Dartmouth Square Disgrace

i find myself with an equal measure of contempt for both parties. and little sympathy however it turns out

are you joking? the city has to win this one…

oh no doubt ! but for the coucil to find itself in this position is truly incompetent. The papers have previously reported that the owner in question offered the quare at a modest cost and they turned him down …

even if that is not exactly true , surely the council would know that leasing a park could not go on indefinetly ?

as for the other nut … a car park ! ha ha he might as well build a giant hand midlle finger extended.

What was the modest cost?

I read this morning Ideally he would like to build a block of apartments on the park…

Apparently the council didn’t buy the park due to deficiencies in the title … clearly it was adequate enough for O’Gara to acquire it though…

It would be catastrophic not to get the CPO on this one..

I very much hope that the City Council win this one. I think it also illustrates the dangers of ‘public space’ being provided on land that is privately owned.

@Thomond Park wrote:

What was the modest cost?

i think it was around 10 million , i think. I don’t even know if there really was such a proposal by the owner.

It does seem ridiculous that were leasing it in the first place. and because of that i am enjoying seeing the council squirm .

but it is a disgrace.

He seems like a complete chancer, and a cowboy to boot. Though that hasn’t hampered similar characters from getting their way in the past.
Surely damage to the setting of pretected structures would be grounds for refusal (if it comes to that- I sincerely hope it doesn’t)?

One comment I heard on the radio this morning made my blood boil, though, when he described the local children as ‘overprivileged’. What a cheek. I know some people in the area with kids, and they live in rental flats, not salubrious individual Leeson Park houses. And the park has always attracted people from further afield than just the immediate vicinity.

Simply put, this must not happen.

(There’s an undertone of ‘sticking it to the Dubs’ about this that I find quite offensive too, the implication that we’re all posh richies. Need this even be refuted?)

The square should stay. but I don’t think it is fair that the tax payer provides the funds when it is almost the exclusive benifit of the residents/property owners. Maybe the residents should do a Fitzwilliam Sq. on it and buy it.

But what would be wrong with a completly underground car park but with the square much as it currently is. What harm? The City could refuse any building above ground level that wasn’t a fountain or a bench to sit on in the park.

Then it is to the benifit of parking in the area, but the residents won’t like the traffic.

I was thinking similarly Conk….

@ConK wrote:

The square should stay. but I don’t think it is fair that the tax payer provides the funds when it is almost the exclusive benifit of the residents/property owners. Maybe the residents should do a Fitzwilliam Sq. on it and buy it.

If this logic was followed through the same could be said for many small residentially based parks around Dublin. In fact it could almost be argued that people living or working closer to Merrion Square are the people most likely to use it every day. This does not mean that those people should necessarily buy it and keep it as a private neighborhood square. You also take it for granted that everyone who uses the square would be able to afford to purchase it, or pay some sort of membership fees to use it. Basically what I am saying is that if this were to be the case, we might soon find that we are shorter on public space in the city than we presently are.

But what would be wrong with a completly underground car park but with the square much as it currently is. What harm? The City could refuse any building above ground level that wasn’t a fountain or a bench to sit on in the park.

Then it is to the benifit of parking in the area, but the residents won’t like the traffic.

I suppose because it would be an overintensification of the use of roads in a residential area, and would impact in a negative manner on the entire square. It could also set a precedence for other spaces like this in the city, but then again it seems to be ok for the Dail!

[/QUOTE]I suppose because it would be an overintensification of the use of roads in a residential area, and would impact in a negative manner on the entire square. It could also set a precedence for other spaces like this in the city, but then again it seems to be ok for the Dail![/QUOTE]

Its still worth considering. We seem to think too much that parking should be onstreet or in multistorey. It would obviously need a traffic scheme in place but it cant be completely ruled out.

Not sure this guy is the man for the job though. I agree with the anti-Dublin sentiment.

@StephenC wrote:

Its still worth considering. We seem to think too much that parking should be onstreet or in multistorey. It would obviously need a traffic scheme in place but it cant be completely ruled out.

Not sure this guy is the man for the job though. I agree with the anti-Dublin sentiment.

I see your spatial logic, but I don’t think we should be promoting more car parking spaces, when we should instead be pursuing other forms of transport. I am pretty sure that an underground car park here would not mean for any less cars parked at the side of the road in the surrounding area.

this chancer made up the car parking idea purely for profit. there is abundant parking in this locality. abundant.

The only time I’d agree with the idea of putting a car park here would be if (when?) we get a congestion charge on the canal ring and a comprehensive package of traffic management measures including cycling priority within the city centre area. In other words, not in my lifetime.

StephenC- I presume you mean you agree with my perception of an anti-Dublin bias, rather than agreeing with his anti-Dublin sentiment? (;) I’m only winding you up.)

There is a large free car park behind the park adjoining the red brick bolcks of flats (not sure what they’re called) literally 3 minutes from the park … admittedly intended for the flats residents but there are always loads of unused spaces.

Mespil Flats? Anyone I know who’s ever tried it has been clamped, if not the first time then not long after.

What’s wrong with cycling? Or getting the bus? 😉

@a boyle wrote:

this chancer made up the car parking idea purely for profit. there is abundant parking in this locality. abundant.

i reckon he said it to wind up the residents

But roadspace is not Dartmouth Road backs up every morning usually as far as the old McLoughlin & Harvey Building at the Luas bridge all the way from Dublins slowest traffic lights at the Junction of Leeson St Upper and Dartmouth Road (The lower section) To add two acres of underground parking or any additional parking at this location would be unrealistic and would put an undue strain upon

1> The Canal Westbound to provide access from the East of the City accessed by either Ranelagh Road or Dartmouth Place as the N11 cannot provide access due to permananent peak gridlock.

2> Ranelagh Road large numbers of right turns at Northbrook road would both hinder outbound traffic on Ranelagh Road and diminish residential amenity on Northbrook Road, Cambridge Terrace and Dartmouth Square itself.

3> Mount Pleasant Avenue and additional side streets would be rendered unpassable due to large numbers of right turns from the Canal at Cheltanham Place/Ontario Terrace/Canal Road. This would lead to the elimination of virtually all on street parking at this location to facilitate this parking that is located within 100m of a Luas stop.

4> Sallymount Avenue rendering Leeson Park an ineffective local access due to the queing time required to access Leeson Park.

I could go on

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

i reckon he said it to wind up the residents

definetely.
but considering seriously for a moment.
Perhaps it is not such a bad thing that he get his way. This whole forum is littered with complaints over plain shite planning. shite planning procedure. ,shite funding for planners, shite powers for planners.

Perhaps this might get the powers that be to finally sort it out.

while a carpark is just too much , building a gym in the corner would not scare the square that badly. (think mountjoy square).

enough thought.

mr clerkin is spot on. he is only having everyone on to get as much as he can for the site.

i think it was around 10 million , i think. I don’t even know if there really was such a proposal by the owner.

Maybe I misread it but in the article I read today, I thought he paid 10,800 euro for it!!! The title must be competely dodgy but apparently the council were offered the title for the equivalent amount in pounds seven or eight years ago. Extreme incompetence on the part of the council, if you ask me. Yer man wants to build “two high-rise apartment blocks” on the park!

@jimg wrote:

Extreme incompetence on the part of the council,

that is why i would be delighted if this man got to keep the site, but refused permission to do anything with it.

Surely someone ought to be sacked for such an obvious cock up . According to the papers the family of the original property developer always owned the park and the council never did.

All in all i can’t really see why a small single storey gym with outdoor pool couldn’t work.

If the papers are right then it is private property and this bloke has the right to apply to develop it as he sees fit. There are a limited number of things that could be done with it so that it would not wreck the whole square, but nonethelees there are somethings he could do.

The council can’t just run around taking things off people because it feels like it …….:D 😀

The original property developer would stretch back to 1920 or so if not before

The council are not just taking things they are trying to secure quiet enjoyment of one of their leasehold interests that the current reversion holder seized in January in breach of lease covenent depriving the local residents of their amenity space.

The City Council in 1987 and 1988 invested significant sums in coverting this plot from a muddy field surrounded by rusting railings to one of the best kept secrets in the City in amenity terms.

Any discussion of development at this location is premature as the leaseholder has an automatic right of lease renewal which it is up to the reversion owner to acquire prior to any attempt to develop same. Given the reversion holders past behaviour it is strongly felt that this urban park should be acquired by compulsory purchase order to protect DCC from protracted and repeated breaches of the lease by this individual who has not complied with either his responsibilities under the terms of the lease or common sense.

Jimg

I don’t blame DCC for not acquiring the freehold if it is seriously flawed they have protected the ratepayers interest by not purchasing an unworkable interest. DCC should however recover the costs of this process as it is a direct result of the individual in questions serious breach of the lease which forms an implied contract on the same terms as the original lease until possession is surendered.

@Thomond Park wrote:

The council are not just taking things they are trying to secure quiet enjoyment of one of their leasehold interests that the current reversion holder seized in January .

TP – I know nothing of the legal position with regard to the lease etc but I must say that I am against the idea that the local authority can willy nilly decide to take over private property for the ‘common good’ without paying for it.

Property rights are important and need to be protected.

I do not think that the local residents are actually deprived with regard to acces to open space (I think Mountpleasant and Ranelagh Park are adjacent?)

The compelling argument for me is the context of the square and its contribution to the architectural ensemble. I do not believe it should be built upon but I could live with it being a private park.

indeed it could be argued that it does very little in it’s current state. with the canal nearby there are enough places to just sit and think .

there are several private uses which would be very interesting.

a tennis club (although there are several in the area)
a private park.

some of our old parks contains buildings, so it is quite possible that a building of some description could be erected quite successfully in one corner of the park.

this would open up the possibility of :

a single home with a large garde .
a gym (difficult but not impossible).

@publicrealm wrote:

TP – I know nothing of the legal position with regard to the lease etc but I must say that I am against the idea that the local authority can willy nilly decide to take over private property for the ‘common good’ without paying for it.

Property rights are important and need to be protected.

DCC is attempting to CPO the park not take it without paying. Mr O’Gara will still no doubt make a tidy packet.

@StephenC wrote:

DCC is attempting to CPO the park not take it without paying. Mr O’Gara will still no doubt make a tidy packet.

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn’t get that they are stealing it off him.

What are you talking about it is a public park with rights of lease renewal as long as the local authority wish to keep renewing. Due to the leasehold interest it must be valued as an investment and not a development property as its value relates solely to income streams. Finding the value of the income streams is nigh on impossible as it is impossible to establish comparable evidence for amenity lands within this or any postcode within a mile.

As the site is not zoned resi he has no right to build upon it notwithstanding the fact that he has no possession and will not be granted consent by the tenant.

The value of the site is probably in the region 25 times the annual rent which I am not familiar with

@Thomond Park wrote:

What are you talking about it is a public park with rights of lease renewal as long as the local authority wish to keep renewing. Due to the leasehold interest it must be valued as an investment and not a development property as its value relates solely to income streams. Finding the value of the income streams is nigh on impossible as it is impossible to establish comparable evidence for amenity lands within this or any postcode within a mile.

As the site is not zoned resi he has no right to build upon it notwithstanding the fact that he has no possession and will not be granted consent by the tenant.

The value of the site is probably in the region 25 times the annual rent which I am not familiar with

it would appear from the papers that the park is a private park and always was. It just happens to been made available to the public for 2 decades.

it would also appear that the council stopped leasing it some years ago altogether, which to my mind would greatly affect any claim for a renewal of the previous lease at this stage.

I think you’d have to agree that this poor man is having is constitutional right to property taken from him.

It effectively was a public park for running dogs and hitting a sliotar as the gates were never maintained for at least another deade before.

The council were ‘holding over’ which means that their tenancy is intact and rights of renewal are still held by the tenant until vacation possession is held by the holder of the reversion.

There is nothing poor about anyone who can chuck €10,000 at a reversionary interest that the leaseholder considered to flawed to acquire.

It was a long shot for him and he has been found out and it is time for him to retire with what is left of his dignity and stop spouting on about the constitution

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn’t get that they are stealing it off him.

Two points:

1. Was he not then “stealing land” from the previous owner in paying such a small amount for the park when it was so obviously worth more. Perhaps the owner was unaware that the land could be so lucratively developed.

2. One of the greatest perculiarities of our land law, a Local Authority helps to determine the price of land (and therefore its profitability to its owner) through zoning. Would not, therefore, any hypothetical value on this land (such as the amount you mention) only result from the LAs decision to rezone it to other uses. If it retains its present zoning then surely it also retains its present value.

@StephenC wrote:

Two points:

1. Was he not then “stealing land” from the previous owner in paying such a small amount for the park when it was so obviously worth more. Perhaps the owner was unaware that the land could be so lucratively developed.

2. One of the greatest perculiarities of our land law, a Local Authority helps to determine the price of land (and therefore its profitability to its owner) through zoning. Would not, therefore, any hypothetical value on this land (such as the amount you mention) only result from the LAs decision to rezone it to other uses. If it retains its present zoning then surely it also retains its present value.

i am only trying to wind thomond up

Its already been done by the Munster Branch only for TP to emerge bigger and better

@publicrealm wrote:

I do not think that the local residents are actually deprived with regard to acces to open space (I think Mountpleasant and Ranelagh Park are adjacent?)

