New Advertising in Dublin
- This topic has 669 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
@StephenC wrote:
This is a very good point.
I’m afraid it’s not accurate.
See my previous post: Consent = Officials [not Councillors] (and confers NO rights whatsoever – other than the right to make a valid planning application).
Therefore (am I labouring this somewhat??) the granting of PP does not require any agreement relating to land ownership – only CONSENT to make the planning application from the land owner (which can be provided by the Officials etc etc.)
Invalidation simply does not arise.
Also I would be very surprised if DCC had any intention of ceding public land in this case.
publicrealm,your well entitled to you opinion, but I think you are alone with this one. The fixed structures will be owned by JCDecaux, and therefore impossible for DCC to remove without CPOs . For all intents and purposes JCdeC* are exercising control over the public domain in a manner that indicates at minimum a claim of beneficial ownership.
I am with PVC King on this one – the neccessary consent has not been granted by the custodians at council level and thus the case can be in objections made that “all applications should therefore be declared invalid on the basis that landowners consent has not been granted”. That said, council members really need to now look at proposing the JCD deal at council meeting by means of a section 183 – in order to specifically vote it down.
PR
The issue is the ability of an official to grant consent in the absence of a city council vote; if a fund manager at a property fund gave consent to a development company to APPLY FOR CONSENT TO redevelop an investment holding without it having cleared a board vote it would be similarly invalid.
I think this argument about ownership is a bit of a red herring (ftr, I think I’d agree with publicrealm- as long as there’s a letter of consent, then there’s no problem). Assuming it gets sorted out (if it even needs to be), we’re still left with the proposal to erect 70 signs. This is the substantive issue. Trying to scupper the proposal by the back door seems to me to be the wrong approach.
Attention should instead be concentrated on the planning aspects of the case, viz. intrusion into the public realm, visual clutter and, most importantly IMO, the very real traffic hazard that these will constitute. All of the signs should be refused on one or all of these grounds.
Land ownership, relationship to the free bikes scheme, even the tendering process- all of this is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that these signs will be a blight on the city. Period.
I agree with all the points you have made in relation to the visual aspects of these proposals.
But would argue that because the applicants have deliberately split the proposal into individual applications to use procedure to make it difficult to defeat the proposal that they have opened the issue of procedure up for scrutiny. There is no way that this discussion would be taking place if they had made a single application.
However that a council official saw fit to grant consent without gaining clearance from their employers is not only disgraceful it is also beyond what they have the authority to do.
As always conservation groups will be landed with the task of submitting carefully drafted letters citing specific site concerns on multiple applications. For a member of the public to have their say they must pay €20 per application. Therefore it is in the public interest for the city councillors to vote this proposal down
@ctesiphon wrote:
I think this argument about ownership is a bit of a red herring (ftr, I think I’d agree with publicrealm- as long as there’s a letter of consent, then there’s no problem). Assuming it gets sorted out (if it even needs to be), we’re still left with the proposal to erect 70 signs. This is the substantive issue. Trying to scupper the proposal by the back door seems to me to be the wrong approach.
Attention should instead be concentrated on the planning aspects of the case, viz. intrusion into the public realm, visual clutter and, most importantly IMO, the very real traffic hazard that these will constitute. All of the signs should be refused on one or all of these grounds.
Land ownership, relationship to the free bikes scheme, even the tendering process- all of this is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that these signs will be a blight on the city. Period.
Fair enough, but I dont think getting it voted down at council is dealing with it by back door – imo the scheme has been planned by back door and in theory it could take over €20,000 just to have the scheme properly adjudicated at Bord level.
I agree with you on the planning aspects, and that should all be used in any objection – however for this scheme to be opposed in a multi-layered manner – so while tactical objections are one key, so too is a review of the process in that if it is flawed then the whole scheme should be sent back to the drawing board.
If it goes ahead as is, Hutton puts his money down that there will be appeals to BP, law cases, complaints to Europe, judicial reviews etc. I just hope that sense will prevail. 🙁
Just one other thought in relation to this being resolved at council chamber level – there is of course the option of councillors copper-fastening rejection by tabling a section 140 motion as well as a 183 just to make sure it is comprehensively voted down. Section 140 is of course the means by which councillors can over-rule official advice – and that along with a 183 deliberately voting down any proposed sale would resolve this. There is more to emerge on this yet…
This thread really doesn’t cool down, does it?
