New Advertising in Dublin

Agreed. The idea of the bikes appeals to me in principle (though no vandal-proofing can prevent them being thrown into the canals or even having their wheels kicked in), but alarm bells started ringing when I heard about the public realm improvements. Seems like removing one form of clutter only to replace it with another form.
Does anyone know if there will be an advertising aspect to the new maps, signposts etc.? Presumably JC Decaux will need to make something from this arrangement.

@StephenC wrote:

If its the standard JC Decaux stuff then I imagine you will have a map on one face and adverts on another.

It seemed like that would be the format didn’t it?

There is quite alot of images and photographs etc etc on their web-pages:

My favourite was the ‘Tram Domination Pack’. It’s just such a subtle name 😀

http://www.jcdecaux.ie/luastramdominationpacks.htm

http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/city/

Slightly off-topic, but if the ‘Tram Domination Pack’ 😀 is designed to be a “Unique medium creating an impact on both passengers and pedestrians alike”, shouldn’t it require planning permission as it features in the public domain? As a cyclist/pedestrian, I see enough advertising as it is, 😡 and I believe plans to ‘adorn’ the exterior of Luas carriages with ads were recently dropped.

…well wait ’til you see the proposal being “negotiated” between the council and JCDecaux. 70 ten foot wide commercial advertising signs mounted on 6 foot poles are to be erected at “strategic” points on streets around the city. In addition there will be a large number of smaller advertising signs.

There are a number of disturbing aspects about this project. The most important is obviously the horrible aesthetic consequences. The second is the sneaky way that the proposal is being put through planning; 70 individual applications – thus potentially costing 1400 euro for an individual to object – lodged the week before Christmas, hoping that people wont have enough time to object. Even if only half of the signs fail in planning they will still have a terrible visual impact on the city – especially on streets which are already suffering with too much traffic. Another disturbing aspect is that the council are complicit in this vandalism; in exchange for allowing these signs the company will install some sort of bicycle rental stations. To me this represents the worst kind of shallow environmental tokenism; I wonder how many Dubliners are dying to cycle around the place but simply can’t afford the likes of the 100 euro Lidl bike I use? However the idea of this failed european experiment in bicycles for the masses is probably marxist enough to have the support of the environmental lobby. If the experiment fails (which it will) we’ll be stuck with these huge ads cluttering up the streets.

Sometimes I wonder whether the council have improved since the 60s.

“However the idea of this failed european experiment in bicycles for the masses is probably marxist enough to have the support of the environmental lobby”

Have you been to Holland or Germany much and if you did, tell me what you saw to think this?

Yes, I’ve been to Holland and Germany many, many times. Thankfully in this day and age, with universal access to information, I do not have to personally conduct an investigation into each such scheme nor record my experiences of such schemes in order to have an opinion. If you are really interested, try google or wikipedia for a summary of the failures (and successes) of such schemes. In summary, the cost of maintanance per bike in large cities has been proven to be unsustainable. Thus DCC’s plan to pawn our streetscape vistas for advertising in order to support this scheme.

The only thing going for such schemes is a weird sort of commie/hippy appeal as there are simply no other tangible benefits. You can buy a new bike and lock for less that the cost of maintaining one of these rental bikes for a single year. I know of nobody who would like to cycle around the city but cannot afford a bike so these schemes are a solution to a non-existing problem. On the off chance that someone tries cycling because of the availability of these bikes, the unpleasant experience of cycling in the city is likely to turn them off forever. If DCC were serious about encouraging cycling in the city then they could start to do something to improve the cycling environment. Unfortunately this would be a mildly challenging task. It’s much easier to engage in shallow tokenism: prostitute the aesthetics of the city, have a few special bike racks installed around the place with 50 yellow bikes and then line up for the photo ops, the special features with a credulous media (I can imagine the introduction to the feature on the RTE news) and pat each other in the back while the bikes get thrown in the Liffey and cycling in Dublin remains a mode for the brave and the bold.

I agree that most of the bikes will end up in the City’s rivers and canals where they will join the shopping trolleys and traffic cones as there are large numbers of people in both Ireland and the UK who exhibit very public displays of anti-social tendencies such as this.

I think that this decision needs to be revisited as once these kiosks go in they will never come out as their income stream gets paired off against a popular public programme such as a parks or libraries sub-programme. There is further little evidence that commuters on the brink of investing in a bike will be swayed by this measure to take to two wheels.

There are two methods that would encourage much greater cycling numbers, firstly to restrict cars in much of the city centre and secondly to give tax relief for the purchase of bicyles and accessoories in much the same way as is given to the sale of annual rail cards. Financial enducement and a safe commuting environment work everywhere which does not take astro-physical calculations to deduce.

In relation to advertising; I like the French round kiosk idea as the width never exceeds 1m which combined with their semi-tacky replica cast iron fittings gives them an air of innocuos respectability.

Journeyman Pictures have an online video report on the Lyon experience:

Cycling City

‘In Lyon, an intriguing collaboration between private enterprise and the city council has slashed car usage and improved residents’ health. Now, there are plans to introduce the scheme in other cities.

Using a prepaid card, residents can rent city bikes for free for the first half hour. The scheme is funded by advertising company, JC Decaux, in exchange for exclusive access to the city’s public billboards. “We had to offer 2,000 bicycles, 200 bike stations, a server and all the maintenance”, explains a JC Decaux spokesman. “But if our calculations are correct, advertising revenues will be about the same as expenses for the bike scheme.” As scheme designer, Jacques Le Gars, predicts: “In five years time, it’ll be common to see this kind of program in most major cities throughout the world.”’

11 Min documentary video on Lyons experience here –

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7509568322806821099

(It plays in window when opened, and does not need to be downloaded)

I have found the “Litfass columns” that you see all over Germany to be unobtrusive. In some cases they are used as air vents for underground rail lines. In other cases there are plants (intentionally) growing on top of them so that, if looked at from an upstairs floor of a building, they add to the general greenery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Litfa%C3%9F

There is indeed something essentially “civilized” about the JC Decaux Lyon project and indeed the Litfuss columns throughout Grosser Europa.

Both of the items are most assuredly used in the “Common Good” throughout the Cities where they are used.
However,our deep rooted cultural animosity to anything which smacks of Commonality will as ever serve to stunt these plans.
This is why our “Public Open Spaces” fill up with burnt out stolen cars.
Our Bus Shelters are reduced to useless metal framed skeletons (Checkout the sad Supershelter on the N11 Stillorgan Road St Lauence`s Park)
Our Public Phone Kiosks/Pillars stand wireless and useless.
I would suggest that JCD take another look at Dublin before providing more metallic infill for the Canals. 😡

I just lodged a ‘comment’ on the application for some sort of double-sided visual ‘Metropole’ advertising structure nonsense in the middle of the path at Newcomen Bridge on the North Strand.

How likely is it that an individual will have any effect?

**edit** just got my official notification that they received my comment.
The stated size of this thing (which they propose putting in the middle of a footpath that already is an ‘unofficial’ cyclepath) is 4.85 metres high and 3.48metres wide – are they having a laugh – really??? In the middle of a footpath??

Here are the planned locations for these monstrosities.

Note how they are in areas of high rented and public housing – someone knew well how to play the planning numbers game, in terms of which communities would generate most objections – not ONE on the long leafy Howth Road? I wonder why not.:rolleyes:

6764/06 Site bounded by River Road &Tolka Valley, To North, Ashtown Road To West, Pelletstown Village Centre To South & Undeveloped Lands To East, Within Scheme Known As Pelletstown, Ashtown, Dublin 15

6765/06 On grass verge to front of ‘Trans Tyres’, On Southern Side Of Crumlin Road, Adjacent Junction Of Crumlin Road, Kildare Road & St. Mary’s Road, Dublin 12

6766/06 Footpath on eastern side of Drumcondra Road Upper, At Junction With Clonturk Park, To Front Of 24 Drumcondra Road Upper, Dublin 9

6767/06 Footpath on southern side of Summerville, Adjacent To 67-84 Mountain View Court (under reconstruction), Summerville, Dublin 1 (presumably this should say Summerhill, but why bother even getting the name of the place right…it’s just a site for adverts).

6768/06 Footpath on southern side of North Strand Road, To West Of Newcomen Bridge, Adjacent To Junction Of North Strand Road, & Guildford Place, Dublin 3

6769/06 Footpath on southern side of N32, Adjacent To Darndale Park, Outside Woodview House, Belcamp, Dublin 17

6770/06 The public footpath on the eastern side of Swords Road, Dublin 9 to the front of Plunkett College school grounds opposite the junction with Seven Oaks in close proximity to the Regency Hotel.

6771/06 The public footpath on the eastern side of Swords Road, Dublin 9 south of the access to Plunkett College and opposite Highfield Hospital. The precise location of the site is marked by an X in a circle directly onto the pavement in red paint

6772/06 Site located on the public footpath at the junction of Sheriff Street Upper and New Wapping Street, immediately to the front of 165-182 Sheriff Street Upper, Dublin 1

6773/06 The grass verge adjacent to the public footpath on the northern side of the Long Mile Road, Dublin 12. The site is located on the western side of the entrance to Finches Industrial Park and to the front of a Nissan Ireland car garage.

6774/06 A site located on the public footpath on the northern side of East Wall Road adjacent to the former “Tucks Fasten Site” and opposite Cahills Printers, East Wall Road, Dublin 3

6775/06 The grass verge on the western side of Malahide Road, Dublin 5 to the north of St Brendan’s Church. The site is located to the rear of no. 23 Beechpark Court to the west and opposite no’s 55 – 56, Saint Brendan’s Avenue to the east.

6776/06 The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 approaching the Blunden Drive / Priorswood Road Roundabout. The site is located to the front of McDonalds and North of the entrance to Coolock Retail park.

6777/06 A site located on the public footpath to the Northern side of the junction of Ryders Row and Parnell Street, Dublin 1

6778/06 site located on public footpath, Adjacent To 1 – 50 Sheridan Court, On The Southern Side Of Dorset Street Upper, At The Junction With Bethesda Place, Dublin 1

6779/06 Site located on the footpath on, Eastern Side Of East Wall Road, Adjacent To The P & O Terminal, And West Of The Point Depot, On East Wall Road, Dublin 1

6780/06 site located on the public footpath, At The Junction Of Seville Place, Guild Street And Sheriff Street Upper, Dublin 1

6781/06 a site located on the public footpath, Where Church Street Upper Meets Coleraine Street, Dublin 7

6782/06 Public footpath outside In-House at the Panelling Centre on the southern side of the Long Mile Road, Dublin 12, west of the access to Walkinstown Parade and east of the junction with Walkinstown Avenue

6783/06 The grass verge adjacent to the public footpath outside Power City on the southern side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17

6784/06 A site located on the public footpath on the western side of Ballybough Road, just north of the railway bridge, Ballybough Road, Dublin 3. The precise location of the site is marked by an X in a circle directly onto the pavement in red paint

6785/06 Site located on the public footpath adjacent to 1-30 Kevin Barry Flats to the east of the junction of King Street North and Church Street, Dublin 7. The precise location of the site is marked by an X in a circle directly onto the pavement in red paint.

6786/06 The public footpath on the eastern side of the Finglas Road, Dublin 11, opposite the junction with Ballybogan Road. The site is located to the north of a small utility structure and to the south of the former site of the Royal Oak Pub.

6787/06 the public footpath on the eastern side of the Ballymun Road, Dublin 9, approaching the junction with Glasnevin Ave and Collins Ave Extension, in front of the Stormanstown House.

6788/06 on the public footpath immediately to the south of the entrance to the office of Transroute Tunnel Operations on East Wall Road, Dublin 3 opposite St Joseph’s Primary School, to the west.

6789/06 on the public footpath on the eastern side of Langrishe Place and Summerhill, Dublin 1. Opposite the IDA Business Centre to the south west and adjacent to 1 Langrishe Place to the north.

6790/06 The public footpath outside Karls Furniture, at the junction of Kylemore Park South and Kylemore Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10.

6791/06 Footpath on eastern side of junction of, Bolton Street And Capel Street, Dublin 1

6792/06 Footpath on northern side of, Navan Road, Adjacent To Entrance To, Cabra Garda Station, Dublin 7

6793/06 Footpath on western side of North Road, Opposite ‘Noyeks Newmans’ & Adjacent To Area Of Open Space, Dublin 11

6794/06 An area of open space between, 24 & 34 Naas Road, Adjacent To Boundary Wall With Footpath, Dublin 12

6795/06 Grass verge adjacent public footpath, On Southern Side Of Navan Road, Opposite 249 Navan Road To North & Adjacent, Belvedere College Sports Ground To South, Dublin 7

6796/06 Footpath outside ‘Costello Doors’ on Kylemore Road, Opposite Entrance To Westlink Industrial Estate, Dublin 10

6797/06 The public footpath on the southern side of the N32, Dublin 17 approaching the junction with Clonshaugh Road. The site is located opposite ‘Craobh Chiarain Sports ground’ to the North and adjacent to ‘Belcamp Park’ to the South.

6798/06 On the grass area adjacent to the public footpath at the northern side of the junction of Finglas Road and Old Finglas Road, Dublin 11

6799/06 The public footpath on the southerm side of Pearse Street, Dublin 2 adjacent to Trinity College Enterprise Centre beside the junction with Macken Street.

6800/06 The public footpath to the west of the access to the City Junction Businesss Park, on the northern side of the N32, Outside Bewleys, Clare Hall, Dublin 17

6801/06 The public footpath adjacent to the front of Whitehall Church Car park, on the eastern side of the Swords Road, Dublin 9.

6802/06 The public footpath adjacent to the IDA Business Centre to the east on Gardiner Street Lower, Dublin 1

6803/06 on a lay-by adjacent to grass verge on the eastern side of the Malahide Road, adjacent to 43-44, Saint Brendan’s Avenue, Dublin 5

6804/06 public footpath on the eastern side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 adjacent to the N32 Grange Road Roundabout, in front of Total Fitness Health Centre

6805/06 grass verge on the norther side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 adjacent to AKZO Nobel and opposite Burger King

6806/06 grass verge on the southern side of the Naas Road, Dublin 12, located to the front of Nissan Ireland and opposite Royal Liver Retail Park.

