Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:46 am

Land has an inherent value and its relationship with other lands, buildings and infrastructure is transitory. The likelihood of Dartley Square remaining as it is in three hundred years time is remote. Cities evolve and change is inevitable. I appreciate that regulation is required to give form to our built environment, but this should be done with the aid of land use zoning objectives in development plans which are reviewed every six years. To travel the route of legislation effectively ousts people from their lands, and the practice is more suited to Mugabe’s Rhodesia.

A more apt correlation is between the quantum of value of land and the appreciation people have for it. It is not merely measured in development potential terms, but also has to have regard to its aesthetic and amenity value. If such land is privately owned, I say that the owner has the right to be compensated if the use of that land is designated for public use, for his private enjoyment of his land is eroded.

In relation to the CPO I agree that the equation cannot be solved on the back of fag box. I disagree however that the valuation process should have regard only to development potential as I have outlined already. There is a reluctance to proceed with the established procedure to acquire the lands which was forced by the council. This is indicative of the bully tactics of the Council who is trying to mitigate its own ineptitude. “We will force you to sell but we will not pay what it is worth”
The legislative changes you speak of are fine once they relate solely to publicly owned lands. To impose such laws on private lands for the sake of this individual debacle amounts to nothing more than blatant bureaucratic back stepping. I fail to understand your point on intensification of use in relation to amenity land. Are you proposing jail for the over planting of geraniums? I am being flippant and I presume you are referring to unauthorised change of use, but your points on controlling alcohol consumption and the provision of insurance only copper fastens my belief that all amenity lands designated for public use should be in public ownership, and a fair price should be paid for the transition of such lands. What the landowner paid for these lands in the first instance is irrelevant.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:01 am

the hawk wrote: Land has an inherent value and its relationship with other lands, buildings and infrastructure is transitory. The likelihood of Dartley Square remaining as it is in three hundred years time is remote. Cities evolve and change is inevitable. I appreciate that regulation is required to give form to our built environment, but this should be done with the aid of land use zoning objectives in development plans which are reviewed every six years. To travel the route of legislation effectively ousts people from their lands, and the practice is more suited to Mugabe’s Rhodesia..


You acknowledge regulation is apt but when new regulations are proposed to regulate it is equated to Zimbabwe you mix ZANUPF with the entity they removed why so? In adequately regulated markets a sandwich doesn't cost $5bn because the necessary regulation is introduced as and when it is required.

the hawk wrote: A more apt correlation is between the quantum of value of land and the appreciation people have for it. It is not merely measured in development potential terms, but also has to have regard to its aesthetic and amenity value. If such land is privately owned, I say that the owner has the right to be compensated if the use of that land is designated for public use, for his private enjoyment of his land is eroded..


He was offered a settlement of some €300k which not only reflected the amenity value but also took as comparable the most developed central Dublin park St Stephens Green calaculated what a park ranger lodge site would be worth and offered the value for same without fully assessing the negative value directly attaching to perfoming the likely planning conditions on long term tree preservation i.e. significant annual expenditure to keep the trees in a condition where they are capable of securing POL (Public liability Insurance) and keeping the railings in good repair.

the hawk wrote: In relation to the CPO I agree that the equation cannot be solved on the back of fag box. I disagree however that the valuation process should have regard only to development potential as I have outlined already. There is a reluctance to proceed with the established procedure to acquire the lands which was forced by the council. This is indicative of the bully tactics of the Council who is trying to mitigate its own ineptitude. “We will force you to sell but we will not pay what it is worth”.


There is no development potential under the present zoning and any valuer would have to consider that regulation is more likely to tighten than loosen on the regulation of amenity land within the inner suburban zone that carries a tree preservation order and is situate within a conservation area. The valuers hands are tied he must value the holding subject to its adjoining land values, comparable transactions and all regulations that have the capacity to limit use of the land. Ask yourself why the owners of Fitzwilliam or Merrion Squares have never proposed development within the curtilage of the holding? In any event on the date of the notice to treat expiry there have been no comparable transactions for such a period that it would be impossible to support any development potential whatsoever.

the hawk wrote: The legislative changes you speak of are fine once they relate solely to publicly owned lands. To impose such laws on private lands for the sake of this individual debacle amounts to nothing more than blatant bureaucratic back stepping. I fail to understand your point on intensification of use in relation to amenity land. Are you proposing jail for the over planting of geraniums? I am being flippant and I presume you are referring to unauthorised change of use, but your points on controlling alcohol consumption and the provision of insurance only copper fastens my belief that all amenity lands designated for public use should be in public ownership, and a fair price should be paid for the transition of such lands. What the landowner paid for these lands in the first instance is irrelevant.


Should geraniums be over planted it would be no surprise however in the context of the irish climate one could hardly argue that it would constitute even agricultural use as to make such a species profitable one would require greenhouses. The intensification of land use would be any of the following

1. Car parking
2. retailing
3. residential
4. commercial Finservices / offices
5. institutional uses

Geraniums don't need foundations and should any landowner breach a tree preservation order or change the use of land or construct foundations then that land owner should explain their actions before a judge who would listen to arguments from both sides. Contempt in the place of a court is what actually results in jail time
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:24 pm

PVC King wrote:You acknowledge regulation is apt but when new regulations are proposed to regulate it is equated to Zimbabwe you mix ZANUPF with the entity they removed why so? In adequately regulated markets a sandwich doesn't cost $5bn because the necessary regulation is introduced as and when it is required.



He was offered a settlement of some €300k which not only reflected the amenity value but also took as comparable the most developed central Dublin park St Stephens Green calaculated what a park ranger lodge site would be worth and offered the value for same without fully assessing the negative value directly attaching to perfoming the likely planning conditions on long term tree preservation i.e. significant annual expenditure to keep the trees in a condition where they are capable of securing POL (Public liability Insurance) and keeping the railings in good repair.


There is no development potential under the present zoning and any valuer would have to consider that regulation is more likely to tighten than loosen on the regulation of amenity land within the inner suburban zone that carries a tree preservation order and is situate within a conservation area. The valuers hands are tied he must value the holding subject to its adjoining land values, comparable transactions and all regulations that have the capacity to limit use of the land. Ask yourself why the owners of Fitzwilliam or Merrion Squares have never proposed development within the curtilage of the holding? In any event on the date of the notice to treat expiry there have been no comparable transactions for such a period that it would be impossible to support any development potential whatsoever.


Should geraniums be over planted it would be no surprise however in the context of the irish climate one could hardly argue that it would constitute even agricultural use as to make such a species profitable one would require greenhouses. The intensification of land use would be any of the following

1. Car parking
2. retailing
3. residential
4. commercial Finservices / offices
5. institutional uses

Geraniums don't need foundations and should any landowner breach a tree preservation order or change the use of land or construct foundations then that land owner should explain their actions before a judge who would listen to arguments from both sides. Contempt in the place of a court is what actually results in jail time


What I believe is acceptable is regulation in its current form i.e. the development plan, which is reviewed every six years.I do not agree with regulation in the form of legislation which has the effect of permanantly reducing the value of land and is contrary to the rights of enjoyment of property provided by our constitution.let us keep the price of the sambos down.

Why untie the hands of any valuer. The process of valuation is set out and should not be deviated to satisfy any prejudice.The City Council forced the CPO but now is unwilling to proceed. This reveals that ,1. the Council is not prepared to pay what the site is worth. and 2, it shows an abuse of the CPO proceess itself, as a CPO is reseved for options of last resort where landowners are unwilling to sell land which is required for vital for infrastructural use. By renageing the Council have displayed that the imperative is at least dubious.

In terms of compensation valuation I would refer you to Keane CJ supreme court judgement in relation to the 1999 bill

"the landowner is to be compensated, not merely for
the market value of his land, but also for such additional
elements of damage to him as disturbance, injurious affection
and severance."

The uses you refer to above are more properly described as changes of use and I agree that under the current development plan would require planning permission. I refuse to accept the notion of "intensification of use" as being part of Irish Planning Law. That notion ia an invention of English Judges of the 19th Century. It is not given cognisance by the Irish Plannng and Develoment Act, 2000. Yvonne Scannel j acknowledges that "intensification" is meerly a "concept" when she stated in relation to Envirionment and Land Use Law " The concept of intensification is open to abuse by the over-zealous or ill motivated. It can have the effect of penalising a landowner for being a commercial success and of unduly restricting an owner's freedom to expand businesses"

In saying this I agree that the wording of our planning legislation can at times be delphic, and a number of legitimate interpretations can be valid. However while I believe that the protection of property rights are sarcrosanct, they must be balanced with the common good, which differs from the greater good. I would also think that it is vital that the park is preserved for future generations, and for each generation to decide on its fate. The only way to ensure this is for all such areas to taken into public ownership, and their worth is paid to the owners.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:45 pm

[
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:05 pm

the hawk wrote:In terms of compensation valuation I would refer you to Keane CJ supreme court judgement in relation to the 1999 bill

"the landowner is to be compensated, not merely for
the market value of his land, but also for such additional
elements of damage to him as disturbance, injurious affection
and severance."


This is farmland case law; do you know what you are talking about?

Please define injurious affection and severance seperatley; I had kind of considered going into the only other type of cpo compo o noffer business disturbance but what business distrubance could one attribute to not being able to operate a caravan selling tiles without planning permission; he'd owe money for the costs of not defending a prosecution for breach of planning law.

Noel please do not return to this forum
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:07 pm

the hawk wrote:ANYTHING SO FAR BY HAWK


Yawn, yawn - so Noel O'Gara has finally got himself a planning consultant that knows about Archiseek. Very good Noel, I just hope you're paying a whack load to defend the indefensible ;)


PS Noel, do feel free to come back in person to this site anytime you like, so that you can be acknowledged directly as the xxxx you are. Anytime. :)
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:08 am

PVC King wrote:This is farmland case law; do you know what you are talking about?

Please define injurious affection and severance seperatley; I had kind of considered going into the only other type of cpo compo o noffer business disturbance but what business distrubance could one attribute to not being able to operate a caravan selling tiles without planning permission; he'd owe money for the costs of not defending a prosecution for breach of planning law.

Noel please do not return to this forum


If you cannot understand you should not be questioning the knowledge of others.The principle of compensation should not be confused with the quantum.The use and zoning of land has to be factored, but so too must other equally valid factors. Its the amount of compensation that causes you to loose sleep. A jealous mind is hard to live with.
Your angst is displayed in your request that I do not return to the forum. So much for open debate! What you seek is a commitee of fools. Or maybe my earlier comparison with Mugabe was more apt than I first thought.

ps. How was I to explain injurious affection and severance to you if I were to agree to your request and not return to the forum. Private lessons would cost you.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:14 am

hutton wrote:Yawn, yawn - so Noel O'Gara has finally got himself a planning consultant that knows about Archiseek. Very good Noel, I just hope you're paying a whack load to defend the indefensible ;)


PS Noel, do feel free to come back in person to this site anytime you like, so that you can be acknowledged directly as the xxxx you are. Anytime. :)


I am not noel, nor do I have any connection to him.Stop abusing him and if you are a good boy he might let you play in his garden! By the way, the only likely whack load will be tipped in his direction. Get over it.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:12 pm

the hawk wrote:I am not noel, nor do I have any connection to him.Stop abusing him and if you are a good boy he might let you play in his garden! By the way, the only likely whack load will be tipped in his direction. Get over it.


So why the hawk? Mirrored in it, hovering in it, the hawk is a distraction. John Moriarty
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:14 pm

the hawk wrote:I am not noel, nor do I have any connection to him.Stop abusing him and if you are a good boy blah, blah


Why would you want to assume i am a boy? It's both sexist and offensive for you to do so :(


the hawk wrote:he might let you play in his garden!


Ah but you see this is the problem; it's only by being a bad boy/ girl that by hopping over the railings I can play in OUR garden. Bugger Noel O' G and anybody else who wants to bother defending such shite - and more fool them if they do so while not being paid for trying to advance such a grubby little agenda ;)
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:15 pm

hutton wrote:Why would you want to assume i am a boy? It's both sexist and offensive for you to do so :(




Ah but you see this is the problem; it's only by being a bad boy/ girl that by hopping over the railings I can play in OUR garden. Bugger Noel O' G and anybody else who wants to bother defending such shite - and more fool them if they do so while not being paid for trying to advance such a grubby little agenda ;)


For me to be sexist and offensive in assuming you to be a boy, you must assume me to be a boy. It's both sexist and offensive of you.

For a person of puritanical sensibilities I find your wish for the buggery of Noel O'Gara and possibly myself strange.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:33 pm

the hawk wrote: If you cannot understand you should not be questioning the knowledge of others.


Having handled a 100 plus cpo files before concentrating on property asset management my knowledge of the specific sub-field is decent; however if I used an agricultural example when dealing with a commercial client I'd be fired for gross stupidity.

QUOTE=the hawk;82812]The principle of compensation should not be confused with the quantum. .[/QUOTE]

The quantum of what; we are not discussing big box rent reviews in a shopping centre.


the hawk wrote:The use and zoning of land has to be factored, but so too must other equally valid factors..


For example that no comparable transactions have occured within the last 30 years if ever and that no reputable development team in the City would touch it.


the hawk wrote:Its the amount of compensation that causes you to loose sleep. A jealous mind is hard to live with.


Its not jealousy its that I care passionately about the suburb of Ranelagh having spent some of the best time of my life there. What Noel O'Gara is proposing gives the development industy a very bad name and having development focussed clients on some instructions I want my connections to think of their personal qualities as opposed to a sorry excuse for a man like O'Gara who sells tiles from a caravan to annoy local families because they want a park for their children to play in. These people pay a lot of tax and they do not deserve to have a sorry excuse for a man insult them in this fashion in his warped attempt to create such a fuss that he is compulsorily purchased in a deal rationalised on the back of a major box.


the hawk wrote:Your angst is displayed in your request that I do not return to the forum. So much for open debate! .


My firewall protects from phishing scams; if I were moderator which I am not I'd ban you as a troll

the hawk wrote:What you seek is a commitee of fools. Or maybe my earlier comparison with Mugabe was more apt than I first thought. .


As previously explained to you a lack of regulation leads to $5bn sandwiches which when you think of it is a bit like the economics that O'Gara is trying to front in his valuations.

[B]Zimbabwe dollars - O'Gara valuations [/B]

the hawk wrote:ps. How was I to explain injurious affection and severance to you if I were to agree to your request and not return to the forum. Private lessons would cost you.


Whats your charge rate per hour on paper and far do you exceed it on performance? You couldn't afford my rates even if you were lucky enough to get a written opinion as a favour;

Hutton behave this guy/gal is making enough of a fool of himself by continuing to argue using language thats a good few levels above him/her.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:48 pm

[I seem to have touched a few raw nerves . You blow a fine trumpet for yourself. 100 plus CPO cases! There must be some pent up jeajousy there.If you are such an expert on CPO why not leave the process run its course? Or is that you have become so consumed by your own self importance that you have been outwitted by a bogger like O'Gara.Your arrogance comes to the fore again when you try to muzzle hutton along with me.You say that I can't afford you, Well then that must leave you a very wealthy man indeed.So wealthy in fact that you could display your affection for your neighbours and your love for the park by paying O'Gara the 100m yourself.But I doubt it somehow. A real hot air man and as plastic as yiur username
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Learning how to serve is a watershed for any of us


I'm lucky I've learned to serve ...............

Not to stroke and consequently don't have to look over my shoulder albeit being signifanctantly feited by real players.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:21 pm

I walked past this place yesterday. If the hedges and grass get any longer it'll be cpo-ed as a wildlife sanctuary

This is the thing that really annoys me - why can't the man just take pride in what he owns and look after it. If he doesn't want the "priveleged few" to enjoy the park from the inside at least let the unpriveleged enjoy it from the outside.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby alonso » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:37 pm

nicely put. Is a frcking lawnmower beyond him. Maybe he's using the ol "protected structure becoming dangerous and in need of demolition" approach favoured by developers all over the city? :)
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:13 pm

PVC King wrote:Learning how to serve is a watershed for any of us


I'm lucky I've learned to serve ...............

Not to stroke and consequently don't have to look over my shoulder albeit being signifanctantly feited by real players.


Glad to hear your tennis is improving.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:23 pm

I was struck by the poor state of repair Darthmouth Square is falling into it is starting to get very overgrown due to a complete lack of any real attention. The railings of the park are deteriorating badly with sections of coping subsiding into the park; rust on many sections of railings which must pose a health and safety risk.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby johnglas » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:14 pm

Serve a dereliction notice on the owner - or would that be interfering with the inalienable rights of property?
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:01 pm

PVC King wrote:I was struck by the poor state of repair Darthmouth Square is falling into it is starting to get very overgrown due to a complete lack of any real attention. The railings of the park are deteriorating badly with sections of coping subsiding into the park; rust on many sections of railings which must pose a health and safety risk.


Boo hoo. My neighbours garden is a disgrace too.Deriliction orders. health and safety risks...Blah blah blah.The Dublin City councel spurred on by you and your coherts are responsible for the deterioration of the park. However it is a disgrace that the park is left to rot. Perhaps now with property prices tumbling it may be a good time to re-enter realistic negotiastions with Mr O'Gara.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby johnglas » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:30 pm

The 'owner' of Dartmouth Square is a spiv and a wide-boy; the state of the park is his responsibility.
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:51 pm

johnglas wrote:The 'owner' of Dartmouth Square is a spiv and a wide-boy; the state of the park is his responsibility.


The first part of your sentence is irrelevant, and you are correct in the second part. Unfortunately the upkeep of the park is his prerogative and the level of his responsibility only extends to the safety of the public. As the public have no right of access and once the appropriate signage is in place, then there is little one can do to force him to improve his gardening. However, the point is well made that if the perimeter of the property is in a state which may cause injury, then Mr. O’Gara would be well advised to maintain such boundaries in a safe condition.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby johnglas » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:23 pm

the hawk: you may well be correct in a narrowly legalistic sense, but this is essentially a 'small government' (not exactly flavour of the month) or 'there is no such thing as society' view; at the very least, the current owner should not allow his 'gardenng' to deteriorate - the function of a public (or 'private-public') garden is to present at a certain level of maintenance. That cannot be squirmed out of.
My first point is not irrelevant and the second follows directly on from it. A spiv is not public-spirited and is essentially a con-artist.
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:23 am

Insults and name calling will not aid your position, and what ever your views are of Mr O’Gara your expressions of distain will not advance the position any further. Such outbursts and sabre rattling are about as useful as John Gormley’s empty babble. That man is just out of his depth and is drunk on the ether of power. Someone should call him aside and give him the pop up version of our constitution before any residual respect which he retains is obliterated. One of these days the penny will drop, and all will come to realise that the public/private park is actually merely private. I hope I hear the sound of falling coinage soon before it is too late.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:48 am

all will come to realise that the public/private park is actually merely private. I hope I hear the sound of falling coinage soon before it is too late.


Good to hear you are on metalic images given the poor state of repair of the railings and health and safety risks posed to the numerous children that walk past each day from bumping into rusty metal. If these railings were a car parked on the road they would be subject to an mot and if found to be rusty would be taken of the road.

The 'owner' of Dartmouth Square is a spiv and a wide-boy; the state of the park is his responsibility.
Couldn't agree more

Perhaps now with property prices tumbling it may be a good time to re-enter realistic negotiastions with Mr O'Gara.
At March 2007 valuations no doubt in your mind. The only value this park ever had in development terms was a 'hope value' for deluded fools unfortunately the only hope value in circulation is that the banking system will start lending again and that genuine development land might actually emerge from a hope value scenario to an actual realisable value. On this basis the current value of Dartmouth Square is nil; unless it were owned by a responsible owner and the value would then be €150,000 per annum security costs for a minimum 5 years (before the banks lend for speculutive land purchases of any nature) to give a current negative value of minus c€700,000 with a further discount to reflect the inability of almost all developers to fund this type of overhead say -€1m,
PVC King
 

PreviousNext

Return to Irish Planning Matters