Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

Home Forums Ireland Dartmouth Square Disgrace Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

#783542
admin
Keymaster

@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

Latest News