6807/06 Public footpath on the southern side of the Naas Road, Dublin 12, located in front of Citroen Cars (Gowan House) and opposite the Eircom Business Systems Building (LAN Communications).

6808/06 car parking bay adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of Macken Street, Dublin 2, adjacent to Trinity College Enterprise Centre to the east and opposite Conway Court (no’s. 1-30) to the west.

6809/06 grass verge adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of North Road (N2) Finglas, Dublin 11, approaching the roundabout at the junction with St. Margaret’s Road, adjacent to Lidl.

6810/06 Footpath on Finglas Road (N2), At Junction To Main Street, Finglas, Dublin 11

6811/06 The grass verge to the front to the, Front Of The Public Library On The Western Side Of, Ballymun Road, North Of Junction With Collins Ave, Dublin 11

6812/06 on the public footpath, On The Western Side Of Ballymun Road, After The Junction Of Ballymun Road And Balbutcher Lane, Dublin 11

6813/06 Public footpath on the southern side of, Richmond Road, Adjacent To The Stand Of Tolka Park Football Ground, Opposite Drumcondra Football Club, Dublin 3

6814/06 On grass verge on western side of East Link Toll Road, Approaching The East Link Toll Road/Sean Moore Road Roundabout at, Irishtown, Dublin 4

6815/06 on the public footpath, On The Eastern Of St Lukes Avenue, At The Junction Of St Lukes Avenue And The Coombe, Dublin 8

6816/06 On the grass verge on the eastern side of the East Link Toll Road approaching the East Link Toll Road / Sean Moore Road roundabout at Irishtown, Dublin 4

6817/06 On the central grass verge at the junction of Sean Moore Road and South Link Road, Irishtown, Dublin 4

6818/06 The public footpath on the southern side of the N32, on the west side of the entrance to St. Michaels House, Belcamp, Dublin 17

6819/06 The public footpath, on the southern side of Marrowbone Lane, close to the junction of Marrowbone Lane and Summer Street South, Dublin 8

6820/06 On a car parking bay beside the public footpath, adjacent to the Failte Ireland building, on the eastern side of Amiens Street, Dublin 1

6821/06 on the public footpath on the, Southern Side Cork Street Outside Donnelly Centre, And Opposite 113 Cork Street, Dublin 8

6822/06 The grass area on the fraffic median, At The Entrance To Goldenbridge Industrial Estate, Tyrconnell Road, Opposite Church Of Mary Immaculate, Dublin 8

6823/06 Public Footpath on Sean Moore Road, At The Junction With Bremen Road,

6824/06 Public footpath on the southern side of, Finglas Road To The West Of The Junction With, Tower View Cottages, Opposite Prospect (Glasnevin), Dublin 9

6825/06 On the public footpath on the northern side of Dean Street, near the Junction with Patrick Street, outside ‘Ovenden House’, Dublin 8

6826/06 The public footpath on the northern side of the Naas Road, Dublin 12, adjacent to the junction with La Touche Road. The site is located adjacent to no. 118 Naas Road and opposite the Bluebell LUAS stop.

6827/06 The public footpath to the front of the office of ‘John Feaheny & Company’, at Zhivago’s Corner, the junction of Ryder’s Row and Loftus Lane, Dublin 1

6828/06 grass verge adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of Ballymun Road adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to Albert College Grove, Dublin 9 and opposite the junction with St. Pappin’s Road

6829/06 Adjacent to the public footpath on the southern side of Clontarf Road, Dublin 3 west of the junction with Alfie Byrne Road and to the east of the access to the public car park

6830/06 public footpath on the southern side of Crumlin Road, Dublin 12 opposite Crumlin Shopping Centre to the front of a green area beside the Eastern Health Board Building.

6831/06 Southern side of Fairview Strand on the grass verge on the western side of the entrance to Fairview Park, Dublin 3

6832/06 Public footpath outside, 80, North Strand Road, Dublin 3

The problem, as I see it, is that Dublin remains a very dangerous place to cycle in.

OK, we do have a few extra cycle lanes here and there but they don’t really make it into the city centre where cyclists regularly have to mix with articulated trucks and double decker busses.

Cars regularly swirve into cycle lanes too which is totally unacceptable driver behaviour.

E.g. I was nearly killed near UCD on a cycle lane. A car was turning right and the car behind him decided to blindly swirve around him crossing onto the cycle lane.

I can’t understand why cycle lanes must be on roadways, why can’t they take over part of the wide pavements? They should be properly segregated from traffic, like pavements are.

I’m not sure that encouraging inexperienced people to cycle in that environment is particularly helpful to be honest.

i’d love to see each of the applications for the signage hit with a request for add info including 3d images of each of the proposals.

Im quite supportive of these. They are in most other cities I have been in and seem to work fine. They should also lead to two positive developments – a reduction in billboards and an improvement in the provision of maps and tourist information (at least that is how I understood it – although we can’t always believe what we hear!)

What exactly would be the point of putting maps and tourist information on the back of 10 foot wide advertising boards which are monted 6 or 8 feet above the ground? You’d have to hand out free periscopes in the airport to arriving tourists. The size, design and locations of these advertising boards make it very clear that they are designed to target people in motorised vehicles and not strolling tourists. In this respect, I wouldn’t have a huge problem if they were confined to the dual carraigeways – like the N2 or the Malahide Rd, for example – which are already effectively dedicated to motorised traffic anyway and where they wouldn’t take up valuable street or footpath space and wouldn’t compete visually with the built heritage of Dublin. However have a look at the list of locations; they include very central areas close to historic buildings and in places where pedestrians and cyclists are currently in (losing) competition with motorised traffic. These advertising boards reinforce the idea that the primary purpose of places like Dorset St or Parnell St, for example, are to facilitate motorised traffic.

Also, there is something cynical about the locations chosen for these ads; they’re all are in less “posh” areas where I assume JCDeuax imagine that the locals are unlikely to object. There are none planned for places like Donnybrook or Ballsbridge, for example, but plenty for all the northside traffic routes into the city.

I don’t buy the argument that it will reduce billboard advertising. The amount of billboard advertising has, through deliberate council policy, been slowly reduced almost to insignificance over the last 10 or 15 years with notable successes like clearing the loopline bridge. At a stroke, this will effectively reverse this slow and carefully executed policy. The fact that the boards are mounted on two stainless steel poles instead of on the sides of buildings doesn’t strike me as being hugely significant.

@jimg wrote:

The fact that the boards are mounted on two stainless steel poles instead of on the sides of buildings doesn’t strike me as being hugely significant.

Well this is it isn’t it – all they are is a smaller version of the same. Indeed there’s many existing examples of similar size already attached to buildings about the city, just not mounted on brushed steel poles or whatever.

In fairness, many of the locations are semi-industrial or flank major road arteries (as distinct from streets), where well-designed and less intrusively scaled boards will be an improvement over existing stock, and I would also welcome the move away from building-mounted hoarding which permits advertising to permeate the streetscape in an ugly and sneaky manner. Saying that, I’d hope that these proposed developments are replacement structures for the most part and not additional blights on the city.

As mentioned, it’s very sad to note that so much of the north inner city is deemed ‘suitable’ for this type of development, and relative to the southside is probably the case – an indication as to just how much it’s been allowed degenerate over the years. The only southside street of note to be affected is Pearse Street, which lets face it has its heart on the northside anyway, and the traffic volumes headed in that direction to boot.

As an exercise I’ve analysed the distribution of the location of these things using newgrange’s list. Here are the numbers per postcode:

• 11 – Dublin 1
• 8 – Dublin 3
• 8 – Dublin 17
• 8 – Dublin 12
• 7 – Dublin 9
• 7 – Dublin 11
• 5 – Dublin 8
• 4 – Dublin 7
• 4 – Dublin 4
• 2 – Dublin 5
• 2 – Dublin 2
• 2 – Dublin 10
• 1 – Dublin 15

70% of them are in the northside, which is striking. It is disappointing as areas like Dorset St, Bolton St. and Parnell St. are very central. All 19 of the Dublin 1 and 3 ones are in built-up city areas but near “high rented and public housing” as newgrange observed. The Dublin 5 and 7 ones are a mixed bag – about half are objectionable in my opinion. At least in the outer postcodes, like Dublin 17, the locations are “semi-industrial or flank major road arteries (as distinct from streets)” as Graham describes it.

On the southside, Dublin 12 predominates but the locations are semi-industrial and so are not objectionable. 3 of the ones in Dublin 8 would also (arguably fall into this category). Of course the Dublin 4 ones are not anywhere near Donnybrook but around Irishtown but they’re mostly near the east link bridge so again might be excused. The two in Dublin 2 are on Pearse St (near Maken Street) which certainly wont improve this section of street. The two in Dublin 10 are on the Kylemore Rd – without knowing the exact locations, I’d say fair enough.

Just over 80% of them are positioned on “public footpaths” and so will impede and take away space from pedestrians. A retrograde step surely which contradicts the councils own planning goals I imagine?

Many of the sites are “clustered” – i.e. two or three very near each other or just across the street or on different corners. I can only assume that this is tactical – even if half of the sites are successfully objected to, they will still get the “coverage” they are seeking. It’s like applying to build a 10 story building knowing that they’ll lop off 2 when you wanted to build an 8 story to begin with.

Don’t mean to sound NIMBY-ish, but this is totally unfair. No fewer than five of these yokes will be a stone’s throw from me in D9. More than twice what some entire postcodes are getting. Travelling in on the Swords road, you’ll get three in rapid succession on the same side of the road as you come through Whitehall.
This will visually reinforce the slicing-through effect the road has on what is a long-established residential area. And another two back on the Ballymun Road.

@jimg wrote:

What exactly would be the point of putting maps and tourist information on the back of 10 foot wide advertising boards which are monted 6 or 8 feet above the ground? You’d have to hand out free periscopes in the airport to arriving tourists. The size, design and locations of these advertising boards make it very clear that they are designed to target people in motorised vehicles and not strolling tourists. In this respect, I wouldn’t have a huge problem if they were confined to the dual carraigeways – like the N2 or the Malahide Rd, for example – which are already effectively dedicated to motorised traffic anyway and where they wouldn’t take up valuable street or footpath space and wouldn’t compete visually with the built heritage of Dublin. However have a look at the list of locations]There are none planned for places like Donnybrook or Ballsbridge, for example, but plenty for all the northside traffic routes into the city.[/I]

I don’t buy the argument that it will reduce billboard advertising. The amount of billboard advertising has, through deliberate council policy, been slowly reduced almost to insignificance over the last 10 or 15 years with notable successes like clearing the loopline bridge. At a stroke, this will effectively reverse this slow and carefully executed policy. The fact that the boards are mounted on two stainless steel poles instead of on the sides of buildings doesn’t strike me as being hugely significant.

Initially I was very sympathetic to this scheme, however I am gravely disappointed by:

1) The disproportionate amount of these being located in the lower income areas; why arent there more in leafy red brick areas if theyre such a good idea – Ailsbury Road strikes me as an excellent place for example, being an access point to RTE, having plenty of public domain space, and also being a perfect cycle distance from the city-centre. Equally none in Ranelagh or Rathmines – very odd again, given the amount of students/ potential users…. As stands this scheme would actually further exaserbate social exclusion – poor areas get one form of provision, while well-off areas are obviously well-enough off that they dont need to cycle; a poor mans transport 😮 🙁 😡

2) As noted earlier, this project is being applied for by means of multiple symultaneos applications – this imo amounts to project splitting, which for a local authority to be party to is a complete disgrace. There is no point objecting to a singular stand, given the critical mass of the scheme and given that they are located in clusters; by my calculation it would take €1380 to object to the project on the basis of 69 x €20.

Finally as already noted, there is nothing to suggest that it will lead to a reduction of advertising – on the contrary this disgraceful scheme can only now be interpreted as a trojan horse for further advertising.

As a result I am now going to actively lobby councillors to over-turn this by whatever means necessary, be that section 140s or whatever… If anybody else pursues this by appeal to BP, I would also be perfectly happy to provide a supporting letter if that can be of help.

This is a scandal; feck off DCC with your tacky shite until youre prepared to also put it in the ABC1 areas 😡

I wonder what way the siting of these are being handled in Paris…

Paris to get 14,000 free bikes

Outdoor advertising firm JCDecaux has won the contract to supply Paris with bikes for a new and free city-wide bicycle hire service. The company already operates Cyclocity pay-per-ride cycle hire schemes in Lyon and Brussels

The contract with Paris City Hall will see JCDecaux’s Somupi unit establish a free bicycle hire service with 14,100 bikes in place by the summer.

JCDecaux bit a rival bid from Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc. Clear Channel had formed a consortium with Electricite de France, France Telecom and Vinci Park.

JCDecaux operate Lyon’s successful Cyclocity rental scheme, a cycle hire service originally called Vélo’V and started in May 2005.

The Cyclocity bikes were ridden almost 12 million kms in 2006 – that’s 5,000 kms per bicycle. There were 5.5 million rentals during the year, an average of 15,000 rentals per day with peaks that exceeded 30,000 during exceptional events such as Lyon’s Festival of Music. ??Cyclocity schemes are also operated in Marseille, Aix en-Provence and Brussels.

Published Tuesday 30 January 2007

Hutton has been a busy bonehead probing this, and has made some very interesting findings:

1) The nasty advert plan is a stand-alone scheme. It has nothing to do with locations or anything else of the bike stands – it just happens that JC DeCeaux is the same “partner”.

2) Funding for the bike project was set aside specifically just over a year ago, and ergo is not reliant on the thrashy advert scheme.

