as it would cost too much money.

"We have been advised that if we proceed with the completion of the compulsory purchase process to arbitration stage we would expose the City Council to the possibility of a substantial and financially prohibitive award," it read.

O'Gara says he is now considering digging foundations on the site to build himself a house and garden in which to grow vegetables. He is convinced he can carry out the project without securing planning permission by building the property for agricultural use. With the "notice to treat" not having been served, the park remains firmly in O'Gara's ownership and local residents will continue to be without an amenity that has been enjoyed since the 19th century. O'Gara said he had made a final offer to hand over the property for €10m, a deadline which he set for last Friday. He paid less than €10,000 for the land in 2005.

"I would say that is an insult. It's good news for me – the CPO is a dead duck," he said. "If they wanted to buy it they should have approached me and asked me to do a deal instead of this big brother act of abusing the law."

O'Gara said he is ready to file papers with the Supreme Court in a bid to overturn a High Court ruling from 2006 which stated that he is not to use the area as a car park.

That plan provides for a six storey, 1,500-space structure.

"There would be a curtain of trees around it so you wouldn't even know it was there," he said. "If anything it would be an amenity for the residents. In my opinion that is a much greater amenity for everyone in Dublin, (rather) than a park for a couple of people to take their dogs out for a shit."

June 22, 2008

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2008/jun/22/ogara-give-me-10m-for-park-or-ill-plant-vegetables/
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Andrew Duffy » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:37 am

Could O'Gara end up a guest of an Irish prison this time, or do we not do that when people break planning law?
Andrew Duffy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:10 pm

If you read the exact wording he is considering

However I do agree with your sentiments if steps beyond consideration and moves from foul metaphors to vile planning breaches he may well become a trans EU ex-prisoner as I'm sure the legislative response from Gormley and bye law response led by Quinn will crystalise his obligations and signifacantly ramp up the penalities if he stops mouthing off and goes Pearse style and actually crosses the line either the ones existing today or those rushed through before he starts digging his own very personal hole;
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:38 pm

The irish constitution protects the right of every citizen to hold and enjoy property which includes land.There is no need for the history lesson to spell out why this right is cherished. I sympathise with the residents for the loss of the amenity, but property rights should not be diminished if land is coveted by others. The bitter pill that needs to be swallowed is to acccept the hard fact that the more land is desired by others then the more the value of that land increases. I find your wrath against Mr O'Gara to be misplaced and should be redirected towards the Council.They failed on numerous occasions to secure the lands when the were easily available. Even now, when armed with CPO they have declined to proceed with the purchase. The fear is that when the price is set at arbitration it will be set embarrisingly high. The very purpose of arbitration is to determine the true value of land, and this value is the price which Mr. O,Gara deserves. It is also worth remembering that Mr O,Gara opposed the CPO process. It sounds like people want their cake and eat it, but they don't want to pay for the pie.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:34 pm

Hi Noel.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby alonso » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:41 am

so are we having cake or pie?

Noel if you wanna apply for PP for a car park, I'll write the application for you. My fee? €10 million. That equates to €160 million per day
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:21 am

ctesiphon wrote:Hi Noel.

No I am not Noel nor do I have any connection to him.
What led me to comment on this site was the statement of John Gormley that he would introduce legislation to deal with Mr. O'Gara. This is an acceptance that legislation as it exists support Mr O'Gara. We do not live in Stalinist Russia or nazi Germany where we can introduce laws where we can deny to a person his property simply because it is desired by others. My advice is that the Council should independantly value the land with the aid of objective valuers assisted by legal and planning experts. This could be done outside the CPO process, and if this value is affordable then it should be offered to Mr. O'Gara. I am sure he would accept a reasonable offer at this point. The problem with some people is that they don't want the park as much as they don't want to see Mr. O'Gara profit. Pay the man what he is due or leave him alone ,or to put it straighter, piss or get off the pot
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:00 pm

alonso wrote:so are we having cake or pie?

Noel if you wanna apply for PP for a car park, I'll write the application for you. My fee? €10 million. That equates to €160 million per day


Maybe a bit of humble pie, as you wont get much work at those rates.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 pm

What led me to comment on this site was the statement of John Gormley that he would introduce legislation to deal with Mr. O'Gara. This is an acceptance that legislation as it exists support Mr O'Gara. We do not live in Stalinist Russia or nazi Germany where we can introduce laws where we can deny to a person his property simply because it is desired by others.


Land is a hetrogenous commodity precisely because it is unlike anything else in that it is affected by many different circumstances; primarily based upon a specific plots's relationship with adjoining plots, public ways, the water table below and the air above; location and point of the market cycle being the only other major factors .

There is a direct correlation between the intensity of a land use and the level of regulation affecting same; i.e. in an area where there is a lot of human activity land is zoned to specify what is and is not permissable. This system is common accross the developed World and in the greater scheme of things the Irish system is probably considered to be at the lower end of the top quartile in that respect.

The laws that are proposed do not affect Mr O'Gara's right to own the land he has purchased but rather to regulate his use of it in the same way as lead was banned from petrol the regulation will prevent misuse by any owner of what is clearly amenity land created as recreational space to give architectural context to what was in this case the centre piece of the Darley Estate but the same principles could equally be applied to Say Merrion Square or Fitzwilliam Square should they fall into the hands of someone who has no respect for the law of the land and or shows no respect for the law or the servants of same. The regulations are aimed preserving architectural conservation areas and I for one welcome moves in this direction.


My advice is that the Council should independantly value the land with the aid of objective valuers assisted by legal and planning experts. This could be done outside the CPO process, and if this value is affordable then it should be offered to Mr. O'Gara. I am sure he would accept a reasonable offer at this point. The problem with some people is that they don't want the park as much as they don't want to see Mr. O'Gara profit. Pay the man what he is due or leave him alone ,or to put it straighter, piss or get off the pot


A Compulsory Purchase Valuation is not something undertaken on the back of a John Player box it must be grounded and supported by comparable evidence to take into account that the losing party may take legal action and as such must stand up to necessary scrutiny. As outlined above the development potential of this plot of land which forms a protected vista from some 50 dwellings and three roads is very close to nil.

Combine this with a tree preservation order and likely condition to keep the residual curtilage and railings in good repair and you start to get a picture of just how much downside this holding has.

Legislation is required and it must ensure an outright prohibition upon the development of any recreational lands in planned square with an ACA designation.

It must place a requirement to keep insured any recreational areas in urban areas that are bounded on all sides by public highways.

It must set out substantial fines for allowing lands within urban areas to be used for consumption of alcohol by minors by way of not secured such lands in a reasonable manner.

It must set out substantial penalties for carrying out uses constituting an intensification of land use without the consent of the planning authority; including imprisonment for repeated breaches even if these are different uses.

I am privalaged to work in the property industry and love development, but in conservation areas alterations must be exactly that and what is best must be protected from greedy opportunists who over hear a pub conversation and throw entire neighbourhoods into chaos.
PVC King
 

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland