Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby johnglas » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:20 pm

I don't want to carry this on much further, but what is it about modern planning (and planners) that makes it (and them) a mouthpiece for developers and the guys with claims (however ludicrous) to 'ownership'? Whatever happened to public service, the common good and the public realm? Claims of ownership convey nothing other than a legal fiction, but do entail public responsibility and the knowledge that, in planning terms, they give no special rights whatsoever.
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:22 pm

PVC King wrote: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.

Couldn't agree more

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,


yes, that sounds reasonable. Do you think he will go for it? worth a try eh.He might agree to pay you in installments. What was that about deluded fools? Gormley has gone quiet again. No doubt he is still redrafting the constitution with the crayons fianna fail gave him. Bless him.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:18 am

the hawk wrote:yes, that sounds reasonable. Do you think he will go for it? worth a try eh.He might agree to pay you in installments. What was that about deluded fools? Gormley has gone quiet again. No doubt he is still redrafting the constitution with the crayons fianna fail gave him. Bless him.


Why single out Gormley on this as the opposition to NoG had all party support as does anyone who is proud to represent the unacceptable face of capitalism in this case no planning for property development.

I've heard Argentinian bonds are yielding 48% - want a prospectus?
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:58 pm

Any further news on this muppet show? Its far too long in resolution...
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:49 am

hutton wrote:Any further news on this muppet show? Its far too long in resolution...


I walked past today and:

2 major developments!!!!

1. half a hedge has been trimmed - they'll be cutting the grass next

2. an enforcement notice has appeared on the gate

before anyone gets too excited the notice pertains to a tent that has been in the place for a while and any other temporary habitable structures yadda yadda yadda. So the only threat applies to the dossers with one of the most desirable addresses in dublin

Way to go DCC - that's sticking it to Noel
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:55 am

wearnicehats wrote:I walked past today and:

2 major developments!!!!

1. half a hedge has been trimmed - they'll be cutting the grass next

2. an enforcement notice has appeared on the gate

before anyone gets too excited the notice pertains to a tent that has been in the place for a while and any other temporary habitable structures yadda yadda yadda. So the only threat applies to the dossers with one of the most desirable addresses in dublin

Way to go DCC - that's sticking it to Noel


2 tents there today and a massive pile of rubbish at the gate. I tried to photograph the tents but they were obscured by an armchair sticking out of the hedge.

Never was the title of this thread so apt
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:15 am

3 tents!! - it's glastonbury all over again

Noel, you're a scumbag
Attachments
DS1.jpg
DS1.jpg (195.13 KiB) Viewed 3578 times
DS2.jpg
DS2.jpg (186.52 KiB) Viewed 3581 times
DS3.JPG
DS3.JPG (290.76 KiB) Viewed 3578 times
DS4.JPG
DS4.JPG (278.41 KiB) Viewed 3579 times
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:39 pm

Maybe we should all just start flytipping into the square?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:05 pm

If legislation were passed requiring reinstatement of the external elements of listed buildings with direct frontage to public highways Noel and other errant land-owners / leaseholders would be compelled to act.

My fear in this is that Noel holds an interest worth what DCC will pay him and little else which must be say €25,000 but the longer he allows the railings to deteriorate the less incentive there is for DCC to buy due to the rapidly increasing remediation costs. Something requiring people like Noel to have real fear of crawling into a growing liability if they continue to deliberately allow period railings to deteriorate into a dangerous condition is required. The current set up does not use market forces to defeat annoying little speculators who target fantasy development versus those property people who can create real market products that pass through planning, funding and occupier stages.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby lostexpectation » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:59 pm

lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:47 am

They had a campfire going last night!! - honestly, you couldn't make it up

strange noises coming from the surrounding houses too - sounded like collective blood boiling
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:21 pm



Yeah just after seeing this now. Article in full below.

O' Gara, you're a fucking muppet, a scumbag, and a blight on the face of humanity :mad:


Campsite fury hits leafy Dartmouth Square

By Cormac Murphy

Monday November 10 2008

RESIDENTS in a leafy area of Dublin are furious after tents appeared in a city park near their exclusive homes.

People living in Dartmouth Park, Ranelagh, have called on Dublin councillors to take court action against a controversial businessman who has been a thorn in their side since buying the plot for a knockdown price.

Two tents have been erected in the last few weeks and, at one time, four people were camping there.

After the first one went up, Dublin City Council directed its occupier, Michael Connors, and businessman Noel O'Gara to have it removed.

Injunction

However, another tent appeared in the meantime.