@publicrealm wrote:
I’m afraid it’s not accurate.
See my previous post: Consent = Officials [not Councillors] (and confers NO rights whatsoever – other than the right to make a valid planning application).
Therefore (am I labouring this somewhat??) the granting of PP does not require any agreement relating to land ownership – only CONSENT to make the planning application from the land owner (which can be provided by the Officials etc etc.)
Invalidation simply does not arise.
Also I would be very surprised if DCC had any intention of ceding public land in this case.
I agree with you.
We had a case in Cork recently where a question was asked of the City Manager (and the city law agent) to clarify whether or not a third party without legal title, beneficial ownership or rights to a site could apply for planning independent of the rightful owner.The managers and the law agent advised (rightly or wrongly) that any person can apply for permission, have it validated, and a decision made by the LA, BUT the grant of permission could not be acted on without the consent of the legal owner of the site.
@kite wrote:
I agree with you.
We had a case in Cork recently where a question was asked of the City Manager (and the city law agent) to clarify whether or not a third party without legal title, beneficial ownership or rights to a site could apply for planning independent of the rightful owner.The managers and the law agent advised (rightly or wrongly) that any person can apply for permission, have it validated, and a decision made by the LA, BUT the grant of permission could not be acted on without the consent of the legal owner of the site.
Thank you Kite (and Ctesiphon etc).
Hutton – I have no argument with you and generally agree with the visual amenity argument you make. However the matter of ownership is simply not one of opinion – it is a matter of fact. And the facts do not support that particular angle.
Planning Permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights. Section 34 (13) of the P&D Act is quite clear on this:
(13) A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any development.
I imagine that the intention of DCC is to grant a licence to the Applicant (if permission is granted) – so even then the Councillors may have no real say.
Seeking invalidation is certainly barking up the wrong pole in this case.
Re all of the posts since my last one (edit- kite and pr posted while I was typing)-
Almost everything about the application procedure for this proposal stinks, from the sneaky way DCC/JCD submitted 70 single applications, to the clustering of applications to maximise the chances of success (5 No at the west end of Bolton Street alone, as I said above), to the arguably socially-motivated location policy, to the insufficient info submitted in many cases (see invalidations), even to the arm’s-length way DCC got JCD and a consultant to take on the job rather than doing it in-house.
But I still maintain you’re getting sidetracked by procedural issues here, rather than focussing on the substantive issue, which is the absolute undesirability of this proposal. Or, put another way, would you be happy to see these signs all over the city as long as the proper procedures had been followed (single application, correct tendering, accurate photomontages, etc. etc.)? My answer to that is a resounding NO, thereby fundamentally refuting the statement that “There is no way that this discussion would be taking place if they had made a single application.”
And even if the intervention of the councillors has the desired effect (no guarantees, btw, however much it might be wished for emotionally), who’s to say a similar proposal won’t emerge, revised in light of all that’s been discussed here in the last few weeks (you allude to this in your ‘back to the drawing board’ comment, hutton)? In which case, I return again to the fundamental question of the desirability of the proposal. This is the key as I’ve said and will, if necessary, say again.;)
Also, ftr hutton, by ‘the back door’ I didn’t mean the councillors getting involved. I meant specifically the tactic that’s emerging here of attacking the flawed aplication procedure instead of attacking the plain stupidity of this propopsal (it’s not ad hominem, but similar- I just can’t think right now of the correct term for the logical fallacy being employed here).
Lastly, PVC King- other statutory bodies have an interest in this too, aside from the conservation bods. The DTO, for one, would surely have traffic concerns (probably similar to those I mentioned above), and the tourism groups might also have an opinion. I haven’t checked the observations / objections to see- does anyone know who objected?
Yours etc.,
The People’s Front of Judea.
Lastly, PVC King- other statutory bodies have an interest in this too, aside from the conservation bods. The DTO, for one, would surely have traffic concerns (probably similar to those I mentioned above), and the tourism groups might also have an opinion. I haven’t checked the observations / objections to see- does anyone know who objected?
The DTO were neutered after they objected to the Liffey Valley extension in 2000; they haven’t taken many appeals that I am aware of since they had a muzzle applied from DoEHLG. The appointment of the latest transport quango has also downgraded their status and authority in real terms. I will have €100 with you that they submit nothing on this if you wish.
