New Advertising in Dublin

@publicrealm wrote:

@hutton wrote:

However, as councillors were not aware of the scheme and as there was no sale via section 183, imo it most certainly merits a proper investigation within the council. QUOTE]

I don’t believe that any such motion is required. The Applicant only needs the consent of the landowner (presumably, in this case, DCC) to make a valid application.

The granting of consent is an administrartive function – the Councillors have no say in it.

(Generally, imho, it is best that the Councillors have no say in such matters (ideally no say in anything except their own expenses) – as they have repeatedly disgraced themselves over the years – putting their personal/party interest ahead of the national interest.)

Dublin City Councillors have been excellent in recent times – look at Moore St etc, the problems have been with officials.

With respect, either I did not make myself clear, or I totally disagree with your analysis as to section 183 – disposal of local authority land is a reserved function of the councillors, not simply “an administrative” matter, and therefore requires mandate by councillors voting on it. It would be my opinion that in this case the law has not been applied – simple as that.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA37Y2001S183.html

@PVC King wrote:

I agree on the disposal issue it is a reserved function.

To lump DCC in with other councils that required Tribunal examination or were considered beyond redemption is simply not fair or accurate.

Totally disagree on Moore Street which was a ploitically motivated dicesion and had nothing to do with the built environment but in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable.

Just re 16 Moore Street, councillors had voted on that numerous times – at the same time that deals were being done by officials regarding those sites in genral. It is my understanding that at every turn advice and actions taking by officials was consistently unhelpfful – even down to detail of the age of the house… It took intervention by the late Arthur Gibney to “inform” the process. If I am mistaken, please correct me as that whole story sure is some saga – Carlton etc

I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie. The forum there is read by and contributed to by a number of Dublin representatives, of both Leinster House and the City and County Councils. It will be interesting to see if, and how, they react. I copied sections of the discussion here, as I couldn’t have put it any better myself, mostly the wealth of information garnered by various archiseekers, especially on the proposed locations. If there’s any problem with me doing so, i’ll take down my post.

@ctesiphon wrote:

You’re not wrong, hutton.

50 more are on the way. This picture was taken today on Grafton Street. Note the smaller dimensions of the proposed signage. Is it fair to say that the smaller signs on pedestrian streets wouldn’t be so bad? The scale seems more human, and they might be genuinely useful?

All metropoles on the list you posted above were on the original list, and I know that, in addition to Amiens Street, the one on St Luke’s Avenue (Coombe Relief road) was declared invalid. Perhaps all of the above were invalidated and then resubmitted? In that case, those numbers will be useful.

It’s good to hear that the councillors are becoming involved. I’m not sure of the extent to which people generally are aware of the scale of this proposal. And then to discover that the presumed quid pro quo is not in fact true…?

The manner in which this is being carried out is like an invasion. They seem to be constantly multiplying. Of course in reality their location on Grafton Street, or other similar streets, may provide an automatic busking point;)

It is funny (as in the ridiculous sort) to see such a thing going up in the weeks following the official announcement of the plans to make Grafton Street and its surroundings an area of Special Planning Control

Since making that post I have had a look at the Draft Scheme of Special Planning Control for Grafton Street. It raises some very pressing issues, and I would recommend people interested in this issue to have a look at it.

For example, The Council seem determined that the advertising located on buildings, such as the Budweiser ad, is inappropriate and should be removed. Whilst I personally don’t have much against these form of hoardings, I can appreciate the argument against them. However, I raise it as it illustrates the subjectivity of the issue quite effectively in that the council seem to want to promote the location of advertising hoardings at multple places within the public domain whilst objecting to it in areas that I assume to be privately owned, yet visible from the street. Meanwhile, the extent to which these are deemed to clutter a fairly narrow street does not seem to matter, despite it being raised within another section of the draft:

@Dublin City Council wrote:

5.5.3 In general, given the relatively narrow width of Grafton Street and the high pedestrian footfall the provision of certain elements of street furniture on the public footpath or private landings will not be favourably considered. These elements include newspaper stands, A-frames and spinner stands erected by retailers or tables and chairs for cafes, restaurants or bars.

Incidently, Ctesiphon, what does OTM mean? You have obviously brushed up on all the fancy new terms!

@phil wrote:

Incidently, Ctesiphon, what does OTM mean? You have obviously brushed up on all the fancy new terms!

On The Money.

It originally said OTFM, but I changed it for reasons of propriety (I’m sure you can guess the missing word). I could have said QFT, or IAWTC, but, y’know…;)

ctesiphon- FTW!

@hutton wrote:

@publicrealm wrote:

Dublin City Councillors have been excellent in recent times – look at Moore St etc, the problems have been with officials.

With respect, either I did not make myself clear, or I totally disagree with your analysis as to section 183 – disposal of local authority land is a reserved function of the councillors, not simply “an administrative” matter, and therefore requires mandate by councillors voting on it. It would be my opinion that in this case the law has not been applied – simple as that.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA37Y2001S183.html

I’m afraid I was the one who was unclear – I’m not suggesting that land disposal is an admin function – merely that planning permission does not require land disposal (i.e. does not require the applicant to be the owner). What it does require is the consent of the owner – in this case DCC. The giving of that consent is an admin function.

If it is the case that DCC have agreed to dispose of the land then you are quite correct – such an agreement would require the agreement of the Councillors. Have DCC agreed to dispose of the land? If not my point stands.

I do not know if DCC Councillors are better than others – certainly their tribunal history is not good. I recently noted that the South East Area Committee did everything in their power to frustrate plans for the new Lansdowne Road Stadium – while pretending to be in favour of it. I don’t believe they were motivated by the National interest? Or even the interest of Dublin. I’m sure there are some good ones but they have a long road to travel (in my view).

410 quid per notice????

*heads off to print out cards advertising such service + sets up shop*

Thats some wheeze! 😀

Anyhow to try to clarify – there is still confusion but details are emerging; I understand DCC set aside funding for this bike program, possibly to be part funded by advertising on the side (my supposition) – this was what councillors were sold. However there was a small shortfall…And then somehow we are here, where councillors claim they were unaware of the initial 70, since followed by another 50 simultaneous applications – the locations of which are not related to the bike facilities, as they have yet to be decided. The criteria of site selection is a total mystery :confused: , and there has not been a 183 vote which is necessary in terms of ceding ownership to JCdec, who are now acting as if they effectively already have beneficial ownership of the sites. 😮

So thats my understanding as to where things are at. Poor Dublin. 🙁

It all throws up some very urgent questions 😡

A councillor I know says they haven’t voted on it yet and the plan was drawn up by an independent company for the council.