New Advertising in Dublin
- This topic has 669 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
And today’s:
@The Irish Times wrote:
Roadside advertising opposed
Olivia KellyNew free-standing advertising panels which JC Decaux is seeking to erect at 120 locations across Dublin in exchange for a city bike scheme, would constitute a “traffic hazard” the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) has told a Bord Pleanála hearing.
The board is holding an appeals hearing on permission granted by Dublin City Council for 24 of the 120 panels. However, the DTO told the hearing that it is opposed to the scheme in its entirety.
DTO chief executive John Henry said that the purpose of the street-side advertising panels was clearly to attract the attention of drivers. “Anything which is designed to attract a driver’s attention must therefore distract their attention from the road. Anything which distracts a driver’s attention is unacceptable.”
JC Decaux, one of the world largest advertising companies, has sought permission for 70 panels of 7sq m which will stand just over 2m off the ground, and 50 panels of 2.59sq m, similar in size to a bus shelter. All of the panels will be illuminated and can carry scrolling images.
Illuminated signs adjacent to the roadside were particularly dangerous, Mr Henry said.
“The DTO is totally opposed to the provision of on-street illuminated outdoor signage as it is considered to constitute a traffic hazard.” Scrolling images were “even more distracting”, he said.
The DTO’s position was supported, Mr Henry said, by a recent Bord Pleanála refusal of permission for an illuminated scrolling advertising panel at Long Mile Road in west Dublin on the grounds that it would distract drivers.
The DTO was also concerned about the panels that were proposed for pedestrian areas, on the grounds that they might impede pedestrians, particularly the visually impaired.
RPS consulting engineers, representing JC Decaux, told the hearing the assertion that the signs would cause a traffic hazard was “inaccurate and without substance”. “The suggestion of the appellant that the proposed advertising structure will act as a distraction and consequently a hazard to motorists implies that all signage, including public information signage should be banned. This is patently unreasonable,” Angela Grady of RPS said.
Illuminated signage was part of the regular driving environment for city drivers, she said.
“The suggestion of the appellant that the proposed illuminated signage will constitute a traffic hazard is considered inaccurate and without substance.”
JC Decaux and the council had gone to considerable effort to ensure the structures would not affect pedestrian movement, she said.
In exchange for allowing JC Decaux to erect 120 signs for a 15-year period, instead of the normal three-year planning permission, the council will receive 450 bikes, four public toilets, and a number of tourism and public information signs.
The hearing continues today.
© 2007 The Irish Times
Unfortunately, I ended up in Beaumont (the hospital, not the area, I’m sure the area is most pleasant) earlier this week and was unable to attend the hearings. Anyone that did, did you get any sense of the likelihood that any of the appeals might be successful?
When do they release the decision?Sorry to hear that, newgrange.
It’s always hard to say, but strong cases were made by many appelants on both procedural issues and matters of detail. An Taisce did a good job of querying the Council’s right to permit commercial development on land not in its ownership (property boundaries go to the middle of the road, apparently) and made strong cases on conservation grounds regarding four appeals. The DTO section was pretty short but seemed to be quite effective re the traffic hazard likelihood of the signs- the second article copied above is a pretty accurate reflection of that module.
I didn’t see too many of the individual appelants, but the larger policy issues might be enough to scupper all of the appeals.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that the Inspector’s report must be forwarded to the Board members and they might disagree with it, so even if she recommends refusal in some or all of the cases, the Board might grant (or vice versa).
No idea of the expected waiting time for the decision(s), I’m afraid.
Get well soon. Your neighbourhood needs you.;)
Woefully inaccurate repporting by the examiner, which I have underlined for the fun :rolleyes:
@Irish Examiner wrote:
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
An Taisce opposes bikes for ads plan
A PLAN to provide nearly 500 free bikes across Dublin in exchange for more than 100 outdoor advertisement spaces met with opposition yesterday.
An Taisce said the plan, which will involve large illuminated advertisements across the capital, was against EU law.
Its request to An Bord Pleanála to bring a review of the project before the High Court was refused.
The board began the first of four days of hearings on the plan, which has been submitted to Dublin City Council.
Local councillors, city centre businesses and residents are objecting, claiming the advertisements could distract drivers and divert attention away from existing shops and it is not a good deal for the city and its residents overall.
The council’]2,000[/U] free bicycles to the city, where residents and tourists use a card with a deposit to travel from one location to another.