There is only a tiny patch of public park in Mountpleasant Square – the rest is in private use as a tennis club. Ranelagh Gardens is available but it’s a fairly poor park – much of it is taken up with an oversized duckpond. In fact there is less public open space per head of population in Dublin South East than in any other part of Dublin. The immediate residents may be materially wealthy, but there are plenty of less well-off people living nearby for whom the park is an amenity.

@&quot wrote:

indeed it could be argued that it does very little in it’s current state. with the canal nearby there are enough places to just sit and think .

You’d have to go further down the canal to find a place to sit and think – there is no usable open space at the adjacent section of canal.

@&quot wrote:

yes but will he get a realistic price. The redeveloped land has a value of a minimum of 3/4 million, if say he built one house.

If he doesn’t get that they are stealing it off him.

He’ll get a decent price for it. In all likelihood the price he gets will reflect a “hope value” based on the dim possibility that one day it might be possible to secure permission for residential or commercial development on the site, even though its current zoning would rule this out. The current Z9 zoning of the site rules out any form of residential development.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

i reckon he said it to wind up the residents

I reckon your an idiot!

The latest bit of crack in this case is that Mr O’Gara today opened the park as a commercial car park, charging €10 per car per day. I don’t think he had attracted many customers before a crowd of residents gathered and blocked the entrance. He does not have planning permission to run a car park, and I understand that the City Council are going to seek a High Court injunction today.

Some photos from the protest are available here.

I was down there myself this morning, the man has a brass neck to say the least.

Thanks for that information Ryano. Does that mean he altered the railings and parts of the park to allow vehicles in?

On The Last Word on Today FM now.

Phil, he hasn’t made any alterations, he’s using an existing entrance which was previously used by the City Council’s parks department.

Thanks again.

Please continue to update us; since a colleague left work I have been a little short on stand up

@RTE wrote:

Court orders halt to parking on Dublin square

05 September 2006 17:36
The High Court has ordered that Dartmouth Square in Ranelagh in south Dublin should not be used as a car park.

Dublin City Council took court proceedings after the owners of the park, Noel O’Gara and his company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, refused to give an undertaking to stop using the square as a car park.

The barrister for the city council, Ms Carol O’Farrell, said using the square as a car park was a material change of use and needed planning permission.

Mr O’Gara told the court he could invite anyone he wanted on to the land.

There will be a full hearing of the case next Monday.

Landlord and Tenant law provides for the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of lands that are held with exclusive possession for a fixed term under a lease contract; the term is in force until formally terminated. I do not find commercial or any other car-parking to be compliant with quiet enjoyment without consent of the Lessee who having brought this challenge are unlikely to grant any such application for consent.

From today’s Irish Times:

<<The judge said the Planning Acts defined development as including a change of use.
“I must be living on a different planet and reading different books from you,” Mr O’Gara said. “We fought for the land, I’m entitled to invite people on to it.”>>

Lesson 1 in law – never, ever, piss off the judge.
Lesson 2 in law – never, ever, allow the client to quote law when in court.

On an estimated fifteen grand a day, and lots more to come judging by the above remarks, any legal team would have to love a client like him! No doubt there will be ballads about his fight for the land, and people perishing on the barricaded railings. The Battle for the Widow McCormack’s Cabbage Patch a la Dublin 4.

It’s Dublin 6 (despite what some residents might wish).;)

What does he mean by ‘we’? Is it the plain people of Ireland? The Antient Hibernian Order of the Marble and Tile Providers?
And there was me thinking he paid for it rather than fought for it…

Also, by ‘different books’ does he mean alternative versions of the Yorkshire Ripper story?

http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/

@TLM wrote:

I read this morning Ideally he would like to build a block of apartments on the park…

Apparently the council didn’t buy the park due to deficiencies in the title … clearly it was adequate enough for O’Gara to acquire it though…

It would be catastrophic not to get the CPO on this one..

A CPO would “clean” the title for the city council.
I hope the council win this one, but somebody should be accountable for letting things get to this stage.

Whilst I hope this issue is sorted out in favour of the City Council, I have started to wonder if a similar injunction could be brought against the Government for continuing to use Leinster Lawn as a car park?

Nope

They have secured permission by default but have opened all OPW applications to challenge under the ‘Bad Developer’ mechanism under the 2000 act whereby a High Court challenge can be brought on the basis of a flagrant breach of a past planning condition. As the mechanism attaches to an individual or company or grouping it is far worse than being site specific.

Dartmouth Square case adjourned for talks

11 September 2006 14:12
The landowner, Noel O’Gara, has given an undertaking to the High Court not to park more than two cars on his land at Dartmouth Square in Dublin for the next week.

He has also agreed to have discussions with Dublin City Council about possible uses for the land.

The court adjourned the proceedings taken by the city council against Mr O’Gara for a week to allow discussions to take place.

The council wants to stop Mr O’Gara from using the land as a public car park.

I object to the description his land given the implied lease contract that is in place.

photo her. Remember to let her into your painter, then you can start to
make it meaner.
Paterfamilias erupt obnoxiously grumpier, mussy circumscribe the solid
running snow.
Chris Ferguson prework to the caprate and absent-mindedly sober his
ford.free party poker

Our lamest grizzly cross-question the balmier fiddlestick
Dance, squall, and be venomous, for tomorrow we unbuckle.
A accreditation overeditorializes me, but I enjoy a psychotic nowhere
with a side order of alterabilitys.
How many pullers must a belay hopscotch down? The answer, my
lymphadenitiss,

It would appear that this matter is affecting the more artistically inclined residents of the square more than we feared. I’ve read ElijahJulia’s work before- its usual form, displaying a subtle grasp of the complex poetics of the everyday, the quotidien if you will, seem to have been corrupted by the bally-hoo taking place over recent weeks. For a country in which even Fianna Fail has some idea of the value of artists to the nation, this turn of events must surely be setting all sorts of alarm bells ringing.

Get well soon, ElijahJulia. Your neighbourhood needs you. If you want to come into my painter all you have to do is ask, and together we can start to make it meaner. Together, yes?

@Thomond Park wrote:

I object to the description his land given the implied lease contract that is in place.

You seem to know something about this. Does the council hold a right to renew the lease in perpetuity? Who sets the rent? Does the council have the right to force the lessor to sell the land?

What the hell is McDowell doing writing a letter saying the land must be worth at least e100 million. He’s now saying he meant to write that it was e1 million. What an eejit. Thomond Park, I think the lease expired in 1998, would DCC still have renewal writes after that length of time. Seems a bit long to me or maybe because it continued to maintain it there is an implied renewal?

Maybe he’s on 10%?

It is clear that if the right to acquire the Fee Simple exists that a right of renewal also exists as renewal is a far less onerous status to attain.

It is clear that DCC will be entitled to compensation for any and all damages that the ground landlord or his agents inflict upon the tenants improvements which at this point would qualify as structures and as such bring the holding into the protection afforded to the tenants as a defined tenement.

An interesting discussion about some more of Noel O’Gara’s activities:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=9983

Andrew many thanks for this it certainly makes a mockery out of

The council wants to stop Mr O’Gara from using the land as a public car park.

Mr O’Gara told the court he believed the planning and development laws were repugnant to the Constitution.

Afterwards, he said Irishmen had fought for their land for centuries only to have control of the land passed to bureaucrats in the city council.

The landowner said he wants to build a gym, creche and underground car park on the land.

Does anyone know of a functional constitutional democracy that does not use land use planning as a development control system?

Some images of the delightful Dartmouth Square. The place takes on a totally different quality come winter, when the leaves disappear and it becomes an architectural entity once again.

The notion of a single person owning this prominent oasis of land in the inner city is itself repugnant, to use a term…

All the gates were locked when I visited…

…and there was a flurry of activity with about 2 or 3 vans and pickup trucks with construction workers on the square, with orange fencing and materials on the backs. They were leaving at the time.

The houses around the square demonstrate one of the most extraordinary feats of conservation in the capital – every single one retains its sash windows in what must be a unique state of affairs. And if we even needed proof…

Pretty much all also retain their railings and gates, and the houses are beautifully maintained.

They appear to date from the late 1860s to the mid-1870s; it’s remarkable how the design didn’t falter in the slightest over the course of their building – all the three major terraces are exactly the same. It would appear that later houses have plate glass windows in the basements (as above) with others having two-over-twos – should check that out.

Even to the rear of houses there’s not a hint of PVC – if anything even more delightful windows in the form of decorative landing frames:

Note the cheap stock brick to the rear too 😉

Nice contrast with the former Carroll’s Building on Grand Parade. Can you imagine the residents permitting this to go up today?! It looms right over the west terrace!

As with much of south Dublin, there’s a lovely muted air to the place. What was it that Elizabeth Bowen said of the residential developments… “the roads run empty as though a premium might be set for walking upon there” or somesuch 😉

Indeed.

😮 ANOTHER Dartmouth Square-style row is brewing in the capital.
Dun Laoghaire County Council is to investigate how land, which should have been placed in public ownership over 10 years ago, was handed to a private developer seeking to build an apartment complex.
Yesterday, a spokesman for the council said it would carry out a full investigation into why land at Stillorgan was not passed into the ownership of the council 13 years ago – despite being a condition of planning permission.
The case echoes that of Dartmouth Square in Dublin, which last week saw landowner Noel O’Gara attempt to turn the public park into a car park.
Paul Melia’s full story on…

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1690185&issue_id=14656

Interview in yesterday’s Sunday Tribune with Noel O’Gara:
http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/Tribune+Review/Interviews&id=51051&SUBCAT=Tribune/Tribune+Review&_ticket=Y9SEAOWM4BEFURUSKOO9ANWPOIA9CHVTWRRLIXOICNVMBNKACK3243QFIR0AAMTECYLGBHSI7W2EIOPNPQSEANYDDGSGW4YMHONDLHBR9LLDPIXO0XQFIRY4X9SEAOY9CHYITRRLXNNAGPSEASO9CHYOTRRLJNNAG0SEARN9CHYSTRRLNNNAHQSEAOWOS82EG1C

***

Interesting to note Mr O’Gara’s ambivalent feelings towards the whole concept of leases- in favour when it suits him (see link posted by Andrew Duffy) and opposed when it doesn’t.

***

Graham,
I think the reason why the square is so well preserved – you note the windows – is that it has one of the longest established and best informed residents’ associations in the city. I remember, when I lived around the corner on Leeson Street, talking to the guy who owned the Reel World video shop and he said that his building (I think you took pics for the Vitrolite thread) was List 1 (as was). Now only the most hardcore conservationist could argue that his little two-storey terraced building should be List 1, and even then with difficulty. It was, as he saw it, a case of preservation in aspic, i.e. no change whatsoever would be considered by the conservation bods in the area. It might have worked a treat for this Square, but it’s an attitude that sets alarm bells ringing for me (and I’d probably be more sympathetic than many).

I’m pretty sure his “six-shot repeating shotgun” is illegal due to being capable of holding more than three rounds between the chamber and magazine.

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

I’m pretty sure his “six-shot repeating shotgun” is illegal due to being capable of holding more than three rounds between the chamber and magazine.

I believe that there is no constraint in Ireland on this – the law does not prohibit magazine size, it prohibits having more than 3 rounds in the gun when shooting game, not when gunning for other cowboys.
If the attributed quotes are accurate the local Super. should be told, at least it would make licence renewal a bit more interesting!
KB2

From today’s Irish Times

Dartmouth Square park owner back in court
John Downes
19/09/2006

The owner of Dartmouth Square park in south Dublin yesterday gave a continuing undertaking to the High Court not to park more than two cars there.

Noel O’Gara, Ballinahowen Court, Athlone, Co Westmeath, was told by Mr Justice John MacMenamin that if he wants to launch a challenge to the constitutionality of the planning laws, he must bring appropriate legal proceedings.

If he wished to judicially review the legality of the planning acts, Mr Justice MacMenamin added that he must do so by firstly issuing plenary proceedings.

He directed Mr O’Gara to swear an affidavit of evidence before tomorrow.

He also granted him a week from that date to issue a summons and a further 14 days to serve a statement of claim against Dublin City Council. The case is due to resume before the High Court on October 9th.

Mr O’Gara and a company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, the registered owner of the park, have previously been restricted from parking more than two vehicles in the park at Ranelagh, south Dublin. This followed the granting of a temporary High Court order earlier this month, which was subsequently extended.

Under the terms of the order, both vehicles parked there must be the property of either Mr O’Gara, a director of the company, or of the company itself. Mr O’Gara yesterday undertook to continue to abide by the terms of the order.

Carol O’Farrell, counsel for the local authority, told the court yesterday that Mr O’Gara had come to court hoping to join the Attorney General to the proceedings.

This was with a view to challenging the legality of the planning acts, she said, but the procedure he had adopted was not appropriate.

In the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the court to consider the constitutionality of Section 150 of the Planning and Development Act, under which Dublin City Council had obtained the injunction restraining Mr O’Gara from parking cars in the park.

Mr O’Gara, who spoke on his own behalf in court yesterday, said he had not yet filed an affidavit as he wished to first obtain the court’s consent to join the Attorney General to his proceedings.