3) The bike scheme will be provided at 25 stands – and is not related in siting to the 70 tacky adverts. This of course raises the bizarre prospect that the adverts would be dumped on the Inner city – while the potentially beneficial bike facilities may be located in, say, Donnybrook. How nice 😮

4) City Councillors were not aware of –

A – The disproportionate manner by which these are proposed for lower income areas, as opposed to Ranelagh Rathmines, Rathgar, or Donnybrook – I wonder why this shite wasnt proposed for such areas :rolleyes:

B – The manner by which these have been applied for – 70 separate applications – constitutes project splitting, and thus it is likely that DCC would be subject of a European complaint on the basis of lack of EIS, etc.

This Monday the councillors will be having their monthly meeting. I have spoken to a few representatives and so I am hoping that I have been of help to them and that they will now have a more informed perspective. If these yokes do get as far as getting permission, there is always the instrument at the disposal of councillors to pass a section 140, and thus kill this dead. In the meantime, I have asked them to look at suspending the scheme, pending a review by which the locations be re-assessed. I have also tipped off one or two journalist pals of the genral issues raised by this and that councilors are now looking at it.

Afterall, it is only equitable planning that we are looking for, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander – So if these yokes are perfectly acceptable, then they will be equally acceptable in the well-healed southside suberbs. If on the other hand, councillors find that this scheme was planned in an inequitable manner, then it should merit an internal investigation – and that could be very interesting 😉

Fellows – jimg, Newgrange et all, well done – your research and breakdowns has been particularily useful in informing our local representatives, and the process as a whole.

Here’s hoping to not having to resort to angle-grinders afterall! 🙂

Ooh- good work there sir. The more councillors who can be made aware of the nonsense of this scheme the better.

@hutton wrote:

Fellows – jimg, Newgrange et all, well done – your research and breakdowns has been particularily useful in informing our local representatives, and the process as a whole.

Seconded. Your input here, jimg and newgrange, proved most beneficial. I can assure you the work was used for the greater good of the city (I can say no more for now). So thanks for that.

Well suffice to say that the work of jimg and newgrange would have been of considerable assistance to anyone making a submission, observation or representation on this matter. 😉

@ctesiphon wrote:

Ooh- good work there sir. The more councillors who can be made aware of the nonsense of this scheme the better.
Seconded. Your input here, jimg and newgrange, proved most beneficial. I can assure you the work was used for the greater good of the city (I can say no more for now). So thanks for that.

Many thanks + like Stephen, I too am intrigued 🙂

Folks serious progress is being made on this. Tonight it was raised in the monthly DCC council meeting by the Vincent Jackson, under Lord Mayor’s business, and he is known for rarely allowing anything additional last minute. I understand that other councillors also raised it, stating their opposition. Aside from this it is my understanding that there are now senior officials, who now that theyre aware of this are not at all happy. Anyhow keep on the case and well done out there on the job thats getting done 🙂

BUT…

There are more applications in by JCDeCon:eek: :mad:!!!

A fresh appliication has been made for, wait for it, *builds suspense*; once again in Dublin 1 outside the Ilac Centre, at the top of Henry Street, with the date signed off as Jan 29 😡

The site notice is on a black lampost, giving the proposed site as opposite Golden Discs.I dont know if I am mistyping the details on the DCC online planning search, but I cannot find it on their site. :confused:
If anyone can find iit or better navigate the DCC website, Id be fierce grateful + they would be supercool 😎

However what I have been able to find on DCC site is a number of other new and reapplications as follows –

1084/07 Permission for advertisement structure Grass verge eastern side of Malahide Rd, South Of Blunden Drive/Priorswood Road Roundabout, Adjacent To The Rear Of 5 Ayrefield Drive, Site Located Opposite McDonalds, Dublin 17
1115/07 Permission for extension of footpath and advertisement structure car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1
1116/07 ‘Metropole’ double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the western side of Ballymun Road, after junction of Ballymun Road and Balbutcher Lane, Dublin 11
1119/07 ‘Metropole’ single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the lay-by adjacent to the grass verge on the eastern side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 5, adjacent to 43 – 44, Saint Brendan’s Avenue.
1120/07 ‘Metropole’ single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 approaching the Blunden Drive / Priorswood Road Roundabout. The site is located to the front of McDonalds and north of the entrance to Coolock Retail Park.
1122/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The public footpath on the western side of Swords Road, Dublin 9 to the front of Plunket College school grounds opposite the junction with Seven Oaks in close proximity to the Regency Hotel.
1123/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure A car parking bay adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of Macken Street, Dublin 2. The site is located adjacent to ‘Trinity College Enterprise Centre’ to the east and opposite Conway court (Nos 1-30) to the west.
1124/07 metropole single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the eastern side of St Lukes Avenue, at the junction of St Lukes Avenue and The Coombe, Dublin 8

In at least one of these instances – so far I havent had a chaance to go thru comprehensively – it is a reapplication after being declared invalid, that being at Amiiens St – and so results in a fresh pp application. Do we know of any more other than these? Or any new locations? (Im open to correction, but for example it is my understanding that the Ilac application is a new location).

The whole scheme is a total disgrace. I hope once the matter breaks and becomes public knowledge that all political parties make sure they never use JCdeCon

Im pasting a development description underneath, just to remind people of what is to be dropped on the city at dozens of locations:

“Full Development Description
The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2.”

And remind me again what public consultation about this program? Like WTF.

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…?

There was a bit about this on Morning Ireland today. Councillor Emer Costello spoke out against the disproportionate numbers of them on the northside. Otherwise, details were sketchy and the thrust of it seemed to be “we’re all getting free bikes but we might have to put up with a few ads to fund it”.

Heard it alright. Seemed to get the basics right, but focussed almost exclusively on the visual clutter / intrusion aspect of the metropoles, ignoring the traffic safety aspect. At the outset, there was a comment to the effect that the sites were chosen so as not to distract drivers (criteria, people?) and then the discussion moved on. I think more attention should have been paid to the fact that-
a) these are located at junctions (5 No. at the Bolton / Capel junction alone),
b) their express purpose, as advertising boards, is to catch the eye, and
c) they will be internally illuminated.

Can you imagine the effect that an internally-illuminated, 7 sq.m., double-sided advertising board showing a scantily clad model will have on a worker driving home after 10 hours on a wet November evening?
Cyclist? What cyclist? G-d I didn’t even see him! I’m so sorry. I was just looking at…

Not that I’m downplaying the visual clutter aspect, but the traffic hazard is surely key to this. Or has DCC no objection to having blood on its hands? Sure, it’s only a few drops…

I just noticed the “double-sided” bit. Does this mean they’ll be perpendicular to the traffic?

Exactly. On the footpath and perpendicular to the direction of the traffic. They are designed to catch the eyes of motorists.

Of the original total, fewer than 10 were single-sided, and these only at points where the back would be invisible anyway.

@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…?

On this Hutton would have liked to be wrong 🙁
But this monsterous scheme just gets worse and worse – more simultaneous applications 😡

However helpful fellow that I am, some more about the process by which this has come about. It was mentioned not at the planning or environment committeess, but at a road-safety sub-committee 😮

Now so far, in addition to criticisms already above, it is emerging that:

No section 183 motion has been passed at council – this is the part of the local government act relating to sale of council land, and is a reserved function, ie councillors have to have a vote. Strange that :rolleyes:

JCDecaux, their consultants RPS and the city officials involved should all interviewed – afterall they do have a right to their good name.

Now that it has been on Morning Ireland hopefully both the right authorities and the public will be better aware of this program that unchallenged would amount to a visual swindle 😡

One clarification might be in order here- I don’t think that we can attach any blame to the consultants on this one. It’s the nature of private sector planning work. Client comes to the boss with a job, boss passes it on to employee to do to the best of his/her ability- the opinions of the planner don’t really enter into it at all. It’s simply that the planner makes the case based on available policies and objectives of the relevant Development Plan and other documents.

We may as well blame whoever put up the site notices.;) (Quality notices too, by the looks of things.)

For the record, I don’t know the RPS planner involved, but I do have some experience of being held partly responsible for a scheme that I wouldn’t have chosen to work on in a million years. As I say, it’s the nature of the work.

The real issue here is the failure of the last three ministers for the environment to issue guidelines to local auhtorities in respect of Margot Walstroms reasoned opinion clarifying the regulation on project splitting.

I also agree on doing work that you don’t particularly like but is technically legal; it comes with the territory and the most you can do is put forward a number of options to your client and hope that they make a balanced decision. There is in this issue a large division between private space and public realm and it is up to the elected reps to look after the public interest.

FROM RTE: “JCDecaux in ‘free bicycles for ads’ offer: Cllr Emer Costello (Lab) is concerned about the 70 proposed billboards; Cllr Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) says the planning decision must be revisited”

Well worth a listen – coucillors state they were not properly informed of the scheme – except of the bikes aspect. FFS 😮 .

Oh good – the fridges at Capel Street bridge were criticised too, described as “monstrosities”!!

“DCC cannot be a council that litters its own constituency” – well done to Emer Costelloe 🙂

The more I hear about this the more apparent that there needs to be an investigation within DCC. Like WTF x 2 😮

Clicky linky to hear Morning Ireland clip:

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/

@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

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 politically motivated decision and had nothing to do with the built environment but in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable if not exemplary in the context of their peers.

@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

@PVC King wrote:

ITo lump DCC in with other councils that required Tribunal examination or were considered beyond redemption is simply not fair…in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable if not exemplary in the context of their peers.

Agreed, although there are some problems 🙂

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.

@alonso wrote:

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.

Well done alonso, the more word that gets out about this – the sooner the better…. it is a total scandal 😮 😡

Hutton has done his bit also and I can assure you that the story is moving very fast 😉

One other poiint is urban districts around the country now need to be ultra-vigilant to make sure that it doesnt happen to them.

Now lets start getting some answers –

Again well done all round 🙂 😎

H

@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

@alonso wrote:

I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie.

Any chance you could post a link to the politics.ie thread on here, alonso? Cheers.

@phil wrote:

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

OTM, phil. Sure why would the right hand need to know what the left hand is doing? Sure aren’t they different hands?!?!

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!

Link as sought – http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=16813

This must be one of the hottest threads in quite some time – 20 postings within a day. Well done StephenC – the timing in talking to councillors could not have been better, partcularily as it has only just become apparent at what exactly is being proposed.

I shudder to think as to what the consequences might have been had it not made it onto the DCC agenda 😮 😮

@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!

I have done a little research in to this and JC Deceaux are not the only providers in this field elsewhere

I have obtained the revenue streams usually payable in such situations; Hutton find out how much they are paying DCC and send me a pm as if my suspicions that the sums payable are meagre by international comparison then the lected reps will want to know why proper research was not conducted into the income potential and why it was not tendered as a 70 site contract should have been under EU law ; I think that in some locations bus-shelter scale posters could be a very good source of revenue for the council to fund libraries etc. But Grafton Street and other important city centre locations cannot suffer this proposal.

My rationale on this is that the line has been spun that this is a new and innovative product; it isn’t it has been around for years but most cities have refused it on the grounds of visual amenity. The advice I have received is that demand is led more so by footfall than traffic but that junctions which experience congestion are also sought after. There are no examples of this that I have heard of at a height of less than 2.5m from the ground. The technology is going to LED and that they are banned outright in all conservation areas.

@lostexpectation wrote:

these metropoles having nothing to with the bike funding ads right?

Aha thats the very root of the confusion, lostexpectation – see the original post, and then see what I found out and posted on Friday.

It was councillors understanding that the advert aspect was only going to be a small part of the bike scheme]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7509568322806821099&q=journeyman+bicycles+is%3Afree+genre%3ADOCUMENTARY[/url]

@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).

hutton could you clarify how the 25 bicycle stands are to be funded, if this 70-strong advertising scheme is unrelated? You note that “funding for the bike project was set aside specifically just over a year ago”, and is unconnected with this current project – in which case how/who is paying for the cycling scheme? Thanks.

Yes I noted the Grafton Street application today in disbelief, given the context of the recently drafted Area of Special Planning Control, and ACA. Reading through the former document (which is even more comprehensive than its northside equivalent), it would leave any reasonably-minded person incredulous as to the brazenly two-faced stance being adopted here by DCC – on the one hand rejecting outright any attempts by retailers and property owners to advertise in a format anything other than discreet, highly self-contained International Post-modern Uber Chic (TM), including an unfavourable outlook on ‘internally illuminated signs including box signs [or] illuminated scrolling signs”, and reels and reels of stipulations regarding other forms of advertising structures, and yet on the other hand are willing to bend the rules to suit their own cash cow development, in a much more exposed location in the middle of the public domain! And, as it happens, near the entrance to the southern end of the street, the very part of the thoroughfare of critical importance in generating first impressions!

Just related to this scheme, people may have noticed that many of the planning notice signs about the city are mounted on brand new aluminium boards and clamped over with polycarbonate screens – a very recent innovation.

They’re made, erected and maintained by a service provider by the name of Site Notices Ireland: you select how often (if at all) your notice is maintained, even up to daily, so it’s no wonder they came in handy with this advertising scheme, with the notices being erected in highly vulnerable areas.

Here’s their site – a single notice erected and maintained once a week costs €410, with costs decreasing per additional sign. An example of a current private property use is the Georgian building next to Merchant’s Arch, another highly trafficked location, which is currently seeking to restore the facade and granite steps.

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 😡

It does such as:

Did the City’s elected councillors sanction disposal of 120 prime sites for commercial purposes?

What return are DCC receiving for this?

Was the conservation officer consulted?

Was this project tendered?

Was this project entered in the EU tender journal?

What term is this arrangement for?

Were the relevant stakeholders consulted?

What independent analysis of the transaction was undertaken?

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.

I am not so sure that any council official would have the ability to grant lanowners consent for a third party to make an application for municipal planning consent without authorisation from the elected councillors as such consent is in itself a ‘ legal interest’ which is generally accompanied by a premium.

