Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace

@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.