Now, Labour's Oisin Quinn wants the council to seek a High Court injunction directing a removal.

Mr Quinn said, at one stage, at least four people were sleeping in the tents.

The controversy is the latest to hit Dartmouth Square since Mr O'Gara bought the park for less than €10,000 three years ago.

In June last year, a court ordered that the assets of Mr O'Gara be seized unless he complied with a court order not to make unauthorised use of the square.

He was before the Circuit Civil Court on foot of an application by the council to have him jailed for breaching a previous court order. Mr O'Gara had been ordered to remove a caravan and generator,.

Cllr Quinn said today: "I've told the manager they [the council] should go to court looking for an injunction because of the history attached to it."

The injunction should direct Mr O'Gara to remove the tents, he added.

Compulsory

He said the problem stems from the failure of the council to complete a compulsory purchase order for the park.

"It means that the residents are continuing to endure these kinds of frustrations. The problem still has to be resolved. It is incumbent on the city manager and the council to work with residents. In my view, it's the city manager's responsibility to take every legal step available."

A spokesman for the council told the Herald an enforcement notice was issued on October 28 in respect of two tents in Dartmouth Square.

The notice required that they be removed and no further tents be erected in the future.

It was to be complied with by November 3 but a council inspection the following day revealed this had not happened, the spokesman said.

He said the council has now issued legal proceedings in the district court in respect of the non-compliance.

- Cormac Murphy
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:15 pm

[quote="PVC King"]If legislation were passed requiring reinstatement of the external elements of listed buildings with direct frontage to public highways Noel and other errant land-owners / leaseholders would be compelled to act.

Why can you not accept the law as it stands, respect our constitutuion, and stop fooling yourself. The perfect address does not entitle you and your ilk to pass legislation which is repugnant to our constitution. Even one as empowered as Mr. Gormley is finding out this to his embarresment.
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:31 pm

the hawk wrote:
Why can you not accept the law as it stands, respect our constitutuion, and stop fooling yourself. The perfect address does not entitle you and your ilk to pass legislation which is repugnant to our constitution. Even one as empowered as Mr. Gormley is finding out this to his embarresment.


well Noel - why don't you show your respect for the law by complying with the enforcement notice
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:19 pm

Respect is an alien concept to people like NoG Hats have you not noted that Noel is not the type to have tastes like nice hats or follow any other vestiage of decent days past.

If Noel is running a campsite albeit without planning permission surely he would be liable to produce public indemnity insurance as his customers no doubt are owed a duty of care. Aren't there Bord Failte regulations for the operation of same.

It is further noted that significant garden matter is littering the pavements in the vicinity and such garden matter has the potential to render the interefere smooth operation of the local drainage system.

I trust the local authority shall protect the rate payers and recharge any costs to the owner of the subject park at the very least and issue litter notices for the extensive garden matter which constitutes a significant slip hazard and could lead to the local authority being sued for allowing their pavements to be in an unsafe condition.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:48 am

2 tents less today - only Noel's ma left now
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby goneill » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:04 pm

Front page of friday's Athlone Advertiser:

"O'Gara in court on business audit charges"

http://www.advertiser.ie/athlone/article/5042
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby the hawk » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:33 pm

PVC King wrote:Respect is an alien concept to people like NoG Hats have you not noted that Noel is not the type to have tastes like nice hats or follow any other vestiage of decent days past.

If Noel is running a campsite albeit without planning permission surely he would be liable to produce public indemnity insurance as his customers no doubt are owed a duty of care. Aren't there Bord Failte regulations for the operation of same.

It is further noted that significant garden matter is littering the pavements in the vicinity and such garden matter has the potential to render the interefere smooth operation of the local drainage system.

I trust the local authority shall protect the rate payers and recharge any costs to the owner of the subject park at the very least and issue litter notices for the extensive garden matter which constitutes a significant slip hazard and could lead to the local authority being sued for allowing their pavements to be in an unsafe condition.


It is further reported that as a result of the extensive and significant garden matter in the vicinity,that two snails emerged from the said park and proceeded to munch on the said significant matter. This constitutes a significant crunch hazrd for the two snails, despite the fact that protection is afforded to them by their hard hats, which fail miserably in comparison to the nice hats worn in bygone days.
It is interesting to read that your respect for people is in direct proportion to your appreciation of the hats that they wear. I thank god that we have emerged onto an era where hats alone do not command respect, rather the person beneath them.You and your pompous ilk are the remnants of poorer days gone by when the common man was kept down by those who wore the fancy hats,and who flaunted their plumage while strutting about on the parks.This is killing you, isn't it?
the hawk
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:49 pm

I left the last hat I owned a cheap cap wioth Che Guavara on the front in a converted hi-ace in southern Bolivia about 7 years ago. I don't wear hats but I have respect for all that seek to differentiate themsleves from the pack in ways that enrich visual amenity as opposed to those that seek to deplete it for ham fisted gain.