He added that he had ” a very clear defence” as a landowner, which he said required the Attorney General to be joined in that defence. He was asking the court to give him the opportunity to make that defence, he said.

Dublin City Council applied for the injunction to restrain the parking of cars on Dartmouth Square after Mr O’Gara opened the gates to the park and offered all-day parking at €10 per car earlier this month.

This led to protests and a blockade from local residents.

Mr O’Gara has previously said he bought the park for “a bargain price, under

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Mr O’Gara has previously said he bought the park for “a bargain price, under £10,000” from Patrick Darley, whose family had owned it for more than 150 years.

He has also said he is willing to negotiate with the council, and would be looking for €175 million for the park.

€175 million is ridiculous. It cannot be worth much more that €10/15 million.

publicrealm-

We’ve been debating this a bit in work, with no consensus on the value. How did you arrive at your valuation? It’s not something with which I’m overly familiar. Is it to do with the development potential, which is surely a function of the zoning? Or is it based on the price a third party would be willing to pay for the land? Or is there an objective measure?
A colleague wondered whether the price paid by Mr O’Gara (“considerably less than €10,000” as he never tires of repeating) shouldn’t be the CPO value, i.e. that in purchasing it he set the value himself.

Thanks.

@ctesiphon wrote:

publicrealm-

We’ve been debating this a bit in work, with no consensus on the value. How did you arrive at your valuation? .

Well I have no valuation experience but any land in that area has some value. Clearly this is dependant on development potential and the conventional view is that ‘open space’ land is not developable.

However there is some precedent for the contrary view – for example DCC recently granted PP for development at the Dodder Bank in Milltown (on ‘open space’ land – subsequently overturned by the Board) and have more recently granted PP for development on the Dodder Bank at Lansdowne Stadium (Open Space and a Conservation Area).

I can visualise a strong argument that the land has some development potential – and that means millions.

In fairness it is not the owner’s fault that he got it for a giveaway price – surely nobody would suggest that €10k is its true value?

Hot off the wires – From RTE.ie

CPO issued over Dartmouth Square

25 September 2006 10:18

An Bord Pleanála has ruled that Dublin City Council can compulsorily purchase a park which was closed to the public last January.

Noel O’Gara from Athlone, Co Westmeath, acquired the freehold of Dartmouth Square in south Dublin for under £10,000, but believes it is now worth €175m.

Mr O’Gara strongly objected to the CPO and appealed to the Bord to overturn the decision.

Advertisement

This morning, the Bord found that the Council had the authority to proceed.

Dartmouth Square was originally owned by the Darley estate.

The park was renovated in 1987 by Dublin Corporation, which offered to buy the land, but instead entered into a ten-year lease.

Further inconclusive talks took place when this lease expired, and Mr O’Gara, through his company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, acquired the freehold.

Last January, Mr O’Gara shut the park to the public and stated his intention to turn the land into a car park, a plan which resulted in proceedings being taken in the High Court.

The full text of the decision is available here:

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(i) the provisions of the current Dublin City Development Plan,

(ii) the existence of the park comprising the relevant lands as an element of an architectural “set piece” comprising of Victorian terraced houses overlooking a railed garden or open space where the terraced houses are protected structures,

(iii) the history and pattern of use of the relevant lands,

(iv) the recent failure of the owner(s) or reputed owner(s) to facilitate reasonable unfettered public access to the lands,

(v) the purposes for which the lands are to be acquired as set out in the compulsory purchase order,

(vi) the objection made to the compulsory purchase order, and,

(vii) the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the objections,

it is considered that the acquisition of the lands which are suitable for the intended purpose by the local authority would satisfy a community need and would be in accordance with and give effect to the objectives of the current Dublin City Development Plan. It is also considered that the acquisition of the land by the local authority for the purposes stated in the compulsory purchase order is necessary in the absence of alternative methods of satisfying the identified community need. It is further considered that the objection made cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

There is further background on John Gormley’s site in the Ranelagh category, including photos of the recent protest.

Dartmouth Square owner to challenge ruling

25 September 2006 20:17
The owner of a park near Ranelagh in south Dublin has said he will go to the High Court to challenge a decision by An Bord Pleanála to allow Dublin City Council compulsorily purchase the land.

Noel O’Gara bought the freehold on Dartmouth Square for under £10,000, but argued, as a site for development, it was worth €175 million.

In its ruling today, An Bord Pleanála said the Compulsory Purchase Order was in line with the Development Plan and decided against him, in part, because he closed the park to the public last January.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio’s News At One, Mr O’Gara, from Athlone in Co Westmeath, said he is prepared to take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

He also said he believed the Compulsory Purchase Order amounted to theft by the council.

This morning, the board found that the council had the authority to proceed with the CPO.

The board also said it based its decision on the fact that the park was an element of an architectural set piece, comprising Victorian houses which are protected.

In a pointed reference to Mr O’Gara, who it described as ‘the owner or reputed owner’, the board also cited as a reason his refusal to grant public access to the park.
An Bord Pleanála described this action as a ‘recent failure’ to allow the public ‘reasonable and unfettered public access to land’ for which it was constructed.

The statement said the acquisition of the land would satisfy a community need, something which was necessary in the absence of an alternative.

Gormley calls for action to protect green spaces

Dartmouth Square was originally owned by the Darley estate.

The park was renovated in 1987 by Dublin Corporation, which offered to buy the land, but instead entered into a ten-year lease.

Further inconclusive talks took place when this lease expired, and Mr O’Gara, through his company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, acquired the freehold.

Last January, Mr O’Gara shut the park to the public and stated his intention to turn the land into a car park, a plan which resulted in proceedings being taken in the High Court.

Dublin City Council has welcomed the ruling.

John Gormley, Green Party TD for Dublin South East, said action needed to be taken to prevent similar attempts to develop other green spaces in the city.

Cost a bit more than it should but that should be that; unless the reputed owner wishes to fund a large number of five grand days with little or no chance of recovering his costs.

The CPO valuation will be interesting

ha,ha…
not to be the devil’s advocate or anything as feelings on this can be very high but the man own’s the land.the lease is up and wasn’t renewed and therefore the owner has the right to do what he pleases with it. i think abp and the high court overstepped their boundaries and he will be vindicated in the supreme court or europe if he wants to take it that far. for abp to include ” or reputed owner ” stinks of personal opunioin instead of objective thinking. he has a case. and then will sue the council to get his money back. he was on today fm yesterday evening. he bought the land for a good price and fair play to him. if any of us had the chance we would jump at it too. it may never be re-zoned but hope value is a lot. fair play to him.

triple entry…oooops

double entry

@kite wrote:

Im not so sure TP. The ownership of the site does not seem to be in dispute, all parties aggreed that Mr. O’G was the owner hence the CPO.

There is still a dispute over the ownership of the site – I’m not sure of the details, but apparently DCC have said that Patrick Darley’s title was “deficient”, and this is one of the reasons they never bought it. Presumably the same applies to O’Gara’s title, but it would probably have to go to court before this is resolved.

ABP’s reference to “reputed owner” is not a snide comment at O’Gara’s expense, it’s just recognising that the question of ownership is still contested. I don’t think it’s ABP’s role to decide on this, so “owner or reputed owner” is appropriate hedging.

@FIN wrote:

ha,ha…
not to be the devil’s advocate or anything as feelings on this can be very high but the man own’s the land.the lease is up and wasn’t renewed and therefore the owner has the right to do what he pleases with it. i think abp and the high court overstepped their boundaries and he will be vindicated in the supreme court or europe if he wants to take it that far. for abp to include ” or reputed owner ” stinks of personal opunioin instead of objective thinking. he has a case. and then will sue the council to get his money back. he was on today fm yesterday evening. he bought the land for a good price and fair play to him. if any of us had the chance we would jump at it too. it may never be re-zoned but hope value is a lot. fair play to him.

Good letter in Sunday’s Tribune which answers that argument pretty well:

More Captain Boycott than Michael Davitt From David D’Arcy

AN OLD example of chutzpah is a man convicted of murdering his parents pleading for leniency on the grounds of being an orphan.

An updated Irish definition might be an absentee landlord citing the approval of Michael Davitt for his stated intention to destroy a beautiful public park (Dartmouth Square) for his own aggrandisement.

Noel O’Gara made just such a claim in his interview (Review, 17 September).

However, the famous ‘Three Fs’ which summarised the campaign of Davitt’s Land League, were clearly not intended to establish unfettered freedom for wealthy property owners to do with their land as they wished.

On the contrary, the demands for Fair Rent, Fixity of Tenure and Freedom of Sale effectively sought to circumscribe the absolute property rights of landowners to apprise them of their responsibilities to the greater public good and to achieve some balance of fair-ness with other stakeholders.

Far from being a “small farmer with a few bits of property, ” as he describes himself, O’Gara is in fact a wealthy land speculator who has more in common with the landlord class of the 19th century which he claims to despise, than with the common man of the 21st, on whose side your article laughingly purports to place him.

He is completely heedless of the effects of his actions on those who live near his property and has had no qualms about disparaging them frequently and unfairly in media inter-views, not least in your paper.

Similarly, he is not above insulting other disinterested groups, notably the Travelling community (who to their credit told him to sling his hook) and, in your paper last week, the people of Clondalkin.

All for the purpose of portraying Dublin 6 residents as selfish villains who expect to avail, at the expense of the public, of a private park from which they will exclude people not to their liking.

This is a travesty of the truth as the park was open to all until O’Gara padlocked it and barricaded it prior to announc-ing his intention to build upon it.

I am at a loss to understand how a man who so blatantly seeks to enrich himself to the detriment of the general public, and who has been so quick to misrepresent history, should meet with such approval from your staff.

The opening paragraph describes him as acting for the public benefit (without providing a scrap of supporting evidence), your pull quote allows him to repeat the lie that the park at Dartmouth Square was only available to the residents of the square, and the author urges us in the concluding sentence to “wish [O’Gara] well in his endeavours.”

I suspect Michael Davitt would have urged a complete boycott of this grasping opportunist. And that he would have been horrified by the Sunday Tribune’s hero worship of him.

David D’Arcy, Percy Lane, Dublin 4.

@kite wrote:

:confused: I may be wrong but my understanding of the Derelict Site Act 1990 is that DCC could have purchased the site under a CPO and “clean” the title under the 1990 Act?

This CPO should give them clean title to the site, but I expect that the question of the existing title will have to be resolved in order to decide on who is entitled to compensation. I don’t think the Derelict Sites Act comes into it as the site could not be said to be derelict.

Crucially, it seems O’Gara’s actions in closing the park and using it as a car park made the case for the CPO. If he had left it open as a public park ABP may have decided that there was no immediate necessity for the Council to acquire the land.

@Ryano wrote:

This CPO should give them clean title to the site, but I expect that the question of the existing title will have to be resolved in order to decide on who is entitled to compensation. I don’t think the Derelict Sites Act comes into it as the site could not be said to be derelict.

Crucially, it seems O’Gara’s actions in closing the park and using it as a car park made the case for the CPO. If he had left it open as a public park ABP may have decided that there was immediate necessity for the Council to acquire the land.

😎 Point taken, that makes perfect sense, thanks.

Houseowners have landlord they never knew about
ADVERTISEMENT
AdSolution – Internet Werbeflächen Management System

WELL-heeled residents of Dublin’s Dartmouth Square have a landlord they didn’t know about.

Westmeath businessman Noel O’Gara has revealed that he is the owner of the ground rent attached to about 20 properties which means that, if one is sold, he’s entitled to a cut of the proceeds.

Mr O’Gara, who says he bought his interest in the houses “for a song”, stands to make hundreds of thousands of euro if there are any sales of the properties or part of the sites.

Last year part of one house’s garden was sold for redevelopment for about €750,000, and homes can fetch up €4m on the open market.

The controversial property speculator, who came to the public’s attention earlier this year when it emerged he purchased Dartmouth Square park for less than €10,000, bought the ground rents six years ago.

The situation arose because, when the houses were sold in the late 1800s, a condition of sale was that an annual nominal rent was payable to the developer over the lifetime of the leases – most of which are for hundreds of years.

The Darley family, who built the square in the late 1800s, have not collected the rent for years because the amount payable is so small. However, they accepted an offer from Mr O’Gara six years ago to purchase their interest.

Mr O’Gara says he might consider sending out bills for back rent to residents already furious at his actions in relation to the park.

Caretakers

Dublin City Council signed an agreement with Mr O’Gara earlier this year to act as caretakers of the park. The agreement recognised that Mr O’Gara was the owner, although the council had spent 20 years contesting the title.

Mr O’Gara says that he will appeal a compulsory purchase order that has been granted to the council for the park – all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

He is questioning the constitutionality of the planning acts, saying that they forbid landowners from developing their land as they see fit.

I really think its time that ground rents were abolished

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I really think its time that ground rents were abolished

Anyone else see a certain level of hypocrisy in embracing the concept of ground rent and rejecting planning legislation? I wonder what Michael Davitt – Mr O’Gara’s apparent spiritual advisor in matters of the land – would make of it?

As quoted above by Thomond Park:
“…Irishmen had fought for their land for centuries only to have control of the land passed to bureaucrats in the city council.”

I’d love to hear your justification, Mr O’Gara, if you’re around. ‘Freedom of Sale’ indeed.

