New Advertising in Dublin

One clarification of Smithfield Resi’s last post- the decision text quoted doesn’t relate to all the appeal cases, though they were all very similarly worded. You’ll note the mention of a ‘contraflowing cycle lane’ in that quote, which leads me to suspect it was taken from the Inspector’s Report for a Capel Street/Ryder’s Row sign.

Also, not sure if the Dean Street sign was appealed; I don’t think so. (Not that that undermines the case against it, but I think we need to keep our facts straight.) The fault here was with DCC only, not with the Board. Had it been appealed, it would likely have been refused, as were all of the large metropoles that were appealed.

In other good news, the sign at the corner of Rathmines Road and Richmond Hill has been removed. It was terrible.

Any more removals? Arrivals?

I’m going to just make a few points as it is late…but more tomorrow…

Re the ABP decision, all of them to my knowledge have the phrase “The proposed development would, therefore, endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

DCC having read this then decided to allow the others as they were “under contract”. So they found themselves in the position of allowing to be erected something that was found to be an endangerment of public safety.

They then faced questions in the chamber after failing to produce a H&S report, the city manager then refused a unanimous motion calling for a H&S review and a halt to work.

Yep, same on the Crumlin Road, the base of the thing can’t be moe than 7′ off the ground.

i’m almost sure a tall/standing cyclist would smack their head into it going past.

They have to be 2200mm off the ground – feel free to measure 😀 – let me know if any aren’t.

In other good news, the sign at the corner of Rathmines Road and Richmond Hill has been removed. It was terrible.

Any more removals? Arrivals?

It was refered to enforcement. I have been waiting to see if a certain JK’s comments on RTE were guff (“corrections” indeed), what is shocking is they have taken NO action whatsover on other dangerous locations. I held back to see what they would do after the Dorset St fiasco. The answer is clearly nothing.

PM for details on enforcement assistance and if you wish to help.

As a resident of both Paris and Dublin, I have to scratch my head at the opposition to the JCDecaux billboards. In Paris JCD are responsible for nearly all the street furniture in the city including kiosks, public toilets, water fountains and the free bike scheme. The city council made huge demands when awarding the tender last year, one of which was that 1 in 3 of the billboards were reserved for municipal information. In a city known for its resistance to anything new JCD are seen as a force for good. I wouldn’t mind some decent street furniture in exchange for a few advertising hoardings. No doubt there will be upraor when the beloved herald shacks are replaced on O’Connell Street. When compared to nearly every other European Capital Dublin has a truly ugly city centre so anything, and I mean anything, that distracts from that is welcome.

I heditated over using ‘force for good’ but Decaux are certainly reputable and trustworthy. It’s quite incredible how little Dublin City Council demanded, surely they keep an eye on how tenders go in other cities – the whole bikes for billboards is pretty much standard stuff at this stage.
You have to admit that if DCC is left wanting in it’s responsibilities and fails to see things through to their proper conclusion, then JCD can be excused to a certain extent.

As seen in Dublin today…

So would i be ridiculously naive to ask how the removal of the existing illegal ads is going?
Have any gone?
Will any go?
Are we pissing into the wind, sheltered only by advertising panels?

what do this box’s do?
invest in something better…

From The Sunday Times
August 10, 2008

Dublin bike scheme wobbles over liability
Billboards are deemed unsafe, write Colin Coyle and Ruadhan MacEoin

DUBLIN’S “free bike scheme” for its citizens has encountered an
unexpected obstacle.

It has emerged that the city council will be liable for accidents
caused by the billboards that have been erected on the capital’s
streets as part of the scheme, even though the boards are privately
owned.

The council has allowed JC Decaux, a French company, to erect 72
advertising panels in exchange for 450 bicycles in a
“bikes-for-billboards” scheme. But the panels have been criticised as
unsafe by drivers, pedestrians and the National Council for the Blind
of Ireland (NCBI).

Unlike usual billboards, the advertising panels are attached to the
footpath, with edges finished in steel. Drivers claim they block
sightlines and could cause accidents.

Legal advice given last year to Jim Keogan, the city planner, from
Terence O’Keeffe, a law agent, states that as the council is
responsible for all “repairs and maintenance”, it also becomes
“responsible for any public liability issues that arise in those areas
in the event of accidents etc, occurring”.

The council asked O’Keeffe for legal advice before a hearing into the
bikes-for-billboards scheme last October. In Chicago, a similar scheme
is on hold because of questions over public liability.

“It’s all about lawyers. That’s the only hang-up,” Chicago’s mayor,
Richard M Daley, said earlier this month.

Ian Lumley of An Taisce, said: “It is bizarre that the local authority
may be carrying the can of legal responsibility for units belonging to
a private developer.”

Lumley’s criticism is echoed by former Lord Mayor and Labour
councillor Dermot Lacey, who is calling for the scheme to be
“immediately suspended”. Lacey said that it would be “completely,
totally, and utterly unacceptable” for the council to be responsible
for private commercial hoardings that are “potentially dangerous” and
“visually obtrusive”.

In some instances, such as at Synnott Place on Dorset Street, and at
Rathmines, billboards were quickly removed after motorists complained
they obscured sightlines.