It is hoped the project in Dublin would see a crop in the number of cars entering the city centre.
However, An Taisce says the additional advertisements would clutter city landscapes. Maurizio Passi, with local business Tiffany Blinds, warned the advertisements would distract from city centre businesses themselves.
Hearings at An Bord Pleanála are due to continue for at least another three days.
Others due to appear before Inspector Jane Dennehy include representatives from Arnotts and Eason, residents from North Great Georges Street, local advertisement companies and local councillors.
The free bikes scheme already operates in cities including Vienna and Paris. Plans in Dublin would see some commercial signs as big as seven square metres erected on structures or buildings.
Some city councillors are objecting, saying other cities have received more bikes and better deals than that agreed with the Dublin City Council.
Hearings will continue today.
Irish Examiner
I really don’t understand the use of the term “free”; are car hire companies now to be referred to as “Free Car Schemes”? :confused:
hutton wrote:I really don’t understand the use of the term “free”]You have a point there. What does free mean in this context?
If you are a member of the public – free does not apply to you – you have to read ‘free’ but think of paying a rental ‘fee’!
If you are the County Council then you have to read ‘free bikes ‘ and think of ‘brown envelope’ to the planning authority for a red carpet + blanket planning permission’.
If you are Decaux when you read ‘free’ you think ‘incentive to cooperate’ and further establish the Decaux name.
Where are the ‘unconditional’, ‘no charge’ aspects of ‘free’ here?
Perhaps the ‘free’ element was introduced as the tool of a PR manoeuvre in an attempt to make the public swallow the billboards!
It is hoped the project in Dublin would see a crop in the number of cars entering the city centre.
It is hoped? By whom? In all the toings and froings over this project, I’ve never heard anyone say that one of the intentions is to reduce the number of cars entering the city.
My original letters advising me of the dates of the oral appeals said there would be a decision by December 12th.
Is that likely?dublin city council need to get there head out of there ass………….
and address the real issue….
and actually introduce safe 2.6 metre wide bike lanes in 2 directions across the city’s main roads
and at least triple the number of bike racks….
because when was the last time you could get a park at st stephens green???
some people appealed against ikea because the m50 could not handle traffic…
I doubt the m50 will ever flow!!!!
Dublin city council are too weak to confront the transport lobby to share the roads with pedestrians and cyclist’s fact……
this french advertising company are trying there same shit all over the world including sydney….
I would say its like swimming with mako sharks riding a bicycle in dublin…
if you had to drive next to a cliff with no barrier and no room for error im sure there would be less cars on the road…
No sign then of the blitz on empty and redundant signage posts promised by DCC in the spring. All still in place and happily being added to as far as I can see.
@newgrange wrote:
My original letters advising me of the dates of the oral appeals said there would be a decision by December 12th.
Is that likely?I don’t know- haven’t heard a dickie bird about it lately. I’ll check the ABP website and see if there’s anything.
…
I checked a few random case numbers from the batch and there are no details available yet for any of them. If you hear anything, please keep us posted, thanks.
Jesus, what a terrible idea.
I don’t think it’s cost that’s holding back people from cycling. you can get a new bike for under €100.
(From here.)
Anyone any news on how this decision went?
I have heard nothing from ABP and had no response to an email asking what way the decisions on my two appeals went.
You’d think for a cost of over two hundred euro each for the appeals they could send an email/make a phone call to let the appellant know what happened.This whole thing has been dragging on for ages.
**edit**
And on it goes again – new date for decision is January 30th, 2008 – we’ll see.I was just going to post to say what’s in your edit- the ABP site gives 30.i.08 for the few I checked. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that’s the last of it!
At least the Inspector’s role is completed- the reports are with the Board itself at this stage. Oh to be a fly on the wall…
Stil no word on this, fyi, and the decision was due yesterday- the ABP website still lists 30th January as the date, i.e. it hasn’t been changed as it was on January 17th, so I wonder if this means we should expect something shortly.
Has anyone else heard anything? hutton? newgrange?
No, still nothing here.
I emailed first thing this morning and have had no response.
I just tried to telephone but keep getting a recorded announcement on all numbers.**edit** Managed to get through by phone – decision put back again to February 7th.
Not really….most decisions I have been associated with are put back in this manner. One week at a time. Its due to the pressure the Board are under.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