All applications should therefore be declared invalid on the basis that landowners consent has not been granted

@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.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Yours etc.,

The People’s Front of Judea.

Splitters!

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 😀

@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:

Surely it’s an improvement to see the giant hoardings go, but where’s the benefit in replacing them with a horde of little hoardings? Crap is still crap. Whether it’s one heap of 18 sq m crap or crap parceled out into 70 bitty .295 sq m pieces, I still don’t want it. If anything, dividing up the scheme as such only spreads the rubbish around. Great—instead of a heap of it all at once, we get the equivalent of Mars wrappers and crisp bags and Red Bull cans scattered throughout the city—where it won’t be so obtrusive!

OK JCD, try out the bike stands, go on and put up a silly ad or two if you must (ads or ‘civic information’ are the listed possibilities for ‘the product’… I wonder which will win out?), then leave the streets and public spaces alone. Please?

PS Unless by ‘heritage trail plaques’ you mean more cheap record albums plastered on walls around the city: ‘Bono bought sunglasses here in 1982.’ Because I think those would be really useful.

Call me innocent if you will but this type of company have been serial planning offenders for decades and their reward for saying that they will consider removing 50% of their illegal signs in mostly suburban locations is to allow them to errect 70 metropoles in key City Centre locations such as directly in front of the main tourist office in the city.

The majority of locations where metropoles are used elsewhere is generally in the carparks of retail parks and out of town shopping centres; they are also used on ring roads in places like Leeds and Birmingham where such fittings are of a specification that can survive a brick at 70mph the latest ones are also bullet proof. The entire idea of the signs being double sided with the local authority receiving one side is often a red herring as the council always gets the contraflow direction in such situations.

What are used in some cities to a good effect are the circular fittings that look like double height postboxes.

Zero tolerance is just not an Irish concept.

“the 48-sheets will disappear; they’re not a suitable type of advertising for the city and they’re not even very effective,”

DCC’s Ciaran McNamara comments on how existing ineffective sites will be superceded by better provision for the advertising industry.

The last couple of posts have been fairly informative and helpful – good work there PVC and Phil for further informing the debate.

A couple of anomilies seem too be appearing – Councillor Daithi Doolan yesterday said the city would benefit to the tune of €50 million – yet the Times article from last April gives €90 million as the figure. Very odd indeed :confused:

@PVC King wrote:

the latest ones are also bullet proof.

Oh good, I’ll get an opportunity to try out my new RPG so 😀

@StephenC wrote:

The whole point was to reduce all those nasty hoardings

I am afraid Im not convinced that this neccessarily is the case – existing billboards would go first and DCC would make sure to let us know of this…Instead of which it appears that the Lord Mayor was not aware of current scheme until this week. 😮

Separately I am getting the impression that the business community is not neccessaarily unanimous in backing this either.

@hutton wrote:

410 quid per notice????

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

Thats some wheeze! 😀

I meant to say something about this the other day, but it slipped my mind. It’s a bit off topic, but relevant to planning in general (and probably not worth a thread of its own).

Rather than being a ‘wheeze’, the service provided by such companies is of benefit to many involved in the planning process, whether architect, planner or developer (and the basic cost seems to be €135 for simple erection and removal, not €410). Site notice sabotage is a very real feature of planning, usually – but not always – in the more controversial or larger scale schemes. Most planners and a good number of architects that I know have had to re-submit applications because some local thought he could thwart the application by removing / vandalising a site notice (a bit like thinking the metropoles can be thwarted by arguing over land ownership, perhaps?;) ).

In addition, a simple calculation of the full costs of erecting a site notice might give a bigger answer than you’d expect- printing, laminating, other materials, mounting, visiting the site to erect the notice etc. Calculated at the hourly rate for an architect or planning consultant, it quickly adds up, and is hardly the best use of resources in an office. And that’s before you factor in the possibility of re-visiting the site to re-erect a notice, possibly more than once.

I don’t think the service is aimed at Mr and Mrs Byrne from Rialto who are building a 42 sq.m. kitchen extension. Any time I’ve used a service such as this, it’s been for larger scale projects. When we’re talking about multi-million euro projects for which the application fee alone is €38,000, a few hundred quid extra to safeguard the passage of the project must seem like a sound investment to a developer. Compare it to the additional interest that would be charged on a bank loan for development should a notice be sabotaged, and/or to the additional office costs incurred in preparing a re-submission, and it seems like a no brainer to me.

Anyway, I don’t want to be seen to be flag-waving for these providers. I’m just pointing out that it’s not the ‘wheeze’ it might first appear to be. Good luck to them, I say. Or to anyone else who might fancy their chances, for that matter- I look forward to seeing the ‘Bespoke site notices by Hutton, Esq.’ ad on a banner above any day now!:D

@ctesiphon wrote:

Most planners and a good number of architects that I know have had to re-submit applications because some local thought he could thwart the application by removing / vandalising a site notice

Maybe it is just an effort to stop their own workers from thinking that they are just more fly-posters and ripping them down 😉

@ctesiphon wrote:

I look forward to seeing the ‘Bespoke site notices by Hutton, Esq.’

😀

Great minds think alike I tell you CTEsiphon!

🙂

Just to clarify about Site Notices Ireland, it wasn’t the intention to snub them. They do offer a great service, especially for heavily trafficked areas, or for notices erected in the middle of the public domain like these advert ones are. And the display product they offer is robust and of good quality. As mentioned above, they also can prove invaluable to architects and developers – I imagine especially where updated apps are constantly being erected on large sites.

The basic weekly monitoring product (over the five weeks) as previously stated is still €410 – but yes, erection alone is €135.

Understood, Graham. It was more to hutton’s jokey ‘wheeze’ comment that my post was addressed. I just thought it was worth giving a brief, objective comment.

And also, to clarify- I wasn’t commenting on any single company, more the concept of such a service which, as you say, in many cases is invaluable.

Anyway… back to the issue at hand. As you were, folks. 🙂

Another day passes and where is the Irish Times in covering this, one of the most contentious planning issues in Dublin in recent years? Ah sure its only the capital city, and mostly on the northside :rolleyes:

Maybe it doesnt really happen for the IT if its not happening in Dun Laoghaire or Greystones… Or then again maybe it might ruffle a few feathers to actually analise what the city’s custodians are up to

Irish Times where are you in covering city issues???

From: http://www.bikebiz.com/14000-free-bike-contract-for-Paris-is-halted

An administrative court in Paris has suspended last week’s award of a bicycle-rental contract to outdoor advertising specialist JCDecaux. Rival bidder Clear Channel Communications of the US had filed a lawsuit, claiming ‘irregularities’ in the tendering process.

16:45, Feb 8th by Carlton Reid

JCDecaux’s Somupi unit was to establish a free bicycle hire service with 14,100 bikes in place by the summer.
Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc had formed a consortium with Electricite de France, France Telecom and Vinci Park.
JCDecaux operate Lyon’s successful Cyclocity rental scheme, a cycle hire service originally called Vélo’V and started in May 2005.
The Cyclocity bikes were ridden almost 12 million kms in 2006 – that’s 5,000 kms per bicycle. There were 5.5 million rentals during the year, an average of 15,000 rentals per day with peaks that exceeded 30,000 during exceptional events such as Lyon’s Festival of Music. Cyclocity schemes are also operated in Marseille, Aix en-Provence and Brussels.

Wow. I’ve been out of the country for the last two weeks and didn’t have time to check archiseek while away. I was almost expecting this thread to just wither away. What a change – I’m delighted! 🙂

I’m so relieved that this issue is receiving the critical attention that it deserves – not only here but politically and in the broader media.

Talk is relatively cheap – it’s easy to post moany messages on internet message boards; I’m a master at it. I’ve great admiration for the others who’ve made the far more significant effort to take this issue to the people who count like politicians and media workers. I just hope this horrible proposal will be defeated but at least the situation certainly looks a bit more optimistic than it did when I was packing my bags 15 days ago!

I will eat my hat if they site ‘bicycle stations’ in Sheriff Street and Summerhill.

These things do nothing more than make an advertising trail for the car owning middle classes that rips its way through areas where people actually live.

@StephenC wrote:

How original – a middle class vs working class slant to the whole debate.

You think the siting of these things is an accident?

Why do you think the Howth road in its entirety was overlooked?
A lovely road, ideal for bicycles I would have thought. Nice footpaths too.

@StephenC wrote:

How original – a middle class vs working class slant to the whole debate. Its true I have never seen a working class person (from Sheriff Street by the sounds of your post) driving a car – how novel would that be. And of course most working class people are also immune to advertising.

In fairness – one does occasionally find oneself driving through these areas en route to the Yacht club.

A ‘kerchief soaked in cologne is a reliable remedy in my experience.

I confess I haven’t seen the whole “package”. I’ve only seen the planning notices for the metropoles on the Swords Road, along with misleading tiny x’s on the footpath, which show the location of the ads, but not the extent to which they will jut across the pavement. I suspect few people realise they will have to walk , jog, drag their shopping or push their prams around these things as well as look at them sticking out at alarming right angles to the road.
If the package included bike stations in the same locations, you would at least feel there was an attempt at a quid pro quo to the local community. But where are these free bikes going to be? Killiney? Blackrock? Putting the shite on the northside and the trade-off on the southside should not be allowed in this day and age.

@publicrealm wrote:

In fairness – one does occasionally find oneself driving through these areas en route to the Yacht club.

Well-known Dun Laoghaire yottie approaches Howth YC for a post Regatta drink.
Security man on door – “Are yous members here?”
Dun Laoghaire yottie – “Certainly not!”
KB

Haha

I take it you are not a member of the National then.

There is however a correlation between areas that saw road widening in the 1960’s, errection of large numbers of social housing units and the busiest traffic arteries. In contrast similar areas in the more affluent areas tended to go into office use and have in latter times become conservation areas where such signage could only be considered totally inappropriate.

The market that JC Deceaux is after is purely based on traffic flows in such locations and pedestrian flows closer to the centre. Personally I would ben very happy to see some of these errected on locations like Cuffe St and the Median in Patrick St which regularly gridlock but are not a cycle or pedestrian friendly environment and only once the price is right and proper consultation has been undertaken to ensure that the areas these yokes go into are already a write off in aestetic terms.

What I don’t like are all the locations I listed previously.

Council swaps ad space for bikes, toilets
From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 14th February, 2007

Dublin City Council is to allow one of the world’s largest outdoor advertising companies to erect 120 permanent advertising panels across the city in exchange for 500 bicycles and four public toilets.

The bicycles are to be available for the public to rent, for a fee yet to be decided.

A multimillion euro contract signed with advertisers JC Decaux will see advertisement panels on O’Connell Street within six months. The council will receive no money from the advertising but in addition to the bicycles and toilets will get a number of signposts, freestanding maps and “heritage trail” posts.
Many of the advertising panels would be seven square metres (75sq ft) in size, but the majority would be two square metres. The smaller ones would be approximately the size of a bus shelter advertisement. Both structures would be freestanding, double-sided and illuminated.

The details of the contract have not been disclosed but it is estimated that the advertising space sold on the panels would be worth at least €1 million every year to JC Decaux.

Councillors reacted angrily to the scheme yesterday saying the city management was “selling the public footpath” and “almost prostituting itself” to the company.

The company has agreed to provide and maintain 500 “city bikes” at 25 locations around the city. People renting the bicycles would be able to collect them from and return them to any station. Users would have to register their details with the council and provide credit card details to prevent theft.

JC Decaux has run a similar scheme in Lyon in France.

The company plans to erect six of the two square metre panels on O’Connell Street and one on Grafton Street. The seven square metre panels will be located in areas such as Parnell Street, Capel Street and Church Street.

JC Decaux has applied to the council for planning permission for the sites for the 120 agreed structures. The company will pull out of the scheme if it does not get planning permission for 75 per cent of the panels. If it gets permission for less than 100 per cent of the panels, the number of “public realm enhancements” will be correspondingly reduced.

“We are selling the public footpath for 500 bikes and four public conveniences . . . Dublin City Council has been short-changed,” Labour Cllr Emer Costello said at a meeting on the issue yesterday.

Deputy Lord Mayor Aodh

In fairness to DCC none of their councilors have to the best of my knowledge been named by a tribunal as having done anything corrupt.

How has the position varied from €90m below

From the Irish Times Saturday April 15 2006

Plan to halve number of large ad hoardings
Olivia Kelly

Dublin City Council proposes to halve the number of large advertising hoardings in the city under new plans to regulate outdoor advertising.

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 €90 million to the council.

shrunk to €400k of bikes and public toilets and a few signposts in the space of 10 months?

Where are the specifics on the hoardings to be removed?

Why isn’t the full commercial potential being exploited from locations where there are no detrimental effects to urban amenity and used to fund the councils legal department to go after seriel planning law offenders?

its till very unclear if the bikes are directly connected to the new large signs?

@lostexpectation wrote:

its till very unclear if the bikes are directly connected to the new large signs?

The advertising hoards have nothing to do with the location of the bikes. From todays independent:

It’s city bikes for all – but they have to be recycled!

ON yer bike Dubs – but don’t forget to leave them back.

The 500 public bicycles which are to be located around Dublin are “virtually vandal proof” according to the City Council, in what surely smacks of “famous last words”.

Sceptics might fear that some less civic-minded Dubs may not be inclined to return the bikes, which will be emblazoned in Dublin colours.

There are fears the bicycles might suffer the same fate as that perennial urban unfortunate – the abandoned shopping trolley. However, each bike has an on-board computer to track its movement.

Their unique design ensures they cannot suffer punctures and there are no visible wires.

“The proposed Dublin City Bicycle is of a new generation and the result of over a decade of continuous and extensive investment,” says the council.

The bikes are to be located at 25 key locations such as St Stephen’s Green. They will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will be branded with the Dublin City Council logo.

They are being introduced across the city by one of the world’s largest outdoor advertising companies, JC Decaux, in exchange for permission to erect 120 permanent advertising billboards.