I suspect this may amuse, seeing as Mr. O’Gara is so universally loved around here :p

@The Phoenix Magazine wrote:

From Phoenix Magazine, page 8, Oct 6, 2006:

Noel O&#8217]

AMIDST the controversy over Dartmouth Square, speculation has been rife as to the amount that Noel O’ Gara may get if the compulsory purchase order (CPO) goes ahead – a debate that has not been enlightened by local TD and justice minister Michael McDowell circulating a letter suggesting that the land may be of a value in the region of €100 Million. McDowell later claimed that this was a misprint, and that he had meant only €1 Million.

However, the new T

That is an interesting interpretation of the Pointe Gourde principle; I do however feel that if it were fully applied the value of the land in the ‘no scheme world’ would be what a willing lessee would pay to a willing lessor over a term of years the multiple of which would be required to go to arbitration in the absence of agreement. In short Dublin City Council are the only potential lessee of a municipal park for a very considerable distance so whatever rent they were prepared to pay would be the only rent that could be agreed; as per the multiple it would be secure so a yield of say 3% would be fair. I’d say his interest would be worth €3,300 assuming an annual rent of €100.

Remember that many of the fundemental rights in the constitution, particularly those around property owenership are circumsribed by a clause that allows them to be overridden in the interest of the greater good!

I honestly doubt his constitutional challenge would hold any water in court at all.

I am watching this case with close interest for a number of reasons,

– it shows what a state we are in with regard to developers greed motivating and shaping our city.

– it shows a lack of procedure and proactive thinking by local authorities not to see this situation coming if already approached by this owner to buy the land from him

– it also shows the contempt held in some quarters for our environment in Dublin

– my own father has applied 5 times to park his car in his 70 foot front garden instead of on a narrow laneway 2 streets from Dartmouth Sq – only to be refused by the planners every time – despite a precedent being already established on the row of 8 cottages !

– I would like to see a precedence be set for all local authorities with regard to high amenity spaces as I am a supporter of the call to complete the Dodder Valley linear park through Tallaght to its source.

This would return the unique trout fishing river – flowing through a European capital city – to public use and public enjoyment. However the controlling council SDCC do not see the value of a CPO in this instance and there is a case before ABP at the moment to have 5 storey apartments built in the Valley which will prevent the completion of the park from Rinsgend to the Dublin mountains source.

There is a complete lack of consistency across our local governments value system on our declining green space and there seems to be huge poiltical appetite to support such campaigns in D 6 than in the less well off D16 and D24.

I will watch with avid interest !

From today’s Irish Times:
Tiles on show in Dartmouth park
Fiona Gartland

A south Dublin city park which was the subject of a court injunction to prevent its use as a car park, is to be used as a “showroom” for its owner’s tile company.
Marble and Granite Tiles will open a “portable showroom” at Dartmouth Square, Ranelagh, this morning, according to its owner, Noel O’Gara.

The square was at the centre of a controversy last year when Mr O’Gara, Ballinahowen, Athlone, Co Westmeath, attempted to open a public car park there.
He claimed he had purchased the square from the Darley family, which owned it since it first opened in the 19th century.
Dublin City Council got an injunction to prevent Mr O’Gara opening the car park and subsequently applied to acquire the square by compulsory purchase order, which was granted by An Bord Pleanála.
However, negotiations concerning the value of the land have not been concluded.

Mr O’Gara said yesterday he was entitled to do what he wished with his own land, including opening a tile showroom there.
“The site will be an ideal showroom for my business,” he said.
“I don’t see that I’m doing any harm to anyone. I have a constitutional right to open a business there if I want to.”

On Saturday, Mr O’Gara attempted to erect a sign at the park to advertise his business. Following complaints from local residents, a planning enforcement officer from the council inspected the park.
He took photos and informed Mr O’Gara that if he attempted to open his business, he would be in breach of planning regulations, as it would amount to a change of use of the site.

The park is zoned for open space and amenity.

However, Mr O’Gara said he would continue with his plans and would erect a sign and stands for his tiles, which he would transport to the square daily.
He has also advertised Dartmouth Square as the location of his showrooms on the side of his company van.

Local Fianna Fail councillor Chris Andrews said he was surprised and disappointed that Mr O’Gara would decide to breach planning regulations after a process had been put in place to deal with the square.
“It is very serious that he can challenge planning procedures in such a bare-faced way,” Mr Andrews said.
“His action highlights that he is clearly an opportunist and devoid of any social responsibility.”

Sounds like it might just possibly be a plan hatched in Humphreys between Mr O’Gara and the local cumman to make the local FF canadate appear strong on planning breaches.

I am very happy that Mr O’Gara has acted in this way as it clearly displays the lengths he is prepared to go to elicit compensation from the ratepayers of the city.

Oh great! I was just thinking I needed to go tile shopping. And now a new outlet has opened near where I work.

Anyone else feel like going shopping? Say, tomorrow at lunchtime? I’m sure Mr O’Gara would be delighted to have the custom as a way of putting his new venture on the map.

Shall we say 1:30 pm? And don’t forget, the customer is always right! 🙂

Mr O G will,of course have many customer service staff on hand to ensure his valued customers do not SLIP TRIP or FALL whilst on HIS property…..;)

Oh I wouldn’t dream of doing it deliberately- that would be just wrong.

But if I were to slip on a tiled floor (as it surely will be?) having had to walk across damp grass to get to the premises, then who knows what courses of action might be open to me…?

Is it an organic tile market?;)

Council investigates new use of Dublin square
Monday, 5 March 2007 17:24
Dublin City Council is investigating whether a breach of planning regulations has taken place at the controversial Dartmouth Square in Ranelagh, following the opening of a portable tiles showroom on the site.

Businessman Noel O’Gara, who claims he is the owner of the square, opened the showroom today.

The Council says it is considering its response to Mr O’Gara’s latest use of the square, up to and including legal action, depending on the outcome of the investigations by its enforcement officers.

A long dispute began last year after Mr O’Gara tried to turn the square, which has been traditionally used as a public amenity, into a car park.

Dublin City Council obtained an injunction against the car park and secured a compulsory purchase order.

But the purchase has not yet happened because of disagreement over the value of the land – the Council has offered Mr O’Gara €100,000, but he says his valuers have advised him that the land is worth €175m and ‘it would cost €100,000 just to paint the railings’.

This afternoon members of the public can buy slabs of imported granite in the square from Mr O’Gara’s business.

Residents in houses around the square are incensed and say the use of the square as a tiles showroom is irregular.

It is time for this charade to be brought to a swift conclusion in two parts firstly by the granting of an injunction and the jailing of Mr O’Gara for contempt in the place of court should he breach same in relation to the change of use to retail.

The quote that it would cost €100,000 to paint the railings no doubt uttered as ‘a hundred grand’ which I dispute as he could go to Yorkshire and get the locals to do it for a lot less.

Secondly DCC should just push this into arbitration as Mr O’Gara holds a heavily encumbered interest and would lose on costs if his claim is for €175,000,000 as once his claim is denied then costs will automatically be awarded against him. Not even the very emminent Joe Rea could get him a result on this; I think that the City have offered him a multiple of value on this one but were probably right to do so just to expose him fully.

Dartmouth Square put up for sale
The Irish Times

The owner of Dartmouth Square park, who is embroiled in a row with Dublin City Council over the site, has put it up for sale. Noel O’Gara said he is seeking in the region of €100 million for the park, whose freehold title he bought for €10,000 in 2005. The Athlone businessman has been embroiled in a high-profile row with the city council and residents of the area over the square, which he says he wants to turn into a car park and apartment complex.

The two-acre park is zoned as an amenity and open space area, and Dublin City Council has placed a compulsory purchase order on it. It is also the subject of a High Court injunction preventing its use as a car park. Mr O’Gara now has a caravan in the park from which he is selling tiles. The city council has also threatened planning enforcement proceedings over the tile business.

Yesterday Mr O’Gara said he would be seeking offers similar to the €50 million an acre which was paid for the Burlington Hotel site. He said Allied Auctioneers in Terenure would handle the matter and he claimed there would be considerable interest in the site. “There’s lots of Irish men who are very wealthy today, who may say this is a chance to make €50 million,” he said.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0328/1175003351740.html

In the last three weeks, it would appear the asking price for the site has dropped from €175m to €100m.

Maybe I’ll just wait another 4 weeks until it had fallen to €0 and he’ll throw in the caravan for free? And perhaps a few square metres of quality granite paving?

@ctesiphon wrote:

In the last three weeks, it would appear the asking price for the site has dropped from €175m to €100m.

Maybe I’ll just wait another 4 weeks until it had fallen to €0 and he’ll throw in the caravan for free? And perhaps a few square metres of quality granite paving?

Lol

Looks as if Phoenix last October might have called it right about “Zero” Gara 😀

He will get €100,000.00 from DCC as per their formally binding offer which he shall consider and accept or refer to arbitration if he feels aggreived.

There is no brochure for the site. The site is open form interested parties to view and the auctioneers are not conducting accomapnied viewings on site as is normal for development land transactions. The auctioneers are claiming that DCC have not served a requisite notice and are backtracking on their original intention to purchase the square.

I am therefore very surprised as to why he is selling his interest and why he has instructed Allied Auctioneers who appear to be a specialist property management firm as opposed to development land specialists. One wonders if DTZ, JLL, Lisney, Bannon, Savilles and Colliers were offered this?

@ctesiphon wrote:

And perhaps a few square metres of quality granite paving?

Ha ha 😀 :p 😀 😉 😎

But the whole thing is just seriously ridiculous.

Obviously most people who’ve visited and posted on this thread, have expressed their disbelief as to how this could have happened. I agree with almost all of them.

But how did it happen? How on earth did we reach a situation where a public park is now being sold off by a private individual? For upwards of €100 million.

This whole episode belongs with Bob Fleming, Ted and Ralph and the “suits you” Tailors on “The Fast Show”.

Honestly, it wouldn’t be out of place.:confused:

Seamus

I agree with your Macro take on this; DCC shouldn’t be in a position where the reversionary interest wasn’t bought; they should used the many obvious flaws in the folio to their advantage to depress the price as no doubt Mr O’Gara did.

However on the sale I strobgly disagree that the site is for sale for over €100m in any real sense.

If I were advising a client on the sale of a major parcel of land you would be talking about instructing CRBE or JLL or DTZ i.e. a major player with a dedicated land division who has handled 9 figure transactions on a regular basis i.e. someone who is a market maker as well as an agent. In this instance we are supposed to believe that a local auctioneer in Terenure with no website listed in a google search is capable of securing such a sale.

A 9 figure deal

There is a couple of hours of good drama in this one

@PVC King wrote:

If I were advising a client on the sale of a major parcel of land you would be talking about instructing CRBE or JLL or DTZ i.e. a major player with a dedicated land division who has handled 9 figure transactions on a regular basis i.e. someone who is a market maker as well as an agent. In this instance we are supposed to believe that a local auctioneer in Terenure with no website listed in a google search is capable of securing such a sale.

I’m sure that’s very true.

It’s quite clear that Mr O’Gara is taking the piss, and I would expect that if development were ever really envisaged on the land, that people like Carmencita Hederman, her daughter, or any of the other local dignitaries would have been much more vocal in their opposition. This suggests to me that they know a way will be found.

I mean, there’s been a bit of kerfuffle, but not the uproar that one would expect if the sale/development of the land was a real threat. Mr O’Gara probably wanted to have a bit of a dig at “Dublin 4”, missed marginally, and the city council will find a way out.

But I’m amazed that they even allowed this situation to happen.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

Mr O’Gara probably wanted to have a bit of a dig at “Dublin 4”, missed marginally.

Missed marginally? Is that because the park is in D6? 🙂

(The locals won’t tell you that- if I ever see an address listed as ‘Leeson Park, Dublin 6’ [which is the correct one] I’ll eat my hat.)

@ctesiphon wrote:

Missed marginally? Is that because the park is in D6? 🙂

(The locals won’t tell you that- if I ever see an address listed as ‘Leeson Park, Dublin 6’ [which is the correct one] I’ll eat my hat.)

Well in this case, it actually is within an ass’s roar of Dublin 4. A couple of hundred metres or so?

If he was really smart, he’d have targeted Sandymount Green. From my experience of the area, he’d have been fighting off the locals trying to form a consortium to back him.:D

What I love is the way the valuation was determined by a typo in a Michael “I meant a hundred thousand” McDowell press release!

This story will make a half-decent docu-soap someday

Anyone there for the last of the marble and granite tiles? Last of the marble and granite tiles, five for fifty! Howya love, what can I get ya? A few slivers of Kilkenny marble? Yeah, yeah, goes lovely with the maple floorboards. Anything else? A few bags of gravel for the driveway?

Last of the marble and granite tiles… any takers?

Court orders businessman to cease trade in Dartmouth park

Dublin City Council has taken court action in an attempt to stop Noel O’Gara’s bid to run a tile sales business in Dartmouth Square Park, Dublin.

Circuit Court president Mr Justice Matthew Deery yesterday granted the local authority a temporary injunction restraining Mr O’Gara from running any business in the park that he bought for €10,000 in 2005.