The substantive issue here is how to ensure that this rash is not applied to the City without having to submit 70 observations and possibly 70 appeals at a cost of €230 per application.
I don’t think DEHLG has any say in the running of the DTO- it falls under DoT, afaik. You might be mixing it up with the artist formerly known as Duchas when you say it has been muzzled on submissions (though in 2000 I was a pastry chef with only a passing interest in planning, so I’m open to correction on this).
@PVC King wrote:
I will have €100 with you that they submit nothing on this if you wish.
Why not! I’ll give mine to charity if I’m right (or to anyone who wants to object to five of the next batch!:) )
Anyone know if An Taisce or others objected? I’m thinking of the statutory bodies, as they’re the only organisations that don’t have to pay to submit, so the split nature of the applications shouldn’t affect them.
They did pay the salaries at the time of muzzeling and it is very possible that this function has now transfered to DoT just like Bertie pays for the tribunals through retention of control through the department of An Taoiseach. Regardless of who the minister is they still fall under more or less direct government control.
I would imagine that An Taisce could use some help in this and the skills of a pastry chef would be particularly useful come AGM time although your planning skills would be more useful the other 364 days of the year 😀
PVC King wrote:The DTO were neutered after they objected to the Liffey Valley extension in 2000]I don’t know what happened re Liffey Valley, but the DTO are part of the group now looking at Liffey Valley and they submit observations on many many planning applications and development plans all the time. Recently they’ve been vocal on IKEA, Greystones Harbour, Lansdowne Road, T2, the Arnott;s redevelopment etc etc. However they don’t take appeals a la An Taisce as you say.
No “latest transport quango” has been appointed yet. If it;s the DTA you’re referring to, if that is set up pre-election I will donate 5 million cyber euros* to your good self. The DTO never ever had any authority. They are a co-ordinating and monitoring organisation. visit http://www.dto.ie and see what they get up to. And this monitoring role is connected to all planning applications in the Dublin Region. I don’t know whether they’ll submit on these or not, as they tend to keep to the massive developments.
*not real
@alonso wrote:
5 million cyber euros*
😀
Further developments on this – it got a reasonably good airing on liveline yesterday]http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/[/url]
Aside from that the Evening Herald also had a piece the day before yesterday, by a Kevin Doyle on top of page 11. Suffice to say, unless I am mistaken, basic information was wrong such as “If city planners do approve the boards, it will cost an individual €1400 to object to an individual sign or €98000 to object to all 70” :confused: :rolleyes: .
Cllr Andrew Montague stated “This council has very little ways of raising money other than raising rates, which we dont want to do” adding “this is a good way to raise money”.
No Cllr Montague this is not a good way to rasie money, as DCC will have a lot less cash if there is a rate strike arising from this.
City Manager John Tierney said: “Irrespective of where we put these signs there is going to be a level of concern or dispute as to why its that location.” – which pretty much to me dodges the question and says “lump yez”.
Show us the criteria used for site location Mr Tierney. 😡
Where’s the Irish Times in covering this???
Signed off by OC of the Popular Front of Judea
Locations include
The public footpath at the junction of Andrew Street, Church Lane and Suffolk Street, Dublin 2 in front of the ‘Dublin Tourism Centre’, Suffolk Street.
Western side of the public footpath of Rathmines Road. The unit will be posistioned in the median opposite no. 302, (Boots) Rathmines Road Lower, Dublin 6.
The footpath on the eastern side of Camden Street Lower, Dublin 2 in front of nos. 1-3 Camden Street Lower
On the western side of Liffey Street Upper, on the public footpath outside ‘Outdoor Adventure Store’ 34/35, Liffey Street Upper, Dublin 1
The public footpath on the northern side of Abbey Street Middle outside Independant House, Dublin 1.
The public footpath on the Western side of O’connell Street Lower, Dublin 1, immediately to the south of the junction with Abbey Street Middle and to the front of nos. 46 – 48 (‘Supermacs and Schuh’)
Eastern side of the public footpath on O’Connell Street Upper, adjacent number 10 (Burger King / Pulan Pinang) and number 11A (Peter Mark), O’connell Street Upper, Dublin 1
The public footpath on the southern side of Abbey Street Lower adjacent to the Abbey Theatre Dublin 1.