Over 60pc of the new advertising space will be dedicated to giving civic information to citizens and visitors to the capital.

Part of the deal involves the removal of 1,800 current billboards. The bicycles should be in place within the next six months, along with the new network of variable message electronic billboards.

Fine Gael Councillor Naoise O Muire said yesterday that criticism of the plan was unfair.

He said that the scheme had showed creativity and was a worthwhile step in the right direction.

Amsterdam pioneered the free bicycle system, but in Dublin there will be a small charge for their use.

Treacy Hogan

The usual hooray-for-everything, misleading piece by Hogan]does not [/U]involve the removal of 1,800 current billboards – but in fact only 25% of the billboards belonging to JCDecaux. There is going to be a lot more on this…

^^ Mmm Nice :rolleyes: Thats only one of the smaller ones btw – the so-called metro-poles are far larger + much more intrusive; in any event in Dublin the smaller ones are to be at ground level.

The more this saga goes on the worse it becomes –

Helpful place that the DCC website is, it provides the law as to how applications ought to be made when the LA is a direct beneficary:

“These are planning applications by internal departments in Dublin City Council, made under Part 8 of the Planning & Development Regulations 2001. Members of the public have 6 weeks from the date of lodgement of the application to make objections. There is no fee in this case. A recommendation is made by the Planning Department, and then listed on the Agenda for City Council meeting for approval by elected members, prior to commencement of development.“

So remind me again – no Part 8 and no section 183 by councilors disposing of public lands???

The public have been shafted by a sham proceess.

The difference between what I have displayed and what is proposed as that what I have displayed is that in Dublin what is displayed above will be a ground level and be far more instrusive and quite literally dierectly in your face.

Unlike their predecessors i.e. Adshell ads; the nighttime view above is exactly what will be repeated all over central dublin in Architectural Conservation Areas and other locations. These are not considered a runner at ground location anywhere else.

@hutton wrote:

^^

The more this saga goes on the worse it becomes –

Helpful place that the DCC website is, it provides the law as to how applications ought to be made when the LA is a direct beneficary:

“These are planning applications by internal departments in Dublin City Council, made under Part 8 of the Planning & Development Regulations 2001. Members of the public have 6 weeks from the date of lodgement of the application to make objections. There is no fee in this case. A recommendation is made by the Planning Department, and then listed on the Agenda for City Council meeting for approval by elected members, prior to commencement of development.“

So remind me again – no Part 8 and no section 183 by councilors disposing of public lands???

The public have been shafted by a sham proceess.

Hutton

The Part 8 procedure is intended for when the local authority carries out work (or has others carry it out on their behalf). The site notices would be erected by the local authority. I don’t think that is the case here? Extract from Regs below:

Notice of proposed development.

(a) give notice of proposed development in an approved newspaper, and
(b) erect or fix a site notice or site notices on the land on which the proposed development would be
situated.

I give up on the ‘disposal of public lands’ issue.

@publicrealm wrote:

Hutton

The Part 8 procedure is intended for when the local authority carries out work (or has others carry it out on their behalf). The site notices would be erected by the local authority. I don’t think that is the case here? Extract from Regs below:

Notice of proposed development.

81. (1) A local authority shall, in accordance with this article,&#8212]

I give up on the ‘disposal of public lands’ issue.

Fair enough; but do you not think that its a basic that one cannot be judge and jury in their own court – which is exactly how the council have so far acted?

Lets try and tease it out a bit more. If I am right above then the move is unconstitutional. It is my understanding that there is the precedent with the Devaney Gardens PPP redevelopment; in that case, as should be with any PPP, the application went straight to An Bord.

Publicrealm (apptly named 😀 ), can you or anyone else throw some further light on this? Ta in advance. 🙂

ps publicrealm this was the link that gave me that interpretaion of part 8 as quoted above: http://www.dublincity.ie/sitetools/faq/faq_planning/planning_-_local_authority_works_laws_.asp …or google it with this: What are Local Authority Works (LAWS)? #5762

@hutton wrote:

Fair enough]http://www.dublincity.ie/sitetools/faq/faq_planning/planning_-_local_authority_works_laws_.asp[/url] …or google it with this: What are Local Authority Works (LAWS)? #5762

Well, I do understand the anxiety about the issue and I fully agree that the ,em, publicrealm, is already cluttered and uncontrolled. Certainly the pictures posted earlier are pretty awful – but I hope DCC would not permit such things in Dublin. Has anyone an image from the applications (sorry if one has been posted and I missed it 😮 ). I have tried DCC online but the documents have not yet been uploaded.

I honestly don’t know if this is a PPP? If it is then I would expect that this should be explicitly stated in the applications. I expect it is more in the nature of the usual ‘horse trading’ that goes on – planning gain in exchange for favourable decisions. If it is a PPP then there would, in my view, be a case for DCC to answer.

Again I agree that multiple applications make it difficult to contest – but it would probably be impossible to lodge an omnibus application as it could not comply with the requirements of the Regulations (drawings, site location maps etc).

Re. what constitutes ‘Local Authority Works’ – this is set out in Part 8, Article 80 of the Regs; click on

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/fad163d4e576ac3a80256fa3003d0f77/$FILE/part08.pdf

I will have a look at one of the files next week.:)

The more this is teased out the more details missing from the public domain mount up;

Is this a straight disposal of land?

Is it a PPP?

What images have been submitted on these applications;

Looking at the application for Lower O’Connell Street <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1475/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1475/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=492612%26StartIndex=141%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek1%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results there is not a lot to on other than it will be over 8 feet tall and 4 feet wide.

We know that it will have a similiar visual appearance to:

But more critically this will be at ground level. Such locations completely trample all over the O’Connell Street IAP and for this to be actively supported by the City Council’s own planning department has been a shock to those of us who have a generally positive view of the DCC planning department.

Memo from JCDecaux:

Substitute ‘free bikes’ for ‘Trojan horse.’ Watch what happens.

@manifesta wrote:

Memo from JCDecaux:

Substitute ‘free bikes’ for ‘Trojan horse.’ Watch what happens.

😀

This is far nicer than what PVCKing shows :rolleyes:

“Fairview” – soon to be known as “Fuctview” if Ciaran MacNamara of DCC gets his way

Image courtesy of one of the 120 JCD applications; strangely not available on DCC website – so I thought I’d help them out 🙂

Now that’s reaaaaaaaal purdy….
God that’s intrusive and has to be a drivers distraction.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

God that’s intrusive and has to be a drivers distraction.

…which was the essence of the DTO’s submission, as I’ve subsequently discovered (Any sign of that €100, PVC King? :D).
And that’s before we get to the question of what they’ll look like at night, internally illuminated.

Could you post the link on that I would be interested to see the points that they make.

Re: Payment; which charity do you want me pay possibly you would like to buy 3 acres of endangered rain forrest through the World Land Trust or an appeal through An Taisce or is it the ctesiphon pension fund? 😀

I haven’t got a copy to hand, nor is it online as far as I can tell. I’ll see what I can do in the next couple of days.

I’d be happy to see it go to An Taisce. Or you could put it towards the running costs of the Archiseek masked ball? 😀

The last time I was last in the NL they had these type of ads on dual carriageway-type roads leading to the main commercial districts, and the ring road dualer around the city – they actualy look alright because they’re on N11-type roads where it’s predominantly through-traffic.

I could see these on some parts of the N11, but not where the DCC wants to put them. This type of advertising is not meant for Ireland.

I agree that these have a place once the local authorities are receiving a market price for them; I further agree that Dual carriageways are the place for them and would add further that only DCs that regularly gridlock.

I think that the DTO resource http://www.dublintraffic.com/ is a good guide for this and it is necessary that all stakeholders are consulted on site locations prior to application.

A masked ball would be good there were very preliminary discussions on an event 2 years ago but unfortunately the idea got parked up and has been gridlocked since.

If you chosen charity is An Taisce I’d better make it €105 which is cheap given the statements made about the DTO who probably would want a bit more. 😀

Given their locations, many of these are also nicely placed to block the view of oncoming buses for people at the bus stop, or of the people for the bus drivers.

Cue many forays into traffic to check for bus numbers. They are only locals though, who do not drive, so who cares?

I’m reminded of these things any time I see an old cartoon of people driving, where all there is in the background are large, repeated advertising slogans, flying past in a blur, a la ‘Fahrenheit 451’.

Here we go:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf

Like the photographer who took those lovely pictures of a certain SF Euro candidate, whoever produced this leaflet is one to watch in the ‘make silk purse out of sow’s ear’ category.

@newgrange wrote:

Here we go:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf

Like the photographer who took those lovely pictures of a certain SF Euro candidate, whoever produced this leaflet is one to watch in the ‘make silk purse out of sow’s ear’ category.

Thanks for the link.

We have designed our bicycle to withstand weather extremes and to be virtually vandal-proof.

I hope this isn’t seen as a challenge – I’m willing to bet, for example, that the bikes won’t float. Hope I’m wrong and that they will be a success but ??:(

@newgrange wrote:

Here we go:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdf

I note that the document you linked is only two appendices to the main one- do you have the main one to hand? I’ve tried the DCC website, but as any regular user of the site knows, there’s a needle-in-a-haystack quality to using it. I’ll keep looking, but if you had it to hand that’d be great. Thanks for the above too, btw.

‘the proposer’ 🙂

A more detailed description of one of the new toilet units, seemingly including a pissoir, is given on-site at the College Green island, where the existing toilets are to be filled in and extensively built upon with an ‘open pavilion’ containing, well, all of the below:

It ought to be borne in mind that this is a sensitive site in front of the Lords portico – we could do without anything overly bulky here that would intrude on views from College Street/Pearse Street.

A description of the toliet from the linked doc above:

After each use, the toilet floor is sprayed clean with high pressure water jets, while the toilet bowl retracts into a wall compartment where it is sprayed clean, disinfected and air-dried. The bowl washing and floor cleaning functions are fully automated using a design which was created by the proposer and is patented. The design uses very few moving parts, which reduces the likelihood of mechanical failure and is totally efficient.

Gosh, theres an interesting difference – note how the proposal has come thru via part 8, as opposed to the applicant applying to DCC as has been the case with the commercially lucretive billboards. Whys that I wonder :confused: :rolleyes:

@GrahamH wrote:

It ought to be borne in mind that this is a sensitive site in front of the Lords portico – we could do without anything overly bulky here that would intrude on views from College Street/Pearse Street.

Yep, yer spot on there. But then again toilets and bikes are really the aim of this deal :rolleyes:

A description of procedures to follow after a days trading has also in effect been provided:

@”Unique” contract wrote:

After each use, hands should be sprayed clean with high pressure water jets, while interesting contract retract out of sight and is not to be shown to elected representatives . The details of said contract are are fully automated using a design which was created by the proposer and is “commerrfcially sensitive” should any councilor request. The plan uses very basic parts, which reduces the likelihood of failure and is totally efficient.

Now isn’t that helpful – or am I just, eh, “taking the piss” :p

The sad reality is the above is peculiarly close to the truth – despite the unmandated contract being already signed, Ciaran NacNamara refuses to show it to councilors. Its a f*cking scandal 😡

very funny

No doubt a reflection of pester power in relation to the metropole application.

Not an appropriate location as indicated by the precedent for sinking similar conveniences in past times.

I find the idea of public conveniences a strange concept at such locations in 2007. Surely there are sufficient facilities in shopping centres and transport nodes presuming that people are too timid to walk into a pub or cafe.

This entire proposal should be shelved pending proper analysis.

Sometimes I find myself pondering upon the relative merits or demerits of a benevolent dictatorship to replace the somewhat threadbare “Democratic Process” which we are continually told to be grateful for.

Just a few weeks ago we had Martin Cullen,a Minister of this Parish,effectively running a skewer through the prospects of a Dublin Transportation Authority.
This towering collusus of Political Willpower told us that the first recommendation of the DTA Planning Group was being repudiated by the Government as it might be percieved by the Great Unwashed as “Undermining the Integrity of the Democratic Process”.

That recommendation….??? Oh nothing more than the DTA seeking to establish a TRUE oversight role in terms of urban planning and transport…

Well I would suggest that Minister Cullen and the other members of this “Government” which he refers to,might well ask Mr MacNamara and his fellow “Proffessionals” around to Kildare St for Tea and Muffins followed by a detailed outline of the Governmental position on the “Integrity of the Democratic Process”

I would suspect an hour or so`s full and frank exchange of views should awaken Mr Mac and other Council Proffessionals to the dangers of being regarded for posterity as Philinistines,something which I feel sure they would be aghast at.

Of course it might also be neccessary for a Joint Government/DCC Fact Finding mission to meet with M.JC Decaux,who sounds suspiciously non-national and possibly resides somewhere exotic…or at least warm & dry.

Now lets see…….Martinique….? Mustique…..Put Aer Corps One on standby I`ll just go pack an overnight bag !!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Bertie and Tony Gregory are among those who have lodged objections…
@From today’s Sunday Independent wrote:

. . . and looking after constituents

RONALD QUINLAN

TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern may have a lot on his plate when it comes to the economy, the peace process, and the small matter of a looming general election.

But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the time to help out the people who put him in power in the first place.

Letters obtained by the Sunday Independent show how in 2006 alone, Mr Ahern wrote on nine occasions to the planning department at Dublin City Council to make representations on behalf of his Dublin Central constituents on a range of matters from house extensions, a creche, to an illuminated street sign.

A clear believer in the well-worn adage that ‘all politics is local’, the ward boss penned missives on behalf of numerous denizens of Drumcondra, Glasnevin and Summerhill to the Assistant City Manager Sean Healy in which he asked to be informed of the ‘position’ on planning applications.

Adding to the impact of Mr Ahern’s ‘subtle’ intervention in each case is his use of official headed paper from the Department of the Taoiseach.

In one case, he writes twice on behalf of a Glasnevin-based woman in relation to her application for planning permission for a playschool in Drumcondra.