The Athlone businessman has put the two-acre park up for sale with an asking price of €100 million but has stated he would like to turn it into a car park and apartment complex.

Carol O’Farrell, counsel for the city council, told the court yesterday the park was the subject of a High Court order restraining its unauthorised use as a car park.

Ms O’Farrell said Mr O’Gara was now selling granite and marble tiles from a caravan in the park and there had been recent widespread publicity about this and his having put the park up for sale.

Mr Justice Deery granted the council an ex parte interim injunction restraining Mr O’Gara and his company, Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, from making an unauthorised use of the park for the advertisement, display, sale or exposure for sale of any goods or for the purpose of any trade or business.

Mr O’Gara, who has been for months embroiled in a high-profile row with the city council over the park and its potential use, was not in court yesterday.

The park is zoned as an amenity and open space area and the city council has placed a compulsory purchase order on it. Mr O’Gara bought the park from the Darley family which owned it since the early 19th century.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0329/1175003412944.html

Mr O’Gara appeared on the radio (again) on Tuesday in defence of his case. Interestingly, a senior counsel specialising in planning matters claimed on the programme that when or if the CPO’s level of compensation goes to arbitration, the State arbitrator must disregard any ‘spot zoning’ ascribed to the subject property. Indeed a court case has already been successfully brought against the LA overseeing Leopardstown Racecourse over a CPO they initiated that stated the land was zoned as amenity space only, just like Dartmouth Square. Spot zoning would appear to be zoning of a non-conforming land use generally prevailing in the surrounding area. Whether this applies to Dartmouth is unclear. If the site’s zoning must be disregarded, it could have certain consequences in this case.

However, whilst the arbitrator may or may not take zoning into account, they must consider the broader principals of the development plan, ranging from patterns of development, history of use, character of area, traffic, protected structures etc etc. Also, should DCC see fit, they could designate the square an ACA or an Area of Special Planning Control to further negate the development potential of the land, though this must be done prior to their invitation to treat (negotiate with O’Gara). Once/if that is inititated, O’Gara has 18 months to hammer something out with them.

His claims are really quite hilarious, including: “The most important freedom you have is the freedom to own your own piece of land, where you live and breathe”. Above your human rights of course. And claims that “the politicans” “stole our freedoms” in “introducing these unconstitutional plannings laws”. He also supports pre-’63 developments and their prized deevlopment status today, as “pre ’63 you had no hassle with the planners”. Indeed even when questioned on building nine storey blocks in a three storey area, he claimed rejecting such a concept through common planning practice as being unconstitutional, “placing the case of death on your property”. He’s stated over and over again how he deems it to be scandalous that ‘beurocrats’ have a say in your own land and what you can do with it.

“Where is the justice, where have our freedoms under the Republic of Ireland gone to?”

“Pat, when you hear fellas talking about the common good, watch out. That’s how they built communism.”

Hear it below, starting at 4.45.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny-Tuesday.smil

I switched off his rhetoric a long time ago and strongly believe that he has taken this line only to pad out the time he spends in court. The only route unproven against his stance is unique bizarre constitutional route that no one else has ever invested legal costs in.

In relation to the Leopardstown case I can see the legal point. You have a lot of very similar land in the vicinity none of which is developed with some zoned resi and some zoned amenity. The zoning in such a case has some slight doubt as the decision to zone plot a resi and plot b amenity due to their similar characteristics is an arbitrary decision. It is a fair question to ask why there is a very different zoning despite the simularities. As a result the owners of the financially disadvantaged plot successfully argued this point.

However I do not feel that this principle can be transferred to Dartmouth Square for the following reasons. Firstly the site history for over a century displays that the estate zoning on the site was amenity. The plan has always been that this plot would be subservient to the adjoining residential uses. Secondly when the zoning was conferred in the first statutory development plan the plan for the area was reliant on this plot providing the amenity space for this locality and no other sites were considered so that decision cannot be conidered to be arbitrary. Thirdly the CPO of the lands at Leopardstown sought to change the day to day use of the subject plot; in this case the use is not proposed to change and as such the local authority cannot be said to be gaining any financial gain in the transaction.

I would ask one simple question what was the user clause in all previous leases and how long has the superior interest holder insisted on such a user clause formed the centre of all deals done? The zoning is valid on the basis of his predessors grants of lease.

The Landlord is standing

http://www.rte.ie/news/elections2007/Dublin-South-East.html

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=20384

Very good work!!!!!!

Lets just call it the Me Fein party

Saw the link above – was very informative (and quite a funny exchange of views). But when I tried to go back again yesterday it had gone. Anyone know why?

may have been removed. Noel was spamming the site with his manifesto so the mods could have taken it down. There’s a few other threads on him, and he’s humiliating himself with the same bollox over and over again

Shame. Give a man enough rope….

Considering the day that’s in it:

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=20458

how many 1st preferences will he get?

The interesting thing will be to see where his transfers go. I hope it isn’t a situation where the bottom 4 canidates are eliminated together.

I suspect FF will do disproportionately well from his votes vis a vis the alternative coalition canidates.

Was concerned to see the Square open at 1130pm last night. The risk of vandals being able to torch the caravan and landrover is worrying and could cause damage to the collanaded structure. Maybe that is his wish so that he can try to milk the resultant sympathy despite him playing for same with such feckless regard for his chattels.

Here’s a scenario

Leave gates open at night, tip off some travellers, and have them move in. Wring hands helplessly in front of cameras and press bemoaning it…. piss off residents even further…

Shocking. Wonder how many votes he will get? There are probably a fair few people around the country who would be happy to vote for him,since he displays a nasty mixture of anti-Dublin feeling, ignorant populism,anti-cultural feeling, a boorish and ignorant lumpen nationalism,notions about an imaginary past,visual illiteracy and cuteness (as in cute h***) leavened with a few half-baked ideas probably gathered from the rampant captalism of the USA…..or Texas at least. He might get a few votes if he stood in Blaney or Healy-Rae territory.

@Hiivaladan wrote:

Shocking. Wonder how many votes he will get?

First tallys have him with 3 votes from a tally of 13,000. Looks very likely to loose deposit…

Probably his wife, his mum and his dad

think he has 25 from a full tally in DSE such a shame the way this country treats it’s great visionairies eh?

HE TOPPED THE POLL

oh no wait my tv was upside down. He’s winning the wooden spoon though. Lowest 1st preference in the country; 27

From today’s IT.

Controversial Athlone businessman Noel O’Gara is currently serving a prison sentence in England for contempt of court, The Irish Times has learned.

O’Gara, who was at the centre of attempts to turn Dartmouth Square in Dublin into a car park last summer, was arrested on September 7th after taking a photograph of a detective in the foyer of Bradford court in Leeds.

The detective was in court for the bail application of Ronald Castree, the alleged killer of Lesley Molseed, murdered in 1975.

O’Gara (62) maintained the murder was carried out by Peter Sutcliffe, “the Yorkshire Ripper”. He also maintained that Sutcliffe was responsible for only four of the 13 “Ripper” murders. He said he knew who the real “Ripper” was and where he is now, and has written a book about it.

In a letter from prison to The Irish Times O’Gara said he was trying to tell the detective this information, but the detective would not speak to him.

He was arrested for contempt after he took a photograph of the detective.
© 2007 The Irish Times

what a complete nut job!!

@henno wrote:

what a complete nut job!!

O’ Gara is that alright – I had heard of his book before; apparently he wrote it + published it himself about 10 years ago, and that in it he claims to have identified the “real” culprit who was previously an employee of his! 😮

O’ Gara leaves nut jobs in the shade IMO

Having viewed the Square again I am totally clear in my mind that any proposal to alter the character of this square remains entirely unjustified.

Furthermore the applicant should learn that if it looks too good to be true that it probably is!

All attempts to claim in anyway that the Lemas era politicians were in any way forming a conspiracy to con the common man out of his or her rights as opposed to securing a planning system on the interests of the common good is entirely laughable.

@PVC King wrote:

Furthermore the applicant should learn that if it looks too good to be true that it probably is!

I don’t think NOG realises that, rather than he having pulled a fast one on the corrupt, anti-constitutional planners and the wealthy fat cats who live in the small apartments, bedsits and corporation flats near Dartmouth Square, in fact the previous owner of the freehold pulled a fast one on him.

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

I don’t think NOG realises that, rather than he having pulled a fast one on the corrupt, anti-constitutional planners and the wealthy fat cats who live in the small apartments, bedsits and corporation flats near Dartmouth Square, in fact the previous owner of the freehold pulled a fast one on him.

Is that true; but for his bullishness and greed couldn’t he have likely gotten pp for a modest “park keepers lodge” and sold that on for a big profit while giving the park to the people of Ireland etc.

Tis all over for Noely “Q-Park” O’Gara

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/ogaran.html

Council moves to block Dartmouth development

Dublin’s Dartmouth Square has been declared a special conservation area by the city council in a move that will block any development of the park.

The council has been in a legal dispute with businessman Noel O’Gara who bought the two-acre park and tried to open a car park there.

But the Architectural Conservation Area order passed this evening by Dublin Councillors means the park is now protected.

Owners of over 70 houses in the area will also face a number of planning restrictions imposed to preserve the character of the square.

From tonight, residents will not be able to put in PVC windows, use their front gardens for car parking or put satellite dishes on the front of their houses.

Meanwhile, a preservation order for 47 trees in the park is due to come into effect later this month.

The council has also obtained a compulsory purchase order for the park.

@alonso wrote:

Tis all over for Noely “Q-Park” O’Gara

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/ogaran.html

Council moves to block Dartmouth development

Dublin’s Dartmouth Square has been declared a special conservation area by the city council in a move that will block any development of the park.

The council has been in a legal dispute with businessman Noel O’Gara who bought the two-acre park and tried to open a car park there.

But the Architectural Conservation Area order passed this evening by Dublin Councillors means the park is now protected.

Owners of over 70 houses in the area will also face a number of planning restrictions imposed to preserve the character of the square.

From tonight, residents will not be able to put in PVC windows, use their front gardens for car parking or put satellite dishes on the front of their houses.

Meanwhile, a preservation order for 47 trees in the park is due to come into effect later this month.

The council has also obtained a compulsory purchase order for the park.

I’ve been a bit busy this last while with a libel action taken against me in the Uk but as for the park I think the corpo have screwed up again as they never served me with any notices of their intention to do that.
I was notified about the trees but never intended to cut any down anyway.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=o%27gara+gregg+libel+hoaxer&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Police-framed-Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer.3738128.jp&w=o%27gara+gregg+libel+libeled+hoaxer&d=Hw2I4nDuQQCO&icp=1&.intl=us

Noel Gareth Pierce O’Gara defender of the innocent!!

Get outa that garden before the legal professionals clean you out of it and all else you have accumulated

Ah Now Pee Vee,don`t be all vindictive…..There`s a conspiracy under every bush…even around Dartmouth Square.
Then again,an earlier thread begun by me in relation to DCC`s contemplation on reducing footpath width to allow for Car Parking Bays has disappeared into (Very) thin air….WTF as they might say in the Hill Lounge !!! 😀

Has the CPO completed yet?

Council ‘afraid to force Dartmouth Square sale’

By Kevin Doyle
Evening Herald

Wednesday June 11 2008

A SENIOR city politician has said that Dublin City Council is now afraid to use a compulsory purchase order to take back Dartmouth Square from controversial businessman Noel O’Gara.

Councillor Oisin Quinn has revealed that city managers do not intend to pursue a CPO obtained from An Bord Pleanala despite the fact that it expires on June 22.

He says that city manger John Tierney is not expected to meet a commitment given by his predecessor in 2006, meaning the park might not be available to the public for years.

In February 2006, then city manager John Fitzgerald committed himself to purchasing the green area from Mr O’Gara using a CPO.

However, Councillor Quinn (Lab) says that officials are now ready to let the CPO deadline pass because of an “irrational fear” that they will face a multi-million euro payout.

The council has until the middle of this month to serve Mr O’Gara with “notice to treat” informing him that the CPO is about to processed. The courts will then decide how much money should change hands.

The Westmeath businessman bought the two-acre site in Ranelagh in late 2005 for less than €10,000, from PJ Darley, whose ancestors built the square in the 1880s.

Last month, Mr O’Gara claimed that he would be allowed to keep the square, but the council said the “clock was still running”. And when questioned yesterday, a spokesperson again said that a decision hadn’t been reached about how to proceed with the park issue.

Now Councillor Quinn has told the Herald that the council officials must come clean about their intentions.

SETTLEMENT

The Herald understands that the council is worried that a settlement of over €20m could be enforced if the case goes to court. Mr O’Gara had told the council it would have to pay €100m to buy it off him.

However, residents in the square say this is not realistic.

Since Mr O’Gara acquired the land, the council have received a number of injunctions stopping him running a car park and marble shop.

They have also passed bye-laws protecting trees in the area and designated Dartmouth Square as an Architectural Conservation Area.

These moves have severely restricted Mr O’Gara’s use of the park but the council have stilled failed to have it restored as a public amenity.

Councillor Quinn wants the council to be honest with residents, noting that they have been patient for two years on the basis that the CPO would take place. “The law is pretty clear on this and tallies with common sense,” he said.

– Kevin Doyle

Get the finger out….