The footpath at the junction of William Street South, Stephen Street Lower and Johnson Place, Dublin 2. The unit will be positioned on the public footpath in front of no 38, William Street South (South William Street Pharmacy) and west of Clarendon Market
The footpath on the northern side of King Street South, Dublin 2, immediately to the east of the junction with Clarendon Row, opposite St Stephens Green Shopping Centre and to the south of the site of the Former Eircom Building.
throughfare at junction of Henry Street & Moore Street, Dublin 1 adjacent to no’s 43-42 Henry Street (Evans)
Eastern side of footpath outside, 23 O’ Connell Street Upper (Gresham Hotel), South Of The Junction Of O’Connell Street Upper And Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin 1
The public footpath on the western side of Westmoreland Street, Dublin 2. The site is located adjacent to Nos. 1- 3, Westmoreland Street and the bank of Ireland to the west
The public thoroughfare at the eastern end of King Street South, Dublin 2 near the junction with Grafton Street and St Stephens Green. The site is located adjacent to ‘Bus Stop Newsagents’ to the North
Public Thoroughfare on eastern side, Of Grafton Street To Front Of 40 Grafton Street, Dublin 2
Public Footpath on eastern side of, O’ Connell Street Lower, Outside 9 O’ Connell Street Lower (Quinn Direct Insurance), Dublin 1
Public footpath on western side, Of O ‘ Connell Street Upper, Outside 62 O ‘ Connell Street Upper (McDonalds), Dublin 1
Eastern side of Liffey Street Upper, Arnotts Department Store At Junction Of, Liffey Street Upper And Proby’s Lane, Dublin 1
throughfare on northern side of Henry Street, adjacent to the entrance of Roches Stores & opposite Henry Street entrance to Arnotts Dublin 1
public throughfare on northern side of Henry Street adjacent to Marys Mall entrance to Ilac Centre opposite 31-32 Henry Street, Dublin 1
On the public footpath on the northern side of Beresford Place, Immediately adjacent Block 2 (OPW Valuations Office), Irish Life Centre, Beresford Place, Dublin 1 at the Junction with Abbey Street Lower.
Western side of public footpath on, O’ Connell Street Upper, Adjacent Former Carlton Cinema Site 50/51 O’Connell Street Upper, Dublin 1
Southern side of Blackberry Lane, Junction Of Blackberry Lane And Lwr Ratmines Road, Upositioned On Public Footpath Outside 41A Blackberry Lane, Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6
Public footpath on western side of area, Of Public Open Space Known As Smithfield Plaza, Immediately South Of Junction Of Blackhall Walk And Smithfield, Dublin 7
The Product
Permission for the erection of an advertising display unit on the site. The precise location of the unit is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the pavement in red paint. The overall area of the site is 0.295 m2. The development will consist of an internally illuminated, double sided, advertising display unit which shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static. The structure has an overall height of 2.596 metres and a width of 1.438 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 1.98m2.
Glorified metropoles at street level
@hutton wrote:
Where’s the Irish Times in covering this???
This question reminded me of the coverage given to the loopline ad coming down. Whilst this article may have been posted before I thought it might be useful to recap on where this whole thing has come from:
Quote:From the Irish Times Saturday April 15 2006Plan to halve number of large ad hoardings
Olivia KellyDublin City Council proposes to halve the number of large advertising hoardings in the city under new plans to regulate outdoor advertising.
The council is in the process of negotiating the contract for control of all future public space advertising with one of the world’s largest outdoor advertising companies, JC Decaux.
In return the company will provide a number of facilities, which the council calls “public realm enhancements”, including the long-awaited citywide public bike rental scheme, in a contract that could be worth €]
Yes! I knew I saw this somewhere – good work Phil. The whole point was to reduce all those nasty hoardings on the gables of buildings.
Hmm it sounds to me that the City need to undertake a bit of a public relations exercise. Not all of what is proposed here is bad but the way the scheme has been rolled out casing concern. I think they should have a public consulation and invite comments. For example will the provision of new signage replace all the crap thats there now, cant the City set up a trial bike stand to show what it will be like, and how about publishing an proper analysis of where all the metropoles will go so that we can at least see some proper planning of the scheme.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