The Taoiseach’s second letter on behalf of the would-be Montessori proprietor relays her concern that temporary planning permission would be insufficient for her to secure grants or loans to finance her business start-up.

Another letter to the Assistant City Manager on August 17 sees Mr Ahern – in his official capacity as Taoiseach – write to relay a resident’s concern at the prospect of an extension being built on his next door neighbour’s house.

In this case, our prime minister asks the second-most senior official in Dublin City to inform him of the ‘outcome in this matter’.

Lest it be said, however, that Mr Ahern is being distracted from the affairs of State by trifling matters such as the conversion of an outdoor toilet to a conservatory, another missive to the planning department shows otherwise.

In a shining example of democracy at work, our Taoiseach takes up the cause of the people of Summerhill over the prospect of an illuminated advertising sign being placed on the footpath at Langrishe Place, by advertisers, JC Decaux.

The matter of the advertisement could yet be relevant to Mr Ahern’s electoral fortunes in May however – it appears that Dublin Central TD Tony Gregory also wrote to the planners on the matter.

Shows how much the journalist knows, thinking he’s making a quip at the taoiseach with the remark “In a shining example of democracy at work”:rolleyes:

Anyway its no harm that objections has been lodged from such quarters 🙂

Hows this for pure guff – seemingly just copied and pasted from a press release; remarkably similar to Treacy Hogans piece – not that journalists would ever cog off each other, either :rolleyes:

@BBC wrote:

‘Cycling those carbon emissions away’
By Shane Harrison
BBC NI Dublin Correspondent

With growing concern about carbon emissions, Dublin City Council has come up with a novel idea that involves both cycling and recycling.

The council says each bike will have a mini-computer chip

The council plans to have 500 bicycles located at 25 points around the city for public use 24 hours a day.

For a small charge, still to be determined, people can pick up one of the bikes and use it – but they must leave it back at a drop-off point so that someone else can, if you like, “recycle” it.

The council says each bike will have a mini-computer chip to allow it to be tracked.

That means it’s unlikely to suffer the same fate as abandoned shopping trolleys, according to Dublin City Council officials.

The bikes, which will be available to the public in about six months’ time, are described as “virtually vandal proof”.

They cannot get punctures, they will have no visible cables, but they will have a bell, a front light, two back lights, brakes and integrated gears.

‘More like Amsterdam’

The bikes are being introduced by the outdoor advertising company, JC Decaux.

In exchange, the company will get planning permission to erect 120 permanent advertising billboards and remove about 1,800 current billboards.

As part of the deal, more than 60% of the new advertising space will be for civic information purposes, telling citizens and tourists what’s going on in the Irish capital.

Green councillor, Bronwen Maher, has welcomed the proposal as a good first step in Dublin becoming more like Amsterdam, but she does have reservations about the involvement of an advertising company.

The bikes are described as “virtually vandal proof”

“We have to do something about the chronic traffic problems and congestion in the city centre, but I’m a bit concerned that the council isn’t operating the scheme independently and is linking up with an advertiser,” she says.

Some councillors have also expressed concerns that the new billboards should not be placed in sensitive, historic sites. But there seems almost unanimous support for the general idea.

As some wits have pointed out, the mock-insult “On yer bike” will take on a whole new meaning in Dublin.

“On yer bike – but don’t forget to leave it back.”

“More like Amsterdam” – yep you’d want to be smoking an awful lot of what they’re having to buy this guff.
And I’d love to know where he got this idea “there seems almost unanimous support for the general idea” :confused: :confused:; Must be an early April Fools 😀

One of the other Summerhill sites should fail automatically as it is described as ‘Summerville’ (wherever that is) repeatedly in the planning application.

6767/06 Footpath on southern side of Summerville, Adjacent To 67-84 Mountain View Court (under reconstruction), Summerville, Dublin 1

I have now discovered yet another reason for Minister Cullen and his Governments concerns at the dilution of the “Democratic Process”……It is presently the topic of some open-air theatrical drama over in Dartmouth Square where the “Old Style” of Irish Entreprenur is packing them in to his new Tile Showroom….apparently some enterprising Archiseekers are seeking a bulk discount !!!! 🙂

Looks as if the Beeb’s correspondant could have done with checking his own archive. Internal memo from JCDecaux – ensure that woolen eye-covers are tailor made and easy to wear.

@BBC wrote:

Branded dangerous and said to be defacing the countryside – why illegal roadside advertising is making people see red.
Wednesday, 26 July 2006,

They are “spreading like a rash” across the country and the firms selling them are “eyesore merchants” who are “defacing the countryside”, say their critics.

The items causing such uproar? Unauthorised advertisements in fields along motorways and major roads.

At one hotspot – the M6 in Staffordshire – a motorist can see, on average, a hoarding every 30 seconds, according to a survey jointly carried out by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), the Countryside Agency and Highways Agency.

It is a lucrative business, with the advertisements costing about £1,000 a month and the companies who sell them claim they are seen by anything from 60,000 to 175,000 drivers a day.

‘Tatty trailers’

For years planning controls have saved the rural landscape from advertising but marketing firms and websites have sprung up, offering such displays to advertisers and money to farmers willing to install them on their land.

The government is now planning a crackdown. Housing and planning minister Yvette Cooper wants to build a database of persistent offenders to help local authorities mount prosecutions.

HOARDING HOTSPOTS
M1 in Yorkshire
M5 in Worcestershire and Somerset
M6 in Cheshire and Staffordshire
M40 between Oxford and Birmingham
M62 in Lancashire and Yorkshire
SOURCE: CPRE

Many of the hoardings are mounted on trailers, to exploit a common misconception that formal permission is not needed for advertisements on wheels. In fact, advertisement regulations clearly state that such an exemption does not apply if the trailer has been stationary for some time or if it is used for the display of an advertisement.

Companies need to apply for authorisation from the local council under the advertising regulations – and it should almost always refuse permission. The government has sent a letter to all local planning authorities reminding them that land alongside motorways should be kept free of advertisements that either blot the landscape or are a possible danger to drivers.

“For too long cowboy firms have been able to get away with cheapening our countryside with tatty trailers touting things like used cars and printer cartridges,” says Paul Miner, planning campaigner for the CPRE.

“For more than 50 years, planning controls have saved the English landscape from the pox of outdoor advertising. This achievement is now in danger. Billboards and hoardings are mushrooming alongside motorways and major roads across England, despite government policy and regulations clearly stating they should be strictly controlled.”

Displaying an advertisement without consent can result in a maximum fine of £2,500 plus £250 a day on conviction for a continuing offence. The advertiser, the company that sells the ads and the landowner are all potentially liable to prosecution.

Eye-catching

Most trailers do not have consent, says the Outdoor Advertising Council (OAC). It “deplores” the signs, has nothing to do with the firms that sell them and says they bring advertising into disrepute.

“These companies try and hide themselves,” says spokesman, Chris Thomas. “They usually only use mobile phone numbers and are hard to track down. They do nothing but harm reputable outside advertising companies.”

Campaigners say the hoardings are also dangerous, as they are designed to be read and to distract. Combined with the high speeds normal on main roads and motorways, they have the potential to cause serious accidents, says the CPRE.

This is an industry that causes the countryside or green belt no harm. It is an activity just as commercial as farming or property speculation

M6 Media

A major study into the issue gets under way next week. Up until now most studies have concentrated on distractions in a car, such as mobile phones and satellite navigation.

“This is a massive issue at the moment,” says Dr Mark Young, an expert in transport safety at Brunel University and the academic leading the research.

“We already know that things like signs increase the mental workload of drivers and are a distraction. Previous research has shown that 78% of accidents are due to distraction, we will hopefully now find out how much of that is due to distractions inside and outside the car.”

But companies who sell the adverts say they are being unfairly targeted and provide a valuable source of income to cash-strapped farmers.

Farmers diversify

One company, M6 Media, says it is no longer in business. “It is unfortunate the way things have developed as this is an industry that causes the countryside or green belt no harm. It is an activity just as commercial as farming or property speculation,” it said in a statement.

Another firm, which did not want to be named, says some farmers have told them items such as the hoardings and telephone masts “are the best crop the farm now has”. It has also stopped providing the hoardings, saying the government tells farmers to diversify and then clamps down on anyone who shows entrepreneurial skills.

Drivers already have many distractions
The company refused to disclose what cut farmers got of the money made from the hoardings.

The National Farmers’ Union says the advertisements are a way of earning additional cash, but the proportion of farmers who allow them is very small.

“Very few farms border motorways and of those that do an even smaller amount actually allow the hoardings. It is not really a big money earner for the industry.”

The CPRE says it recognises many farmers are facing economic hardship but blighting the countryside with advertising hoardings is not the way forward.

The pressure group has “named and shamed” companies who have advertised this way, resulting in some pledging not to do so again, including Tesco.

“It was never our policy to advertise in this way,” says a spokeswoman for the supermarket. “There were a handful of local store initiatives in which this type of advertising may have been used, but this was stopped.”

But with an estimated 900 such hoardings along the country’s motorways, there is still some way to go.

The cat is out of the bag – In a new study by Dr. Mark Young of Brunel University, carried out in simulated conditions where performances were measured, it finds that there was a “larger number of crashes in the conditions with adverts than thosed without”. An informative interview regarding this has just been on Newstalk.

So the facts are now self-evident; if DCC proceeds as is, the billboards wont just lead to a loss of visual amenity, devalue property, or be bad for business – but the real cost of the “free bicycles” will be the blood of vunerable road users – such as cyclists.

FFS Stop this madness now. 😡

@UK News wrote:

UK News

Crash risk of drivers ‘distracted’ by posters

Monday, 21st November 2005, 08:30

One-in-five male drivers are so distracted by scantily-clad models – like Kate Moss or Sophie Dahl – on roadside hoardings that they are likely to crash, new research published today claims.

However just one-in-10 women drivers will confess to being captivated by semi-naked male models in adverts.

One-in-four drivers in the UK have become so distracted by roadside objects that they have veered out of their lane, according to the study for Privilege Insurance.

A third (32 per cent) of drivers said billboards, flashing signs or Christmas decorations had caused them to lose concentration, and 41 per cent confessed to being distracted for more than five seconds – equal to driving 15 car lengths at 30mph.

Dr Mark Young, an expert in transport ergonomics at Brunel University, said: “While we currently know a lot more about in-vehicle distractions such as mobile phones than external distracters, there is a growing body of concern about the lack of any coherent strategy for arranging roadside furniture.

“Drivers’ visual workload varies through the course of a journey, and at crucial times – negotiating a difficult roundabout, for example, there is a small but significant risk of distraction from novel stimuli like advertising.”

And a second survey, carried out by Direct Line, claims one-in-three drivers suffer from the newly recognised disorder “Traffic Stress Syndrome” or TSS.

The research, also published today, reveals traffic jams are bad for the mood of drivers, and can result in TSS, a form of psychological anxiety which manifests itself in certain drivers when they are stuck in traffic.

Copyright © 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

From: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=NL2019885F&news_headline=crash_risk_of_drivers_distracted_by_posters

Speaking of distractions, is this campaign coming to Dublin? 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu5sH_jNCBw

Ha! I was wondering if/when that’d show up here. Fortunately, PP isn’t required for pretty ladies. 😉

I should add to your post- that video is probably NSFW.

The threat of slagging doesn’t seem to stop many young ladies and gents going out on the town in mid-winter dressed as if for Ibiza. But let’s face it, if lorry drivers at Clare Hall and ambulance drivers in many parts of south and west Dublin* can’t do their jobs in peace, what hope for a topless foxy blonde?

(By ‘here’, I meant on this site. Should have clarified. 😮 )

*Before anyone gets all shirty over the specified location, I’ve only ever heard of ambulance drivers being attacked on duty in these locations.

Hoardings along the roadside, apart from being dangerous to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians (as if we could ever hope that reasoned argument will prevail on this front), are quite possibly the most asinine form of advertising known to mankind.

It was a novelty in America during the Great Depression when Burma Shave set up roadsigns along a rural highway in Minnesota. These billboards, usually five or six to a crop, spelled out jingles that took the average driver about 18 seconds to read and usually had some amusing pun or rhyme. This eventually spread throughout most of the 50 states and generally cheered people up from the fact that they had no job, no means of supporting their families, and were lucky to be scrapping round in a vehicle that doubled as a home. Surely not the preferred method for grabbing peoples’ attention in this time of the Celtic Tiger!

They started to dig these things up in the 50’s when someone decided it wasn’t worth it to pay farmers for land rental. Cigaratte giants Phillip Morris bought out Burma Shave in 1963 and sensibly set about a more lucrative form of advertising that spoke to the changing times: subliminal advertising and lacing their products with fiberglass and cocaine, I mean, nicotine. Come on, JC Decaux and M6 Media. No one wants to see more of this crap by the side of the road. This is the 21st century. Can’t you control people’s thoughts through mobile phones by now?

Something for nostalgia’s sake– to be inserted inside the new hoardings we’ll soon be seeing by the roadside:

IF YOU WANT

FREE JACKS AND BIKES

YOU”LL HAVE TO PUT UP

WITH OUR SHITE

JC DECAUX

For anyone considering submitting an observation / objection to phase 2 (50 No. smaller signs) of this proposal, today is the last day. So get busy, people! 🙂

Heres something that may be of interest; the first map is that of the locations of the larger billboards as marked by red dots – isnt it odd how the map shows so much of the northside :rolleyes: –

This second map is that of the bus-shelter size adverts, this time marked by orange dots –

besides the Grand Canal area, are there any billboards planned for D2?

Great Work Hutton !

You haven’t marked out where the Bike centres are proposed to be. I was thinking about this, and although I don’t think that the price of the bike is the inhibiting factor for people to cycle – it might just get a few more people cyling – which is a good thing albeit at a high price.

