Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace
@the hawk wrote:
Noel, here is one to get the experts scrathcing their heads. Below you will find an extract from our planning regulations which allows anyone with land to build a 40ft structure described as a lighthouse ( which by definition allows for the accomadation of a keeper). All one needs to do is to show that you that your lighthouse is an aid to navigation, but does not stipulate how or to who this aid is to benifet.
PS. you dont need Duffy’s to supply the circus, the best circus in town (complete with the clowns) is already well underway!
The erection, placing or keeping on land of any lighthouse, beacon, buoy or other aid to navigation on water or in the air.
Any such lighthouse, beacon, buoy or other navigational aid shall not exceed 40 metres in height
Eh I think that you’ll find were that one tried, it would die a quick death by judicial review amongst other instruments.
Had the supposed owner gone about this in a different way, he may have found a better outcome.
Had I been in his shoes, I have read that the zoning allows for a care-takers lodge. Hence after one got some degree of title (for a song), the application for the keepers lodge could have been applied for – and while making a killing out of that, one could have been the bigger person by presenting the rest of the square for public ownership free of charge…
Instead of which, the individual claiming title tried to greedily get â‚¬60m out of the council? Like that was ever going to happen.
For some reason I don’t think the individual claiming ownership would now be likely to get either the lodge or the light house. Boo-hoo.
What’s happened here epitomized in my opinion all of the worst attributes and values of the so-called celtic tiger – looking to turn a hugely unrealistic buck quickly, while knowingly depriving society out of an amenity.
Any more bright ideas, Hawk?