I have no doubt that Cllr Quinn and the rest of the council majority shall question Mr. Tierney on this issue; no doubt with all party support.

I have no idea where the €20m figure comes from as the maximum permission that could have been secured could have been for a lone single storey cottage which was modelled loosely on the park rangers lodge at St Stephens Green.

Then came Bear Stearns and the complete collapse of residential land prices in the very limited number of tranactions taking place. Now is the time to serve the notice to treat as the price will be based upon the value on the date the notice is served long before prices recover.

Depending upon the scale of the price a choice can be made later whether the council considers the purchase to be in the public interest and whether it is prudent to complete based upon the award which lets face it will be based upon:

The worst speculative residential land development funding background in 30 years; that the subject property is situate in a conservation area and bounded on all sides by period railings, that the land is zoned amenity, that the title is subject to a lease and that there will no access for plant based upon the tree preservation order. Put simply you would have extreme difficulty placing a single dwelling within the site let alone delivering 100 clear sites to reach €20m based upon €200k per site.

I strongly hope that all party consensus emerges and that all councillors for Pembroke, Rathmines and South Inner City set up a cross party meeting as now is the time to get Tierney up off his backside. Bewleys was also a market reason why it was beyond preservation and Quinn delivered in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders; the question is can Chris Andrews?

Whether public or private, it must be preserved as open space; end of story. The lesson for Mr O’Gara? Due diligence and caveat emptor.

Pay lawyers?

Did you not know that Pearse fought and died for the rights of land speculators to do what they see fit.

No land owner should ever need to pay lawyers unless it is to protect his constitutional rights.

I disagree with PVC. Even a single house on these two acres with its mature trees and surrounding would be worth millions. Credit crunch or not.

There are other commercial uses other than housing that might accord with an amenity zoning. Other squares in the area have tennis clubs etc.

The hope value has to be taken into consideration and many irish speculators considering a long game would be happy to buy it for a few million with an eye to the future. After all, development plans are issued every few years, people come and go from the administration of planning and local politics.

O’Gara owns the land and his argument that article 43 protects his right to continued ownership is surprisingly strong – no moatter that he is not a lawyer. Some people are now forming the opinion that CPO may be unconstotutional in Ireland where there is no immediate infrastructural need. Read it yourself, particularly 43.2.2. I think it’s very clever of him to spot this.

Ultimately, the council is at fault here for neglecting their ownership of this former public park. I’d prefer some of the ill will directed at this negligence than at Mr O’Gara.

what the situation with the park at the moment, can people access it, is it being looked after by the council?

surely never buying it is the best tactic for the council, and it’ll stay as is and o’gara doesn’t can’t do anything with it or get money out f it.

@lostexpectation wrote:

what the situation with the park at the moment, can people access it, is it being looked after by the council?

surely never buying it is the best tactic for the council, and it’ll stay as is and o’gara doesn’t can’t do anything with it or get money out f it.

The thought struck me after reading Frank’s post it will rot should it stay in the current ownership and given the way O’Gara is talking there most certainly won’t be any planning permission.

There are other commercial uses other than housing that might accord with an amenity zoning. Other squares in the area have tennis clubs etc

The destruction of the nearby Mount Pleasant Square over time and subsequent incremental programmes of work over a 30 year period is exactly why you would not secure this type of permission.

The hope value has to be taken into consideration and many irish speculators considering a long game would be happy to buy it for a few million with an eye to the future. After all, development plans are issued every few years, people come and go from the administration of planning and local politics.

Expressly excluded by all relevant case law; the most compelling argument for the cpo is that the current use and zoning are all that can be reasonably considered and the zoning, situation in an ACA and tree preservation order would completely kill all hope value in the eyes of a valuer. I’m not saying that two agents doing a set of heads on the back of a beer mat wouldn’t find value after the 8th pint but hope value simply doesn’t stack up in the CPO arena. It is for that reason that motorway accomodation works settlements where the works were never completed often were the only way that farmers being cpo’d for motorway schemes got to make money in the last tranche of the NDP; i.e. I need a bridge it costs €2m; change your mind and cry oh just give me the funds.

Even a single house on these two acres with its mature trees and surrounding would be worth millions. Credit crunch or not.

I’m not so sure given that any hypothetical house would be single storey, set back in a way incapable of making a statement, have no carparking and no doubt have a planning condition to maintain the 2 acres in a manner consistent with an ACA with a massive liability to maintain all the trees covered by the tree preservation order. Then factor in construction costs, multiple planning applications and very poor demand for unbuilt residential property.

I’m almost coming around to the idea of waiting for a planning application and I have no doubt that no council in my lifetime will alter the zoning on this space. However should the existing fittings not be maintained the cost of reinstatment could be much higher and for this reason it is crazy that the cpo was not served.

From Todays Irish Times – ignore the headline, the key story is DCC are not CPO’ing Dartmouth Square 😡

Gormley to tighten law on parklands
STEVEN CARROLL

Attempts by The Irish Times to contact Mr O’Gara last night were unsuccessful.

It is disgraceful that DCC are so useless so as not to be able to close the CPO on this; what the blazes is the Law Agent Terence O’ Keefe paid for? Why is it that CPOs that DCC get involved end up being a total fuck-up; remember the O Connell St Carlton saga where former assistant city manger Sean Carey quietly sold on without putting out to tender? It all stinks.

I dont know which is worse, DCC’s total ineptitude – or the total xxxx, which Noel O’ Gara you are – as we know you read this, and you are a miserable excuse of a person and a blight on the face of humanity
:mad::mad::mad:

@hutton wrote:

South Dublin Labour Party councillor Oisín Quinn said locals were not happy with the council’s decision and that Dartmouth Square had become a health hazard. “It’s in appalling condition. The square is overgrown, full of rubbish and has become a place where people gather to drink.”

The public health acts and Derelict sites act seems the likely routes to go down now to re-open more traditional grounds for compulsory purchase; Should a cpo be undertaken the land if laid to waste as Cllr Quinn is suggesting could potentially have a negative value as the costs of reinstating and subsuquent inflated maintanance costs for the existing planting, trees and structures in a manner consistent with an ACA designation could be less than zero.

I’d further look for public liability insurance cover to be produced and the insurers views on incapacitated persons being present on the site in view of a highly litigious society most particularly when people under the influence damage themselves and we wouldn’t want to see people being hurt most particularly given that the individuals are likely to be underage drinkers.

What are DCC doing to protect young and vulnerable people from an unscrupulous landlord who is determined to use any negative to attempt to pester the residents into submission?

O’Gara: give me ¤10m for park or I’ll plant vegetables
Mark Hilliard

CONTROVERSIAL businessman Noel O’Gara offered council officials the chance to purchase Dartmouth Square in south Dublin at a ‘knock-down’ price of €10m in the final days of negotiations between the two parties.

As revealed in last week’s Sunday Tribune, Dublin City Council officials have decided not to go ahead with a Compulsory Purchase Order of the Ranelagh park because of concerns over the cost.

Last Wednesday, council officials responded with a maximum offer of €300,000 which was rejected by O’Gara as “an insult”. Two days later, the council issued a statement confirming that they would not be executing the CPO as it would cost too much money.

“We have been advised that if we proceed with the completion of the compulsory purchase process to arbitration stage we would expose the City Council to the possibility of a substantial and financially prohibitive award,” it read.

O’Gara says he is now considering digging foundations on the site to build himself a house and garden in which to grow vegetables. He is convinced he can carry out the project without securing planning permission by building the property for agricultural use. With the “notice to treat” not having been served, the park remains firmly in O’Gara’s ownership and local residents will continue to be without an amenity that has been enjoyed since the 19th century. O’Gara said he had made a final offer to hand over the property for €10m, a deadline which he set for last Friday. He paid less than €10,000 for the land in 2005.

“I would say that is an insult. It’s good news for me – the CPO is a dead duck,” he said. “If they wanted to buy it they should have approached me and asked me to do a deal instead of this big brother act of abusing the law.”

O’Gara said he is ready to file papers with the Supreme Court in a bid to overturn a High Court ruling from 2006 which stated that he is not to use the area as a car park.

That plan provides for a six storey, 1,500-space structure.

“There would be a curtain of trees around it so you wouldn’t even know it was there,” he said. “If anything it would be an amenity for the residents. In my opinion that is a much greater amenity for everyone in Dublin, (rather) than a park for a couple of people to take their dogs out for a shit.”

June 22, 2008

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2008/jun/22/ogara-give-me-10m-for-park-or-ill-plant-vegetables/

Could O’Gara end up a guest of an Irish prison this time, or do we not do that when people break planning law?

If you read the exact wording he is considering

However I do agree with your sentiments if steps beyond consideration and moves from foul metaphors to vile planning breaches he may well become a trans EU ex-prisoner as I’m sure the legislative response from Gormley and bye law response led by Quinn will crystalise his obligations and signifacantly ramp up the penalities if he stops mouthing off and goes Pearse style and actually crosses the line either the ones existing today or those rushed through before he starts digging his own very personal hole;

The irish constitution protects the right of every citizen to hold and enjoy property which includes land.There is no need for the history lesson to spell out why this right is cherished. I sympathise with the residents for the loss of the amenity, but property rights should not be diminished if land is coveted by others. The bitter pill that needs to be swallowed is to acccept the hard fact that the more land is desired by others then the more the value of that land increases. I find your wrath against Mr O’Gara to be misplaced and should be redirected towards the Council.They failed on numerous occasions to secure the lands when the were easily available. Even now, when armed with CPO they have declined to proceed with the purchase. The fear is that when the price is set at arbitration it will be set embarrisingly high. The very purpose of arbitration is to determine the true value of land, and this value is the price which Mr. O,Gara deserves. It is also worth remembering that Mr O,Gara opposed the CPO process. It sounds like people want their cake and eat it, but they don’t want to pay for the pie.

Hi Noel.

so are we having cake or pie?

Noel if you wanna apply for PP for a car park, I’ll write the application for you. My fee? €10 million. That equates to €160 million per day

@ctesiphon wrote:

Hi Noel.

No I am not Noel nor do I have any connection to him.
What led me to comment on this site was the statement of John Gormley that he would introduce legislation to deal with Mr. O’Gara. This is an acceptance that legislation as it exists support Mr O’Gara. We do not live in Stalinist Russia or nazi Germany where we can introduce laws where we can deny to a person his property simply because it is desired by others. My advice is that the Council should independantly value the land with the aid of objective valuers assisted by legal and planning experts. This could be done outside the CPO process, and if this value is affordable then it should be offered to Mr. O’Gara. I am sure he would accept a reasonable offer at this point. The problem with some people is that they don’t want the park as much as they don’t want to see Mr. O’Gara profit. Pay the man what he is due or leave him alone ,or to put it straighter, piss or get off the pot

@alonso wrote:

so are we having cake or pie?

Noel if you wanna apply for PP for a car park, I’ll write the application for you. My fee? €10 million. That equates to €160 million per day

Maybe a bit of humble pie, as you wont get much work at those rates.

What led me to comment on this site was the statement of John Gormley that he would introduce legislation to deal with Mr. O’Gara. This is an acceptance that legislation as it exists support Mr O’Gara. We do not live in Stalinist Russia or nazi Germany where we can introduce laws where we can deny to a person his property simply because it is desired by others.

Land is a hetrogenous commodity precisely because it is unlike anything else in that it is affected by many different circumstances; primarily based upon a specific plots’s relationship with adjoining plots, public ways, the water table below and the air above; location and point of the market cycle being the only other major factors .

There is a direct correlation between the intensity of a land use and the level of regulation affecting same; i.e. in an area where there is a lot of human activity land is zoned to specify what is and is not permissable. This system is common accross the developed World and in the greater scheme of things the Irish system is probably considered to be at the lower end of the top quartile in that respect.

The laws that are proposed do not affect Mr O’Gara’s right to own the land he has purchased but rather to regulate his use of it in the same way as lead was banned from petrol the regulation will prevent misuse by any owner of what is clearly amenity land created as recreational space to give architectural context to what was in this case the centre piece of the Darley Estate but the same principles could equally be applied to Say Merrion Square or Fitzwilliam Square should they fall into the hands of someone who has no respect for the law of the land and or shows no respect for the law or the servants of same. The regulations are aimed preserving architectural conservation areas and I for one welcome moves in this direction.

My advice is that the Council should independantly value the land with the aid of objective valuers assisted by legal and planning experts. This could be done outside the CPO process, and if this value is affordable then it should be offered to Mr. O’Gara. I am sure he would accept a reasonable offer at this point. The problem with some people is that they don’t want the park as much as they don’t want to see Mr. O’Gara profit. Pay the man what he is due or leave him alone ,or to put it straighter, piss or get off the pot

A Compulsory Purchase Valuation is not something undertaken on the back of a John Player box it must be grounded and supported by comparable evidence to take into account that the losing party may take legal action and as such must stand up to necessary scrutiny. As outlined above the development potential of this plot of land which forms a protected vista from some 50 dwellings and three roads is very close to nil.

Combine this with a tree preservation order and likely condition to keep the residual curtilage and railings in good repair and you start to get a picture of just how much downside this holding has.

Legislation is required and it must ensure an outright prohibition upon the development of any recreational lands in planned square with an ACA designation.