I think that the maintainance break/fix contract to support the bikes should have a 40 year duration – like the toll roads. And if the quantity of bikes decreases by (say) 20, JC Dev remove one of the billboards.

I guess what I’m saying is that the fate of the billboards should be inextricably tied to the fate of the bikes. So when the bikes end up the in canal & JC Dev have no incentive to take them out, they loose a billboard.

Why don’t Dublin City Council put up the billboards, and keep the advertising revenue themsleves – to spend on the bikes? and spend JcDevs profits putting in a few cycle lanes.

The bikes shelters and ancillary bikes could still be profitable for JC Deceaux in their own right it is felt. These will no doubt all be located on main routes and will have three road facing sides which will no doubt be festooned with images of Wayne Rooney et al which could potentially generate as much as €20,000 per installation per year depending on location. Taking a 5% yield and assuming that the rental fees and maintenance costs of these unpuncturable bikes are cost neutral the value of each such installation could be €400,000.

This is not de nortside being lumbered with metropoles whilst the southside gets the prize paid for by de nortside’s metropoles.

@PVC King wrote:

These will no doubt all be located on main routes and will have three road facing sides which will no doubt be festooned with images of Wayne Rooney et al which will each generate as much as €20,000 per installation per year depending on location.

This is not de nortside being lumbered with metropoles whilst the southside gets the prize to pay for it.

I understand that Mr Rooney is admired on the Northside – but surely his image will not be used on the Southside? Are we to have Sinn Fein election posters next?

Appalled.

No I think the Southside will get John Terry as many seem to confuse Donnybrook with Chelsea if the number of urban tractors is anything to go by. I as always dream of Shamrock Rovers becoming great again.

@ConK wrote:

Great Work Hutton !

Many thanks 🙂

Anybody hear this on the Vincent Brown show the other night – or is that just a rumour? I see theres a big piece in Phoenix magazine on it (page 5, under the heading “councilors taken for a ride”); if anyone has a digital copy of that, it’d be great to post here 😉

im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.also if most these bike shelters were on the southside the argument would be “typical they get all those facilities down there the northside gets nothing”
also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!

@archipimp wrote:

im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.also if most these bike shelters were on the southside the argument would be “typical they get all those facilities down there the northside gets nothing”
also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!

Have you not read anything in this thread after post 16?
These are NOT bike shelters – they are 120 BILLBOARD sites;
the point is its not “Northside vs Southside”, but how shitty adverts are to be dumped on working class areas – which tend to be on the Northside.
The 25 bike shelter locations have yet to be decided.

@archipimp wrote:

also has anyone thought that maybe the bike shelters are planned for the areas they are because they will be of more benifit to those communities eg.many people in rathmines would scoff at the idea of using public transport so why would they use these bikes while less well of areas are more likely to use them!

Archipimp, why do you assume that cycling should only be for the less well off as a mode of transport? I thought you wanted to think about the benefits of this scheme for the whole city?

@archipimp wrote:

im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.!

Absolutely. Time to move on from the old ways, rising tide levels playing pitch etc.

For years now many northsiders have been living happily in Ranelagh, and my neighbours and I fully accept them and consider them a colourful addition to the area.

Their sunny and carefree outlook makes a pleasant contrast with that of the indigenous population and, when treated properly, they prove very loyal.

@publicrealm wrote:

Absolutely. Time to move on from the old ways, rising tide levels playing pitch etc.

For years now many northsiders have been living happily in Ranelagh, and my neighbours and I fully accept them and consider them a colourful addition to the area.

Their sunny and carefree outlook makes a pleasant contrast with that of the indigenous population and, when treated properly, they prove very loyal.

Hear hear. LMAO 😀

I have never been involved in planning things before.
I have objections lodged against two of these. Will they contact me to tell me what has happened? How long do I get before I have to appeal if they are passed?

Stephen,

When you say ‘going through’ do you mean that they will be passed or that the decision is due?

newgrange,

You should get a letter from DCC acknowledging receipt of your submission, then a notification of their decision to grant or refuse, which will tell you how long you have to appeal if you choose to do so- it’s 4 weeks.

Steven

The decision page on the link is Blacberry proof could you please clarify the result.

I’ll copy it here. Hope I’ve copied all the important bits.

**********************************************************************************
From Dublin City Council site.
Web Reference
Application Date: 11-Jan-2007
Planning Application Reference: 1115/07
Registration Date: 11-Jan-2007
Decision Date: 28-Mar-2007
Application Type: Permission

Main Location:
car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1

Proposal Permission for extension of footpath and advertisement structure

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION

Decision Date: 28-Mar-2007

1.Insofar as the Planning & Development Act 2000 and the Regulations made thereunder are concerned the development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars and specifications lodged with the application, save as may be required by the conditions attached hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shown on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and extent of which has not been adequately stated in the statutory public notices. REASON: To comply with permission regulations.

2.The developer shall remove one hundred 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings within one year of the final grant of planning permission of the metropole advertising structure. Details of the existing 48 sheet hoardings to be removed (including location map and photograph(s) of each structure) together with a dated photographic record of their removal shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within one month of their removal. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the prevention of visual clutter.

3.The metropole advertising structure and associated fittings shall be removed not later than 15 years from the date of erection of the advertisement structure and the site of the structure reinstated unless planning permission has been granted for its retention prior to that date.A written and photographic record of the erection of the structure shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within one month of erection. Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4.Notwithstanding the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,any change to the display panel including any increase in the number of posters to be displayed, the scrolling mechanism, internal/external illumination will be subject to the receipt of a new planning permission from the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

5.The developer shall make satisfactory arrangements for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the advertisement structure. Reason: In the interests of amenity of safety and public safety.

6.The Developer shall accept responsibility for the removal of the advertisement structure at its own expense, if such is necessary for the purpose of road widening, reconstruction and repair or for the repair, replacement and renewal of any service installed in the public footpath/road, for at the request for the Planning Authority. Reason: in the interests of road maintenance and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

7.The panels shall be lit in such a manner so as not to cause excessive glare or distraction to road users or adjoining property owners. Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

8.The Applicant shall make satisfactory arrangements for the maintenance repair and upkeep of the bus shelter. The Applicant shall be responsible for the removal of the advertising panel at its own expense, if such is necessary for the purposes of road widening, reconstruction and repair or for the repair, replacement of and renewal of any services installed in the public footpath/road. The advertising panel shall be removed from the site in the event of the road immediately in front of the shelter ceasing to function as a bus stop. The panels shall be lit in such a manner so as not to cause excessive glare or distraction to road users of adjoining property owners and the hours of lighting shall not extend beyond the hours of lighting of the adjoining street lights. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and public safety.

9.The applicants shall comply with the following conditions of the Roads and Traffic Planning Division, Dublin City Council: i.The proposed structure shall not impede 70X3m vehicular sight lines. ii.The proposed structure shall not impede any road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, vision along kerb edge lines or any other road infrastructure. This may require a slight adjustment in the proposed location as submitted. iii.The proposed structure shall not impede pedestrian desire lines or reduce footpath width below 1.8m, absolute minimum. (This figure will vary upwards depending on pedestrian and vehicle volumes). iv.The proposed structure shall be subject to a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit at the applicants expense. This will be done by an approved auditor through a public procurement procedure, which shall audit the entire permitted signage. Any failure shall be removed. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

10. The site works and building works required to implement the development shall only be carried out between the hours of 07.00am and 18.00pm Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00am and 14.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. Furthermore, heavy construction equipment / machinery including pneumatic drills shall only be operated on or adjacent to the construction site between the hours of 07.00am and 18.00pm Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00am and 14.00pm Saturdays and not anytime on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. REASON: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

There are no appeal details for this application
**************************************************************************************

Checking the ones I objected to, they both seem to have gone through with exactly the same conditions, implying they were done as a job lot.

newgrange got in ahead of me.

The advertising panel shall be removed from the site in the event of the road immediately in front of the shelter ceasing to function as a bus stop.

Are Dublin Bus responsible for siting bus-stops?

Thanks this device is great for e-mail but can be a bit selective on we access.

I suppose this was always going to come down to a horse deal. And if I am honest I would prefer to see 100 billboards go per metropole than a few million go into the City Coffers. The major concern I have so far is the wording of condition 2 which states ‘the developer shall remove one hundred 48 sheet hoardins and associated fittings within one year of the grant of permission of the metropole’.

This wording is too loose as multiple permissions may be interpreted as having all complied once 100 48 sheet hoardings are removed. This needs to be tightened up considerably by alteration to ‘100 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings shall be removed within one year of the grant of this metropole for the avoidance of doubt this shall mean that 100 specific 48 sheet hoardings shall be linked to the grant of this permission.’

Thanks again

This wording is too loose as multiple permissions may be interpreted as having all complied once 100 48 sheet hoardings are removed. This needs to be tightened up considerably by alteration to ‘100 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings shall be removed within one year of the grant of this metropole for the avoidance of doubt this shall mean that 100 specific 48 sheet hoardings shall be linked to the grant of this permission.’

It seems obvious to me that this is deliberate. If the trade was 100 per installation, you’d be talking about removing 7000 such billboards from around the city; I doubt there are a tenth of that number. They are trading 100 billboards for the entire swathe of 70 on street advertising installations.

The other thing I love is the “committment to civic information”

Full Development Description

The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2.

I love the “The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement” bit. :rolleyes: Yes I can just see JCDecaux foregoing the use of the structure for advertising. While they were at it they should have inserted a a committment to the effect that the structure would display advertising or solve world poverty.

Fuckwits.

Blood on your hands, DCC, blood on your hands.

Hmmmmm

Not the wording I would have expected Ctesiphon.although I can understand your feelings on this which are not unique.

The 100 removals for 70 far more valuable fittings is a complete capitulation by DCC.

There is a very high correllation between site assembly and short term income from billboards. The probable outcome of this deal is that JC Deceaux will remove 100 billboards that would have gone anyway as planning conditions attaching to those redevelopment permissions whatever happened.

JC Deceaux 70
DCC. 0

Time to get the calculator out again.

@PVC King wrote:

Hmmmmm

Not the wording I would have expected Ctesiphon.although I can understand your feelings on this which are not unique.

Over the weekend I considered editing that post to soften the language, but in the interests of historical accuracy I’m going to let it stand.

The revised version would have read:

This is the wrong decision. I can’t believe that the various planners involved in determining each of the 120 applications had no issues with any of them, whether on grounds of ‘serious traffic hazard’ or otherwise. This smacks of direction being handed down from above within DCC. It has been suggested on this forum recently that An Bord Pleanala has become the de facto planning authority in high profile / controversial planning cases, with LAs shirking their duties. However reprehensible that tactic might be for your Lansdownes and your Ikeas, it positively stinks in this instance owing to the prohibitively high costs of a comprehensive appeal.

I give it two years before some enterprising solicitor stands up in court and says ‘Your honour, my client does not deny that he hit the cyclist who, he acknowledges, had right of way at the junction, but he contends that the internally-illuminated advertising hoarding at the junction distracted him. According to a decision of An Bord Pleanala in 2005** in refusing permission for a similar sign:
“It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its bulk, scale and visual impact, including impact of illumination and scrolling, on a major distributor road, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.
[…]
Having regard to the location of the proposed development adjoining a major distributor road, it is considered that it would tend to distract road users, compete with statutory road signage and would thus endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.”
For this reason, my client contends that Dublin City Council shares responsibility for this accident and should be included in proceedings accordingly.’

Or, put more simply: Fuckwits – blood on your hands.

Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong!

(Also, Condition 2 as highlighted by PVC King, if read in a purely legalistic way, does indeed mean that for every metropole granted 100 billboards should be removed. It’s obviously a mistake, but I’d love to see it enforced. ‘You mean you’ve only removed 100 billboards and there are none left? Then all you get is one metropole. Choose carefully…’

**For the curious, that ABP decision referred to a grant from South Dublin County Council for an ‘internally-illuminated monopole’ on the Long Mile Road that was refused on appeal by the Board.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can’t find the actual ABP ref. no.

If anyone’s appealing, this ABP case would be key to your argument. In essence, the Board has set down very simply why a sign virtually identical to the metropoles should be refused, so it would seem that similar logic should apply to any appeal on a similar proposal.

Didn’t think of that one but a can see it happening in the future a couple of times for genuine reasons and then the Stephen Rossi Walsh types of this world realising that their is a credible angle in it and fabricating multiple whiplash claims once the precendent is set.

Good to see that JC Deceaux now have a monopoly on clutter and that DCC have belatedly seen the wisdom of the ABP decision listed above:

Dublin Council to ban posters on some streets
Monday, 2 April 2007 23:25
Posters advertising rallies or political meetings in Dublin are to be banned from three main city centre streets under a protocol agreed by City Councillors this evening.

Political parties or campaign groups like the Anti-War Movement will in future be banned from putting up posters in O’Connell St, Grafton St and Henry St.

They will also have to pay €100 annually towards public liability insurance.

The protocol imposes a number of conditions on such posters including requirements that they are at least 2.3 metres off the ground.

Any breaches of the regulations can lead to prosecutions under the Litter Act.

Residents’ groups that put up less than 40 copies of A3 size notices will be exempt.

Posters for the forthcoming Election are subject to a different section of the act.

Would that Dublin`s Citizens could rustle up enough interest to march upon Civic Offices and torch the bloody place….!
Civic Information my arse….and I make little apology for reverting to ctesiphon like language.

Whilst many appear to believe Dublin is at the cutting edge of things urban,I am of the opinion that the City is currently at the edge of a very deep and wide crevasse into which it is about to fall.

Mind you,I did notice that at least one mould was recently broken as DCC Cleansing Operatives were to be regularly spotted pulling down the very hi-definition Pre-Ard Fheis posters in O Connell St.

It was quite funny actually to witness the Sinn Fein bill posters moving thru the Main St putting up,while being closely followed by two DCC staff pulling down the rather well crafted pictures of G Adams and ML Mc Donald.