We are not talking about enough garden matter to hide two snails we are talking about c100 trees oversailing public footpaths; each tree presumed to produce 100 kgs of wet leaves over a 2 month period. The costs of keeping this area clean would involve

1 man 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 9 weeks at €12 per hour including employment costs comes to €4,320; ten tonnes of waste at €120 per tonne comes to €1,200 plus transport of say 9 trips at €200 per trip of say €1,800 this is a cost of €7,320 p.a.

Why should tax payers subsidise a private citizen to make 400m of footpaths unsafe?


Particularly this one

http://www.advertiser.ie/athlone/article/5042
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Frank Taylor » Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:20 pm

very funny 'The Hawk'!

but how will this situation develop? It looks like the CPO was abandoned either for fear that it would be judged unconstitutional to attempt a CPO for non necessary purposes (art. 43.2.2) or because of the possible price. An admission of defeat.

This is not the only garden in the country with trees that overhang footpaths and drop leaves thereon. Tents have been known to appear in gardens for short periods. These complaints are tenuous.

I doubt that a McBrearty-style campaign of legal harassment is really a smart move.

Maybe the council should enter negotiations with the new owner of the square to lease the property from him for the purpose of providing a public park. As time goes on, his ownership is becoming more and more established through his use and enjoyment of the land.

Ultimately I imagine that the land will be sold at auction.

Could this happen again? Are there other mismanaged council leases or lands being lost by adverse possession? Nobody seems to care. Let's just chase the culchie that outwitted a council official.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby hutton » Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:36 pm

Frank Taylor wrote:Could this happen again? Are there other mismanaged council leases or lands being lost by adverse possession? Nobody seems to care. Let's just chase the culchie that outwitted a council official.


It's a muppet show all round - O'Gara and the DCC officials responsible.

The real shame though is that it's ordinary people who have suffered the loss of amenity
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby Frank Taylor » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:03 pm

So, do you think DCC should try to lease the park from O'Gara? I do.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:06 pm

Pride is a powerful master.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby PVC King » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:55 am

Agreed all sides in this have become entrenched and as disputes go this one has been as fractuous as these things get. It is fair enough to say that all DCC wanted from day one was to secure the best deal possible for the rate payer hence the long drawn out negotiations with the Darley estate.

It is equally fair to say that all O'Gara wanted was a quick buck from a project that he considered the demand side from a rising land market but ignored the context of the subject plot and the input costs of running the asset.

Ordinarily I would agree that a lease would be the way forward in these situations as it would generally give both sides what they want i.e. the occupier would have quiet enjoyment subject to covenants to maintain in good repair whilst the freeholder would secure an income for a specified period of time.

However in this case I am opposed to such an arrangement for the following reasons; firstly all freeholders hold land not only as an asset but also subject to statute and regulations whether Regional, National, Municipal or Local. This implied contract with the state and relevant local government ensures that freeholders behave reasonably and are subject to numerous laws and potential sanctions when they don't.

Secondly the nature of the interest given the scale of tenants improvements previously carried out and required to be carried out periodically needs to be long term of no less than 40 years to justify expending public money to ensure that an interim dilipidations claim cannot be served at any time by what is known to be a litigious freeholder.

Thirdly fixing a rent would be difficult, one suspects the rent payable on comparable plots would not satisfy the freeholder as this land will always be held purely for a recreational purpose which given the tree preservation orders would make the annual upkeep prohibitive for all but one potential lessee. The guidance in Point Gourde on valuing special interests is particularly relevant here as I can't see anyone other than the local authority expending the €100,000 a year required to keep the plot and fittings thereon secure, clean, in good repair and not littering the surrounding area with tonnes of garden matter.

I agree that a discussion needs to be held but that a final solution would be best for all parties concerned; it does however need to be on a realistic basis which would involve a windfall for the current freeholder and give a final certainty to the proposed purchaser. €50,000 - €75,000 would constitute a very good return on €10,000 or say €25,000 including legals.
PVC King
 

Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Postby lostexpectation » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:02 pm

lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Irish Planning Matters