Des Kenny of the NCBI said: “JC- Decaux was offered assistance 18
months ago. We were surprised when the offer was not taken up, as it
was made free-of-charge.”

He added: “If the company was already aware that it was not legally
responsible for the billboards, did it take as much care in its
attention to design and location as it would have otherwise?”

The council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of
the advertising spaces, but 32 panels will carry civic information on
one side. However, there is still no sign of the promised bikes. The
council said this weekend that they are due to arrive next spring. It
has yet to disclose how much it will cost Dubliners to use them.

In other cities where JCDecaux has set up schemes, users pre-register
with a credit card, paying about €30 a year on top of the charge for
using a bicycle. If someone loses a bicycle or fails to return it to a
docking station within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a
bicycle, about €150, is deducted from their credit card.

The company has established schemes in 21 cities, including Paris,
Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna and Lyon.

In Paris, 100,000 people use the 20,000 Velib bikes every day, but
vandalism and the cost of spare parts for the bikes cost JCDecaux
¤20.6m in the first half of the year. In the first year, a third of
the bikes were damaged or stolen.

Two Velib riders have been killed and the French Cycle Touring
Federation said there have been problems with “letting loose hundreds
of people who haven’t been on a bike in years”.

Dublin city council said this weekend that its legal department was
still examining the issue of public liability over the billboards.

JCDecaux declined to comment.

Archiseek credited with holding opinions; I was sorry no picture of the Dorset St sign was included.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0821/1219243766859.html

Opposition grows against advertising panel plan in return for bike rental
In this section »

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

ARCHISEEK, IRELAND’S architectural discussion website, has added its voice to calls on Dublin City Council to halt the erection of free-standing advertising panels on footpaths in the city pending a review and investigation.

Under a deal agreed by city council management without the prior knowledge of councillors, French-owned advertising company JC Decaux was permitted to erect 120 of these panels in return for a bicycle rental scheme on the Paris Vélib model.

Opponents of what Green Party TD Ciarán Cuffe termed a “dodgy deal” include the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, An Taisce and the Dublin City Business Association – mainly because of the obstruction of footpaths by the metal-framed panels.

The arrangement required JC Decaux to supply four rental bikes per on-street panel, amounting to a total of 480, compared to 12 per panel under the Vélib scheme in Paris, where the city council also receives an annual rental of more than €2,000 per unit.

The deal first became public in December 2006 after a contributor to the Archiseek website initiated a discussion under the heading “And you thought Dublin’s Streets were cluttered already”. Not even then Lord Mayor Vincent Jackson (Ind) was aware of it.

JC Decaux subsequently lodged 120 separate planning applications for the advertising structures with no environmental impact statement (EIS). For anyone to appeal all to An Bord Pleanála, the total cost of the fees involved would have been €26,400.

“Of the original scheme, fortunately only half managed to get through – thanks in many instances to appeals by conscientious Dublin citizens”, Archiseek said. “Any so-called ‘metropole’ unit that was appealed to the board was shot down 100 per cent.

“Since then, it has become apparent that the scheme is an unmitigated disaster and epitomises what-not-to-do when engaging in urban planning . . . Already some of the units have been withdrawn, having been blatantly unsafe and manifestly hazardous.

“Outrageously, this scheme has simply been dumped on poorer and working class areas”, Archiseek said. “No billboards for a southside dual-carriageway such as Donnybrook, yet plenty for North King Street and Dorset Street and also Malahide Road in Coolock”.

According to Archiseek’s Paul Clerkin, who described its statement as unprecedented, “these units were only removed following complaints from the public, and we believe others are a hazard to public safety – Parnell Street being one very obvious example”.

He said it was “a gross irony and disgrace that the first clients have been the Department of Environment lecturing the public about not despoiling their environment” – the billboards being the central vehicle of a €200,000 campaign.

Dublin City Council said it “completely refutes” Archiseek’s allegations, saying its officials had “implemented an open and transparent process to procure a suitable advertising agency which would provide amenities for the city in a partnership approach”.

After being awarded the contract in December 2006, JC Decaux applied for planning permission to erect 120 advertising panels, of which 72 were granted; under the terms of the contract, the level of amenities depended on the number of permissions.

“It was agreed that 450 bicycles would be made available at 50 stations located in the city centre”, the council said. These locations are now being identified and the city bike scheme will be launched during Mobility Week at the end of September.

It said there would be a “six-month lead-in phase” from procurement of the bicycles to installation of the stands, with the scheme being implemented “between spring and summer 2009”. So far, however, no charges have been fixed for renting the bikes.

“Dublin City Council has exclusive use of all JC Decaux advertising panels at no cost, for public information campaigns until August 31st”, the statement said.

“From September 1st, the city council will acquire 38 of these panels, also at no cost.”

It added that JC Decaux had “indemnified the city council with regard to public liability claims arising from accidents pertaining to the advertising panels”. It had also removed 50 large advertising billboards throughout the city as part of the deal.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@igy wrote:

Has it? :/

Indeed; the expression “original erected without planning permission” would also be useful here.