New Advertising in Dublin

ABP have again done the right thing and upheld the appeals regarding the two of these montrosities JC Decaux wanted to put at Newcomen bridge.
Build away with the apartments, but no Metropoles.

‘it is considered that the proposed Metropole structures would be visually obtrusive at this location and materially contravene the development objective indicated in the development plan for the area. The proposal would seriously injure the visual amentities of the area, would create an undesirable precedent for future similar development in areas so zoned (my emphasis) and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’

DCC take note and stop granting permission to your mates JC Decaux to spread their ugly signage around the city.

@StephenC wrote:

Still on the case newgrange…:-)

Like a dog with a bone. 🙂
Here’s hoping they won’t try a third time at Newcomen Bridge.

@notjim wrote:

“The council intends to exempt JC Decaux from applying for planning permission for the new advertising structures, a process which had resulted in a refusal by An Bord Pleanála of one-fifth of the company’s applications when the scheme was established.”

.

I can’t see how they could get away with this – it’s not within their power to ‘exempt’ development.

Maybe they intend to describe it as ‘Local Authority Development’ to avail of the exempted dev regs that apply to such – but I very much doubt that that would survive a legal challenge.

Maybe Minister Gormley will be persuaded amend the Regulations for this particular type of advertising?

Will await with interest.

@notjim wrote:

The proposed new advertising locations are subject to Part VIII planning applications. The provision of the new bike stations will be constructed by means of exempted development, similar to the scheme’s existing 40 stations.

Using Part 8 (“Local Authority Own Development”) procedures for the erection of controversial commercial advertising – in order to avoid scrutiny by ABP – is tantamount to an abuse of process in my view, and is open to legal challenge. This is really stretching the concept of Local Authority Own Development.

The Part 8 provisions are intended to facilitate public works. Although there is sufficient wiggle room to allow abuse, any project, other than the limited ones set out in the Regulations, must exceed €126,000 (2001 figure – not sure if its index linked) to qualify.

Dodgy.

Okay a couple of quick points regarding the use or abuse or even misuse of Part 8 and this proposal:

1) Dublin City Council are attempting to let advert Co. JC Decaux use Part 8 to build private billboards on public land, with all revenue generated going directly to the private company and not to the council. As far as I understand it, Part 8 is to allow local authority developments, not developments by private companies.

2) The planning precedent is that the council previously permitted the developer to make their own separate applications, which was not handled as one scheme (and hence did not have an EIA), and as such, these developments must again be treated as separate development applications.

In my opinion the story re bikes-for-billboards so far is this:

– The bikes are the fringe benefit of a much bigger grubbier scheme, with advertising being the primary game.

– Over €350 million worth of advertising potential revenue was being foregone by DCC for 450 bikes – until a ruckus saw 1/2 the billboards scrapped. (The 20% figure of refusal below fails to mention DCC was going to give at least 150 + sites, until uproar by merchants and others led to applications being withdrawn

– It was done on by way of a secret rezoning map

– Most of the billboards were dumped on lower-income areas, while the majority of the bikes went into leafy Dublin 2

Of course when the scheme is bedeviled by under-capacity at the outset, it looks like a “victim of its own success”. Paris got almost 13 bikes in exchange for each billboard – we got less than half that.

Naturally one of the most obvious questions thrown up by the new proposal is this:

The new deal would deliver 10 rental bikes for each new billboard; why then did Dublin only get half that amount with the main primary deal?

There’s a question I’d be interested in hearing the answer to. *Not holding breath*

Notably an advertisement poster costs €1250 per fortnight for one of four sheets on one side of the current “metropanel” units – with the fee including the printing costs; the majority are dual-aspect – having two billboards on the one unit.

Each dual-aspect metropole may carry 4 adverts on either side, resulting in a turnover of €10,000 per fortnight – which over 15 years may generate €3.9 million per unit.

So once again, it appears Dublin City Council may be prepared to give away the revenue potential of €39 million over 15 years in exchange for 10 bicycles.

Oh well, at least Dublin is getting taken for quite the ride it was as last time :rolleyes:

Dont give them ideas!!

@ctesiphon: of course you were missed, I kind of wandered off when you did.

In the original deal JCD were to remove some of the older signs that had been erected back in the day with no planning permission, did that happen?

@hutton wrote:

There are 3 DCC swimming pools slated for closing; Seán MacDermott Street, Crumlin, and the Coolock.

Each pool costs €400,000 per annum. By my calculations, DCC could erect 5 metropole billboards which could generate €1,300000 and this would keep all 3 swimming pools open. The €100,000 left over could cover the cost of admin and allow for empty periods.

So there you have it, rather than allowing JC Decaux erect 10 billboards, why doesn’t DCC itself consider erecting only 5? These could easily be accommodated along the N11 dual carriageway between the UCD Flyover and Donnybrook bus depot, as it passes by Montrose. (Unlike lower-income areas, for some odd reason the leafy N11 wasn’t included the last time).

3 swimming pools for half the amount of new billboards? Tis a no-brainer 🙂

The €600,000 allocated has been stretched to cover expenses up until the end of August, so on a pro-rata basis, you could run the three of them for the year for €900,000. According to one of the councillors at the last council meeting (Niall Ring at 1h12 m on the webcast below), the expenses are variable during the year, and he estimates that the three pools could be run til the end of the year with an additional €106,000.

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=39009&t=0&m=wm&l=en_GB#the_data_area

On the website, click on the ‘index points’ heading, and jump down to item 14.

This is mind boggling and scarcely credible, not just because of the paltry sums involved, but because of some of the other issues it raises regarding privatisation and profitability and the provision of public services. (I know this is off topic, but it’s vaguely planning related, and I figured Hutton for one would be interested. Actually, as further proof of DCC’s “ethos”, I suppose it is relevant).