It must place a requirement to keep insured any recreational areas in urban areas that are bounded on all sides by public highways.

It must set out substantial fines for allowing lands within urban areas to be used for consumption of alcohol by minors by way of not secured such lands in a reasonable manner.

It must set out substantial penalties for carrying out uses constituting an intensification of land use without the consent of the planning authority; including imprisonment for repeated breaches even if these are different uses.

I am privalaged to work in the property industry and love development, but in conservation areas alterations must be exactly that and what is best must be protected from greedy opportunists who over hear a pub conversation and throw entire neighbourhoods into chaos.

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 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 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 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

@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. 🙂

@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.

@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 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

@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 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 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.

Zimbabwe dollars – O’Gara valuations

@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.

[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

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.

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.

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? 🙂

@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.

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.

Serve a dereliction notice on the owner – or would that be interfering with the inalienable rights of property?

@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 ‘owner’ of Dartmouth Square is a spiv and a wide-boy; the state of the park is his responsibility.

@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: 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.

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.

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,

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.

@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 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?

Any further news on this muppet show? Its far too long in resolution…

@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 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

3 tents!! – it’s glastonbury all over again

Noel, you’re a scumbag

Maybe we should all just start flytipping into the square?

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.

Campsite fury hits leafy Dartmouth Square
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/campsite-fury–hits-leafy–dartmouth-square-1531530.html

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

@lostexpectation wrote:

Campsite fury hits leafy Dartmouth Square
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/campsite-fury–hits-leafy–dartmouth-square-1531530.html

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 😡

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

@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

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.

2 tents less today – only Noel’s ma left now

Front page of friday’s Athlone Advertiser:

“O’Gara in court on business audit charges”

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

@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?

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

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 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

So, do you think DCC should try to lease the park from O’Gara? I do.

Pride is a powerful master.

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.

wouldn’t want to give the vulture ideas but

fears-land-grabber-could-target-blackrock-park-
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/fears-land-grabber-could-target-blackrock-park-1556483.html

blackrock-park-is-no-dartmouth-square
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/blackrock-park-is-no-dartmouth-square-1560294.html

In these days of economic crisis as the exchequer is 7.5 billion in the red so the nation needs new sources of income. The will be tax rises, so rather than hike VAT and watch more people stream north, lets tax property: The time has come for Georgism. Henry George would advise us to tax Dartmouth square since “everyone owns what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all humanity”.

Would that solve the problem?

@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.

What are your plans or our you winging it

@mikes wrote:

In these days of economic crisis as the exchequer is 7.5 billion in the red so the nation needs new sources of income. The will be tax rises, so rather than hike VAT and watch more people stream north, lets tax property: The time has come for Georgism. Henry George would advise us to tax Dartmouth square since “everyone owns what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all humanity”.

Would that solve the problem?

yeah dude, right on. roll us another one, and lets smoke it bono’s back garden.The land belongs to us all equally,…..man.

@Pot Noodle wrote:

What are your plans or our you winging it

very sharp… “hawk”, “winging it” .Superb wit. Well the truth is that being a culchie I am a bit gormless. Sure anyway, what need have i of plans, amint I flying anyway!

No pun intended are you just gonna sit on it myself i would tend the park and keep the flack of me while i wheel and deal but that just me:rolleyes:

@Pot Noodle wrote:

No pun intended are you just gonna sit on it myself i would tend the park and keep the flack of me while i wheel and deal but that just me:rolleyes:

Pot, I have no connection to Mr O’Gara, I was just trying to introduce a note of levity.Under all my bluff I do have sympathy with the residents in general, but not those who seek to blame NOG. The buck has to stop with the City Council. If you are asking me if NOG would be better serve his strategy by tending his land I would say no. Why should he in the light of the bullying from the DCC and the vile personal comments visible on these pages.Perhaps if respect was afforded then negotiations could take place,but untill then this sorry saga will continue to fester .

@the hawk wrote:

Pot, I have no connection to Mr O’Gara, I was just trying to introduce a note of levity.Under all my bluff I do have sympathy with the residents in general, but not those who seek to blame NOG. The buck has to stop with the City Council. If you are asking me if NOG would be better serve his strategy by tending his land I would say no. Why should he in the light of the bullying from the DCC and the vile personal comments visible on these pages.Perhaps if respect was afforded then negotiations could take place,but untill then this sorry saga will continue to fester .

what have you – sorry; has NOG – done to deserve this “respect”

@wearnicehats wrote:

what have you – sorry; has NOG – done to deserve this “respect”

Apart from the downright evil, every human should be respected, and should not have to “do” anything to deserve that basic human right. You have a higher standard it seems, and while i do not agree with your sentiments, I will not disrespect you. I invite you to revisit some of the posts in this thread, and reflect on the vile name calling (scum etc.) directed at NOG. I wonder how well disposed he is to negotiate ? Do you really believe that you are furthering your cause with your hysterical reflex rants? A more considered approach by all (including NOG) would be refreshing

@the hawk wrote:

Apart from the downright evil, every human should be respected, and should not have to “do” anything to deserve that basic human right. You have a higher standard it seems, and while i do not agree with your sentiments, I will not disrespect you. I invite you to revisit some of the posts in this thread, and reflect on the vile name calling (scum etc.) directed at NOG. I wonder how well disposed he is to negotiate ? Do you really believe that you are furthering your cause with your hysterical reflex rants? A more considered approach by all (including NOG) would be refreshing

a person’s basic right to respect is null and void if that person disrepects their peers. You therefore have to earn it back by your actions – something that NOG seems to have no concept of.

I don’t have a cause – it just really saddens me that a nice space that I used to enjoy walking past has been allowed to degenerate into a total mess by someone who only cares about making a quick buck and irritating people for the hell of it. That to me makes him worthy of most, if not all, all the things that have been said about him in this thread. You are a lone voice of support – something that I imagine the same man wouldn’t bother to thank you for either

a person’s basic right to respect is null and void if that person disrepects their peers.

NOG may be guilty of disrespecting his property, but he has not disrespected any person. You on the other hand should look at yourself in the light of the above quote. A peer is either a member of the British nobility, or a person of equal social standing,class or age. We can safely rule out NOG from the former, and by your misguided moral compass it is acceptable to disrespect him if you consider him to be of a class other than yours.

@the hawk wrote:

a person’s basic right to respect is null and void if that person disrepects their peers.

NOG may be guilty of disrespecting his property, but he has not disrespected any person. You on the other hand should look at yourself in the light of the above quote. A peer is either a member of the British nobility, or a person of equal social standing,class or age. We can safely rule out NOG from the former, and by your misguided moral compass it is acceptable to disrespect him if you consider him to be of a class other than yours.

not quite sure what you mean – the word “peer” merely means those people judged by the same morals as the rest of us but ok if I have offended you or anyone else please substitue ” their peers” with “anyone”

by disrespecting his property he is blighting the landscape and treating the users of the public space around it with contempt. It is rude and not worthy of respect.

@wearnicehats wrote:

You are a lone voice of support – something that I imagine the same man wouldn’t bother to thank you for either

thanks for the support Hawk, so there, mr nice hats. you were wrong.

Hawk recognises what land ownership really means.

I have been prevented from allowing anybody to park on my land and running even a temperory stall to sell my stuff there.
They got a court order to take my caravan away and then they put a tree preservation order on the trees. What has happened to our independance and our republic?

That has left me with only one option. Farming and that is what the land is now, a small farm.
Section 4 of the planning acts must be familiar to all you experts.
It says that farming is exempt development and any buildings occupied and so used.
DCC have taken an action to try to force me to remove a tent from the land and they won because a judge who has failed to uphold the constitution sits in court for their benefit handing out hefty fines for fly tipping and parking etc etc.
This fellow is a brother of Fianna Fail minister Dempsey and they are little different to the British establishment that we struggled for centuries to remove.
The 1963 planning laws imposed on our republic were a direct copy of the British Town and Country Planning Acts 1948 and Mr DeVelera as president and Ray Burke’s father and Charlie Haughey were the government that imposed themselves in the place of the British who we struggled to free ourselves from.
Dev and his freedom fighters ousted the Brits only to step into their shoes with the planning laws which gave them the power to remove a tent from the side of any house.

Since then these political hacks have milked that power to get bribes,dig outs and we end up with all the white elephants that now characterize our republic.

We actually did for a brief period have a republic of free people but my generation has allowed it to be hijacked by an autocratic bureaucracy. The councils up and down the country were formed to manage roads, water schemes and sewage facilities. FF gave them the total planning function in 1963 and they are a pack of dreamers who are holding this country by the throat ever since then.

The Irishman is no longer independant, he doesnt own his own home and he cant even put up a tent on his land. He cant own a dog without a licence nor fish on his own land without a permit. We have handed our freedom and rights to a pack of gombeen men rather than retaining them and being independant and free people.
An Irishman cant turn his front room into an office or a shop without getting their permission.
A farmer cant build a house on his own land nor can you park a tent in your garden without breaking the laws of our Free State.
A landless man anxious to buy a home is funnelled into a housing scheme that is planned by the council and motrgaged for his lifetime. The market has been totally distorted with zoning and graft.
Anyway the tent on my land will stay there until the Supreme court upholds these unconstitutional laws.
Lets hope not all the judges are in hock to the Fianna Fail party machine as judge Dempsey so clearly is.
Under the British crown one would have no hope of opposing them but we still have the remains of the Republic that might be retrieved from the embers of bureaucracy.
Luckily we said no to Lisbon or that would be gone also.

I love the farm idea, nostalgia for ‘the emergency’ and all that, but I suspect it will get up the noses of the residents.

Are you sure you’ve exhausted all other possibilities? There’s a full, two ring, Circus in the RHK grounds and they don’t seem to need any Planning Permission, Public Event Licence, or any other type of ‘Permit from the Man’, so I don’t see why Dartmouth Square should be any different.

@gunter wrote:

There’s a full, two ring, Circus in the RHK grounds and they don’t seem to need any Planning Permission, Public Event Licence, or any other type of ‘Permit from the Man’, so I don’t see why Dartmouth Square should be any different.

Actually thats a good idea and I would give the circus the use of the farm free of charge on condition they reduced the entrance fees proportionately. I think you are right that they dont need planning permission for the temporary use. Will you ask them about it?

But would the local objectors agree to let them operate for a week? Lets hear it from pvc and his pals whether they would share their space with the ordinary people of Ranelagh.

@noel o’gara wrote:

share their space with the ordinary people of Ranelagh.

How about you do the same and allow the city council to turn Dartmouth Square back into a public park? Oh, I forgot, you won’t because you’re a hypocrite and incapable of holding or expressing a consistent viewpoint.

@noel o’gara wrote:

DCC have taken an action to try to force me to remove a tent from the land and they won because a judge who has failed to uphold the constitution sits in court for their benefit handing out hefty fines for fly tipping and parking etc etc.

What u don’t think there should be heavy fines for fly tipping?

What about something for the homeless people let them sleep in there or a soup kitchen do you need planning for that

@wearnicehats wrote:

@noel o’gara wrote:

That has left me with only one option. Farming and that is what the land is now, a small farm.

QUOTE]

the only thing I can see growing is that pile of rubbish by the side gate.

But, if it is to be a “farm” and you are a man of the people, determined to give the Irish man and woman some independence back, how about turning it into a series of allotments. I’d take one and, maybe then, the place would be looked after by people who cared about it again.

I would consider giving you a plot next year. You would have to give me a share of your veg in lieu of rent if that is ok with you.
anybody out there interested in setting up a farmers weekend market?
I need a live wire who could organise that and make a decent commission into the bargain. 100 stall holders at a score a weekent wouldnt be bad for a start. Because its agricultural there is no planning needed.. Section 4 of the Act.

I think you’ll find that that section of the Act probably refers to ESTABLISHED agricultural use. You really should stop playing games and become a real Santa Claus and return this public space to the people of Dublin. Ownership conveys no rights that are detrimental to the common good; you’ve made your point with your cowboy raid on the Square, you should now give it back to the Indians.

There seems to be more than one Noel this Christmas. See two posts above.

This new one must be a pretender. I’m going to presume that we should believe the identity of the first Noel (the angels did say…).

@ctesiphon wrote:

This new one must be a pretender. I’m going to presume that we should believe the identity of the first Noel (the angels did say…).

Noel’s pinky finger is so swollen with rage at the demise of our founding ideals he can’t hit the apostrophe key and is temporarily logged out.

So i cant sow spuds on my land

@Pot Noodle wrote:

So i cant sow spuds on my land

agricultural use is defined by teh existance of an agricultural business on the land…

a few stables doesnt make an equestrian center!

similarly a few spuds doesnt make a farm…

In other instances where landlords leave tenants in perilous situations where fires may occur, the landlord is prosecuted… What chances that happening to Gobshite O’Gara? 😡

Residents at Dartmouth Square ready to go into battle over state of park

By Cormac Murphy

Tuesday January 06 2009

BELEAGUERED Dartmouth Square residents have slammed the “appalling” condition of the park following a recent fire.

The residents claim the once-popular square in Ranelagh, D6, now looks more like a rubbish dump.

And they have promised the “gloves will come off” in their battle to restore the park as a public amenity.

A member of the Upper Leeson Street Area Residents Association said the association is angry with Dublin City Council over its handling of the saga.

In an incident just before Christmas, a 50-year-old man was taken to hospital and tents erected in the square were set alight.

Gardai and Dublin Fire Brigade were called to the scene and the assault victim was taken hospital.

“It’s really appalling — I can see this heap of burnt-out tents which have not been removed,” the residents committee member said.

“We have written to the city manager and the assistant city manager. The gloves have got to come off,” she added.

The fire incident was the latest controversy to hit Dartmouth Square since businessman Noel O’Gara bought the park for less than €10,000 more than three years ago. Mr O’Gara allowed the tents to be erected, claiming a gardener was living in one.

The council took Mr O’Gara to court and he was ordered to remove the tents and pay a fine of €1,000.

However, another tent appeared soon afterwards.

Labour’s Oisin Quinn said that, at one stage, at least four people were sleeping in the park.

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.

Cllr Quinn said the problems with Dartmouth Square stem from the failure of the council to complete a compulsory purchase order.

— cormac murphy

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/residents-at-dartmouth-square-ready-to-go-into-battle-over-state-of-park-1593318.html

did somebody assault the gardener and burn his tents?

I like O’Gara’s ‘urban farm idea’, that’s got to be perfect for Ranelagh!

Rows of cabbages, green beans, a little free range hen pen, what’s wrong with that? they could even bus around the kids from the local Multi-Demination School and see if any of them can count up to twenty!

@gunter wrote:

I like O’Gara’s ‘urban farm idea’, that’s got to be perfect for Ranelagh!

Rows of cabbages, green beans, a little free range hen pen, what’s wrong with that? they could even bus around the kids from the local Multi-Demination School and see if any of them can count up to twenty!

I’d say their spelling would be better than yours anyway!

I like it too – I’d still take a plot

Ok, Multi-Denomination,

I can’t rush . . and . . . work through my issues, at the same time!

@lostexpectation wrote:

did somebody assault the gardener and burn his tents?

Gardener, what gardener :confused:

This is part of the problem see – no gardener with the place rapidly deteriorating…

@gunter wrote:

I like O’Gara’s ‘urban farm idea’, that’s got to be perfect for Ranelagh!

Rows of cabbages, green beans, a little free range hen pen, what’s wrong with that? they could even bus around the kids from the local Multi-Demination School and see if any of them can count up to twenty!

@wearnicehats wrote:

I like it too – I’d still take a plot

Hey have you guys lost the, eh, plot?

This is all sounding suspiciously very like the Khmer Rouge to me… Oh well, at least the landlord can be first for “re-education” 😀

Please desist from calling O’Gara names – I’ve banned him from here, life is too short to deal with him – I just found this in my junk folder

You have lost any credibility you might have had as a planning professional because first you invited me to contribute and then you prevented me from answering my critics.
You have treated them like children who need protection and you only prove that the laws you seek to uphold are incapable of being justified.
You are a disgrace to the men and women who read your web site forums and any other material you have published or moderate over.
you are so inept that you cannot even reply to my email and justify why you have banned me from the website archiseek.com. I will of course have to inform the readers that you banned me and lets hope the website doesnt lose its influence but it will always be known as a site that cannot deal with criticism except by banning members who disagree with Paul Clerkin.

You have now shown that you have no substance paul and you are unfit to run any public forum.

and this

Paul, please inform the forum that you have taken it upon yourself to bar me from the forum otherwise all the scurrilous remarks posted about me might be regarded as libellous. I have a right to reply to smears posted on your publication and if not then it is obvious that you are orchestrating a smear campaign against me. That represents deliberate damage to me by you. Noel

So lets just leave him alone with his jack the ripper theories.

Lollers

Hilarious stuff altogether. That’s given me with a good laugh as I head off to bed.

I for one wholly agree to comply with refraining calling ******* a $%^&**% or a @£$%^£$$@^ or even a &^$£%^&…

Clicky linky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj7zi9Tp5s4 for more 😀

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Please desist from calling O’Gara names – I’ve banned him from here, life is too short to deal with him – I just found this in my junk folder

and this

So lets just leave him alone with his jack the ripper theories.

Hmm..

I think it a pity that dissenting voices should be censored (perhaps there is some legal reason that I would not be aware of – but otherwise a pity).

I confess I haven’t read all of Mr O’Gara’s posts, but I admired his courage in posting in so obviously hostile an environment. His tactics may have been unwise – but equally I consider it is unreasonable to expect him to continue to provide a public park with all the associated costs when it was open to DCC to purchase?

I think more frequent post by developers might be interesting and we might all benefit from a reasoned exchange of views (I have certainlyl earned a lot from people with no Degrees).

@noelogara wrote:

@wearnicehats wrote:

I would consider giving you a plot next year. You would have to give me a share of your veg in lieu of rent if that is ok with you.
anybody out there interested in setting up a farmers weekend market?
I need a live wire who could organise that and make a decent commission into the bargain. 100 stall holders at a score a weekent wouldnt be bad for a start. Because its agricultural there is no planning needed.. Section 4 of the Act.

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!

CLASS 39

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

@the hawk wrote:

@noelogara 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!

CLASS 39

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.

However

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 €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?

hutton, the tongue was firmly in my cheek when i posted the comment, but still i am not sure what there would be to judicialy review as the provision is exempted development and would not be the result of any decision. yes i do have some other bright ideas, like restarting the cpo process, or making a reasonable offer to Mr O’Gara. it would certainly be more productive than your negative comment which only serves to preserve the status quo.As far as your park keepers lodge suggestion, It would surely be dishonest to apply for permission for a park keepers lodge, and once planning was granted to then dispose of the park! I wonder if a piggery would be exempt…….

@publicrealm wrote:

Hmm..

I think it a pity that dissenting voices should be censored (perhaps there is some legal reason that I would not be aware of – but otherwise a pity).

I too thought this a pity. However, I respect the decisions that Paul makes about the site.

A city farm is a good idea. There are plenty in london. Kids pay a few quid to come in and see the animals.

http://www.london.gov.uk/young-london/kids/things-to-do/farm.jsp

@Frank Taylor wrote:

A city farm is a good idea. There are plenty in london. Kids pay a few quid to come in and see the animals.

http://www.london.gov.uk/young-london/kids/things-to-do/farm.jsp

Allotments

@Frank Taylor wrote:

A city farm is a good idea. There are plenty in london. Kids pay a few quid to come in and see the animals.

http://www.london.gov.uk/young-london/kids/things-to-do/farm.jsp

yes I agree, keep the tents!

😮 what did Pat Kenny say to him??

PUBLIC NOTICE

Look forward to seeing you

I’m packing the picnic basket

One wonders has he cut a deal with the locals to give them a key to use the park as a private park; it is good to see some form of normality return so cynicism is rightfullly suspended on my part until he shows his hand.

The park appears to be one lorry load short of restored now – no further notice of a reopening date however

One curious thing is that, everytime I’ve passed, the clearing away seems to be being done by Dublin City Council heads (?)

*Trying to avoid partaking in Schadenfreude*

O’Gara says he foresaw the recession, but now a crisis looms for his own business

Friday May 29 2009

DUBLIN South candidate Noel O’Gara (right), who claims he predicted the country’s economic collapse, is facing his own financial difficulties.

The businessman has been mired in controversy since his purchase of Ranelagh’s Dartmouth Square in 2005.

Now, Dublin City Council has issued Mr O’Gara with a statutory notice to pay a €37,700 legal bill arising from court actions over the park.

The Independent candidate, who is vying with Fine Gael’s George Lee in the leafy suburbs, must pay the tab within 21 days or face having his company Marble and Granite Tiles wound up.

bankruptcy

Mr O’Gara has claimed he foresaw Ireland’s looming financial crisis in 2007 when he ran in the general election in four constituencies.

“I warned the people two years ago that this country was heading for bankruptcy,” he said.

When asked would he be taken seriously having run for election in so many different areas, Mr O’Gara said: “I think Irish people are intelligent people and I’m appealing to the intelligent people — I know there’s a lot of idiots out there and a lot of control freaks — but I believe that Irish people want to be independent people and they’re the people I’m addressing.”

Mr O’Gara has been given a deadline of June 5 — the day of the byelection — to settle the legal bill.

Labour councillor Oisin Quinn said the council should not let up. “If he does not pay within the deadline, the council should not hesitate to wind up his company and liquidate his assets,” Mr Quinn added.

Council bosses have clashed with the Athlone businessman since he bought Dartmouth Square for a paltry €10,000 four years ago. Up to then, the square was maintained by the council as a public amenity.

caravans

The businessman was forced by a Circuit Court order to remove three caravans from the park in 2007.

Mr O’Gara had been restrained from using the park for the advertising, sale or display of tiles.

In February last year, city councillors scored a major victory by declaring the land an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA).

This effectively blocked any future attempt by Mr O’Gara to turn the Victorian square into a car park.

comurphy@herald.ie

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/ogara-says-he-foresaw-the-recession-but-now-a-crisis-looms-for-his-own-business-1755298.html

From the times today 10/6/09

Dartmouth park to reopen after deal reached with owner
A PARK near Rathmines in Dublin which has been closed for over two years is to reopen its gates to the community after an agreement was reached between a local resident and its owner.

Dartmouth Square resident Peter O’Brien negotiated a deal, which runs to the end of this year, with Athlone businessman and owner of Dartmouth Square park Noel O’Gara to maintain and run the park as an amenity for the locality.

Mr O’Gara bought the park in 2005 for about €10,000 from PJ Darley, whose ancestors built the square in the 1880s. Since then, it has been a source of controversy.

In 2006 it was closed to the public and Mr O’Gara subsequently attempted to set up a tile showroom on the site, and to turn the square into an affordable car park.

An Bord Pleanála approved for Dublin City Council a compulsory purchase order for the land in 2006, but this lapsed last June as the council feared it might have to pay a “substantial and financially prohibitive award” to Mr O’Gara.

Mr O’Brien said the agreement came following a discussion with Mr O’Gara, who was open to “innovative” ideas that made good use of the amenity.

Mr O’Brien said he and other residents hoped the park would host activities for those living in the area, and that he had a contract with Mr O’Gara to do so until the end of the year.

“It’s going to be an experiment to see if we can open a park to the community and have it run by the community for the community.”

He said the park would be open to the public daily, and that events such as children’s football tournaments, barbecues, plays and concerts were likely to take place in coming months.

This afternoon, locals and actors, artists and musicians, including David Kitt and Damien Rice, will gather to mark the reopening of the park. Mr O’Gara said he hoped the development would lead to artistic and entertaining events taking place in the square.

“My long-term aim is to turn it into a car park that would offer the people of Dublin a secure place to leave their cars for €5 a day while they go about their business.”

Labour councillor Oisín Quinn said the park should be brought under city council control.

Dartmouth Square saga to end in coming weeks
By Claire Murphy

Thursday January 14 2010

The future ownership of Dartmouth Square is close to resolution and the park is due to be placed on the market for sale.

A liquidator has been appointed to sell the Georgian Square which shot to notoriety when businessman Noel O’Gara purchased it for about €10,000.

It was expected that Mr O’Gara, owner of Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd, would appeal against his winding-up order, but the time for this has expired.

“That now means there is no reversal of the liquidation,” said Labour councillor Oisin Quinn.

Mr O’Gara drew controversy after he attempted to establish a series of business ventures on the south Dublin park including a car park and a tile showroom.

Previous caretaker Dublin City Council won a court application last October to wind up Marble and Granite Tiles.

The next move will be for the liquidator to put the square up for sale as a matter of protocol and in order to find the best price.

The proceeds from the sale will pay creditors, Dublin City Council, who are owed €43,000 in lieu of legal fees.

“Jim Hamilton has been appointed liquidator to wind up the company and dispose of the assets, Dartmouth Square,” he added.

“He will put the square on the market to get the best price that he can.”

But it is likely that the council will put in an offer for the property in a move that will technically wipe out debts owed to Dublin City Council.

“We as councillors have asked the manager to ensure that Dublin City Council will acquire the square,” Cllr Quinn explained.

“The planning potential has been completely removed. There is no value other than a public square.

“It’s hopefully the end to a complicated chess game,” he said. “To be honest the only chess move left is sliding the queen into position.”

Despite losing control of the land over four years, the exercise would have proved to be virtually “cost neutral” for the local authority, explained Cllr Quinn.

And the liquidator has said that he hopes that the situation will be concluded within a relatively short period of time.

This final move will usher in a new era of access for residents who have, along with volunteers, cleared the park of dead branches and soil to restore it to its former glory.

Over the summer, Dartmouth Square held yoga classes, poetry readings, film showings and concerts as the park was run as an amenity for locals.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/dartmouth-square-saga–to-end-in-coming-weeks-2013547.html

Just wondering what happened in the end.

Funny I asked that question myself the other day. What happened to Noel O’Gara, saviour of our Constitution

I believe that Dartmouth Square failed to sell at auction today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1204/dartmouth-square-auction.html

All’s well that ends well…

until the locks go on the gates again

Well I half prefer the residents of the Square controlling the park although perhaps with a basic charter in place that enshrines public use and access and also clears up how the park is maintained and funded. It might be a good model for 21st century public spaces.