Ah Joxer…the times has changed so dey haz…. 😮

In the meantime DCC really does need to get a handle on its Inner City Regeneration policies as a recent late night stroll through Thomas St/ Cork St left me aghast at the level of deriliction visible in NEW unoccupied apartment developments…..:confused:

I had two objections in to these – the one at the site of Mountain View flats on Summerhill (called ‘Summerville’ in documentation) and the one at Newcomen Bridge on the North Strand. 6768/06 and 6767/06

I would appreciate help from anyone here in how to formulate an appeal. I have never done this before and am a bit clueless. If anyone would like to help or perhaps co-ordinate a united approach to any appeals, please email or PM me.

Surely to God if they have mis-named a location in all documentation the application is invalid?? No?

Check your PMs, newgrange.

@Alek Smart wrote:

I make little apology for reverting to ctesiphon like language.

😀 😀
Though I generally don’t approve, there are times when cussin’ seems like the only route. I save it for such special occasions.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Fuckwits.

Blood on your hands, DCC, blood on your hands.

Couldn’t have put it better – an absolute scandal and probably the worst city planning idea since they tried to fill in the canals.

Fuckwits. 😡

For the curious, that ABP decision referred to a grant from South Dublin County Council for an ‘internally-illuminated monopole’ on the Long Mile Road that was refused on appeal by the Board.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can’t find the actual ABP ref. no.

Update:
The ABP reference number (if you search on http://www.pleanala.ie) is: 213886. Useful context.

I heard today that 109 of the 120 applications have been granted. 🙁 😡

It’s not over til it’s over.
We’ll see what An Bord Pleanála have to say. In at least one case DCC have given permission for one of these edifying structures to be put on a protected structure.

@newgrange wrote:

It’s not over til it’s over.
We’ll see what An Bord Pleanála have to say. In at least one case DCC have given permission for one of these edifying structures to be put on a protected structure.

Damn right. This is far from over. I must say the I Times coverage of this has been worse than desperate – apparently no understanding of the basics of this – a shame, as that paper used to be good re Dublin + environment issues, but not any more 🙁

Re Andrew Montague & “I’m delighted that the council granted planning permission, it’s the first step to getting this up and running” – he did not even know about the billboards, or the disproportionality of their locations until Feb. Well done Andrew – good man for pressing ahead a dubious scheme, where neither the environmental impact nor cost-benefit has been transparently assessed – and hats off for supporting a contract to which you are being denied access. Gobshite 😡

Btw has anybody else noticed the new, eh, “upgraded” litter bins that are being installed by DCC? It would appear that they are to replace the existing blue metal bins, with imo a rather second rate standard of unit.
Happily theres a little plastic panel on the side into which commercials/ “civic information” can be inserted. Excellent; think product placement! But in all seriousness who or what corporate identity would want to be associated with litter bins? It really is bottom-of-the-barrel tawdry shite… Anyway a pint on for the best suggestion of the most appropriate advert/ infomercial – my own suggestion is a groovy logo of 3 castles with the caption “This Council is Rubbish”, under which in italics can read “happy is the obedient citizen”. Ah the irony :rolleyes: .

I love the quote “In Lyon, the traffic in the city reduced by 10 per cent after the bike scheme was introduced. If we got half of that or and significant reduction in traffic, from my point of view, it will have been worth it.”

if 500 bikes can reduce traffic by 5%, Dublin really does NOT have a traffic problem….

They might be tandems

@hutton wrote:

Anyway a pint on for the best suggestion of the most appropriate advert/ infomercial – my own suggestion is a groovy logo of 3 castles with the caption “This Council is Rubbish”, under which in italics can read “happy is the obedient citizen”. Ah the irony :rolleyes: .

“One City, One Bin” 😉

this is all going to end terribly. it’ll be grand until some eejit gets a wheel caught in a luas track on abbey street and smacks his head off the kerb and sues Deceuax, DCC, even this website if they can. the bike scheme will be pulled immediately.

i may be wrong here but were the bikes not originally ment to be free to hire,one of the reasons for the scheme?now their charging a fee,who will get the money deceuax or DCC since the bikes are ment to be handed over to them?

how about “put rubbish in its place” and a picture of some guy throwing the DCC logo into a bin!

Backhanders Boys n Girls…..backhanders…….
Just give it a little time to settle and then take careful note of when and where the SENIOR DCC decision Makers n Shakers go for their holliers…….
Perhaps a change of Moteur,Monsieur…….?

And to rub salt into the gaping wound….the sans culottes have to pay a FEE for the FREE bicyclettes too….
An Irish solution to an Irish problem eh……..A worlds first…Imagine a cure for Imbecility !!!! :p

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I love the quote “In Lyon, the traffic in the city reduced by 10 per cent after the bike scheme was introduced. If we got half of that or and significant reduction in traffic, from my point of view, it will have been worth it.”

if 500 bikes can reduce traffic by 5%, Dublin really does NOT have a traffic problem….

If Cllr Montague really cares about reducing traffic in Dublin, I can give him half a dozen proposals that would be far more beneficial for the city than this fiasco, some of which would even make money for the Council. But I suspect he’s clutching at straws in seeking a justification for a scheme that he probably feels in his gut is ‘good for the city’ in some undefinable way- y’know, it’s bikes! it’s sexy brushed steel! it’s civic! Nice try, Andrew.

If I’ve said it before, it bears repeating: this scheme is very likely to fail – or at least to fall far, far short of its target – unless complementary traffic management measures are put in place to facilitate cycling. Virtually everyone I know who doesn’t cycle in Dublin cites the traffic as the first reason why they don’t, not a lack of conveniently located, reasonably priced rental bikes. And as I’ve suggested before, thisscheme has the potential to actually worsen the cycling environment, not improve it.

Just a reminder, the deadlines for appealing the decisions on these excrescences to An Bord Pleanála are coming up this coming week.

There’s a planning permission notice up on a lamp-post on Parnell St near Chapters for one at the mo.

Marian Finucane had quite good coverage of these today but again they are being linked with the red herring ‘free bicycles and toilets’ nonsense.

Hopefully An Bord Pleanála will do the right thing with at least a number of the appeals and that perhaps DCC will reconsider the whole scheme. By all means generate revenue, but not with more intrusive hoardings and ‘metropoles’ – put ads on bin lorries, dustcarts, staff jackets, bins, all DCC vehicles, etc. – have some imagination.

@hutton wrote:

Re Andrew Montague & “I’m delighted that the council granted planning permission, it’s the first step to getting this up and running” – he did not even know about the billboards, or the disproportionality of their locations until Feb. Well done Andrew – good man for pressing ahead a dubious scheme, where neither the environmental impact nor cost-benefit has been transparently assessed – and hats off for supporting a contract to which you are being denied access. Gobshite 😡

Dont know whether anybody else heard Marian Finucane yesterday on RTE 1, but there was a 10 minute piece on this, available here, from minute 109 onwards:

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/index.html

Gobshite aka Andrew Montague was on along with Stewart Fogarty, who although being an ad man, is most vociferious in opposition to this!!!

Asked about the cash or value of this |(in the 113th minute) Gobshite AM states
“They haven’t broke down the figures to us”…

So how again is this such a great scheme when cyclists, ad-men, et al seem to be totally opposed?
Well done again Montague]Reminder to all 3rd parties – the deadline for many appeals shuts Tuesday[/B]

Btw If any 3rd party wants to refer this to the board, but doesn’t have the €200 per 1/100th of this project, PM me in that concerns may be incorporated as a supporting letter in one of the other appeals that are going in.

This is all an absolute f***ing disgrace 😡

This release has just been issued by Cllr Daithi Doolan, who as chair of DCC Planning SPC is supporting the billboard scheme, in the abscence of an EIA, and as with Gobshite AM, Doolan is also not privy to a contract’s contents.

Doolan is aware, however, that arising out of the duplicitious project-splitted fashion by which this has been made, that comprehensive adjudication by An BP would cost 25K.

Happily he seems to see no contradiction between standing over the DCC/ JCD deal on one hand, while at the same time soap-boxing to the rest of the world about “outrage at hearing costs” regarding Poolbeg.

Who are you fooling Doolan?

@hutton wrote:

Reminder to all 3rd parties – the deadline for many appeals shuts Tuesday

Deadline closing tomorrow…

street furniture deal in Toronto

When ad money talks, civic integrity walks

It’s looking likely the city will hand over its sidewalks to Astral Media and its 20-year vision for more public advertising and street clutter
Apr 24, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

Perhaps it’s not surprising that a city on the verge of bankruptcy would be so willing to sell off its single most important asset – the public realm.

Though the executive committee, chaired by none other than His Worship Mayor David Miller, has yet to okay the deal, it seems very likely that it will approve a staff recommendation that we hand over the sidewalks to Astral Media.

Though the details are being kept secret, the arrangement would mean Astral pays the city something like $429 million over the next 20 years.

In return, Astral will control all the advertising in bus shelters, information pillars, benches, garbage bins, in short, on all the street furniture in Toronto. It will also buy and own that furniture.

“I’m absolutely certain it will pass,” says Councillor Joe Mihevc sadly. “I have tremendous tension about the deal … but when you’re broke and you hear every day that we can’t undertake projects we want to as a city, it weighs on you.”

In other words, money talks, civic integrity walks.

Mihevc’s point is that most councillors will see only money, not the effect the sell-off will have on the streets. After all, the commercialization of the city is already well underway; the TTC has become one vast ad and billboards are everywhere you turn.

Speaking of billboards, it’s worth noting that Astral Media is one of several advertising companies that operate hundreds of illegal signs throughout the city.

“Astral is among the worst offenders,” says Jonathan Goldsbie, a third-year University of Toronto student and member of the Toronto Public Space Committee. “When their illegal signs are identified, they either ignore the orders of violation or take the signs down for a day then put them right back up. This is how they work; it displays contempt for the city. This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to public space in Toronto. We’re handing over our sidewalks to a scofflaw for 20 years.”

Goldsbie is dead on.

To make matters worse, the scheme will increase both the amount of public advertising (by 12 per cent) and the clutter on the streets. It was supposed to reduce both.

Indeed, the city RFP (request for proposals) was so flawed, it should be declared null and void.

Then there’s that nagging little question about the civic government doing business with any organization that’s in a position of non-compliance with the city, as is Astral.

Privately, many members of the “Miller Team” admit they don’t like the deal or the design but feel they have no choice but to go along with both.

Yet it is the same David Miller who has made city beautification an issue, who has set up roundtables and spoken at length about making Toronto clean, green, urban and urbane.

If for no other reason than that of its design, Astral’s street furniture should be rejected. With its unnecessary flourishes, its self-consciousness and slavish desire to be trendy, it speaks of a second-rate city’s desperate need to be first-rate. Worst of all are the information pillars, of which there will be 120, which are simply sidewalk-sized billboards.

Where the furniture should be flexible, practical and elegant, it ends up being intrusive, overpowering and in your face.

Finally, Astral wants to put scrolling ads in bus shelters, but on video machines controlled from a central location. Some interpret this as the first step toward moving ads. Imagine turning the city into a television that can’t be turned off.

“We’re about to see the future of advertising played out on the streets of Toronto,” Mihevc says. “Where are the spaces where we can be citizens, not just consumers? When is enough enough?”

In Toronto, it seems, there’s always room for more.

Looks like 14 appeals against these have been submitted to An Bord Pleanála.
I was hoping there would be more, but I suppose 14 is better than none.
**edit** there are some more possibles but they do not include the word ‘metropole’ in their description so I am not clear if they are part of the dreaded scheme or not.

Case Nos. and locations :

222953
Footpath on southern side of North Strand Road, To
West of Newcomen Bridge, Adjacent to Junction of North Strand Road

223084
Public footpath outside 80 North Strand Road, Dublin 3.

223085
Footpath on southern side of Summerville (sic), adjacent to 67-84
Mountainview Court (under reconstruction), Summerville (sic), Dublin 1.

223095
Footpath on eastern side of junction of Bolton Street and Capel
Street, Dublin 1.

223096
The public footpath to the front of the
office of ‘John Feahey and Company’ at Zhivago’s Corner, the
junction of Ryders Row and Loftus Lane, Dublin 1.

223101
Footpath eastern side Capel Street, Adjacent to 74-77 Capel
Street, Dublin 1.

223103
The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 5

223104
On the lay-by adjacent to the grass verge on the eastern side of
the Malahide Road, D.5, adjacent to 43-44, St.Brendan’s Ave.

223112
adjacent to Trinity College Enterprise Centre, Pearse St, Dublin 2

223117
A site located on the public footpath to the Northern side of the
junction of Ryders Row and Parnell Street, Dublin 1.

223121
Grass verge adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to Albert College
Grove,Dublin 9 & opposite the junction with St. Pappins Road.

223127
The public footpath adjacent to the IDA Business Centre to the
east on Gardiner Street Lower, Dublin 1.

223143
The public foothpath on the southern side of Marrowbone Lane,
close to the junction of Marrowbone Lane and Summer Stree Sth, D8.

223202
The public footpath to the west of the access to the City Junction Business Park, on the northern side of the
N32, Outside Bewleys, Clare Hall, Dublin 17.
(This last appeal was incomplete and is thus invalid).

From today’s ‘Irish Independent’:

Signs are bad for gigantic advert billboards

PLANS to allow one of the world’s largest advertisers to erect 130 billboards in Dublin are now in doubt.

An Bord Pleanala has been inundated with objections over plans to allow JC Decaux erect the large advertising hoardings in return for 450 bicycles, four public toilets and street signs.

The Dublin Transportation Office and Arnott’s department store are among the objectors who claim that the “metropoles” will destroy the city streetscape and pose a serious traffic hazard.

And if the Board decides the objections have merit and refuses permission, it could scupper the deal between the city council and the advertising firm.

The Board is dealing with 22 planning appeals related to plans to site the metropoles in the city centre and outskirts.

The contract planned for free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m – about the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m which would be erected on prominent sites in the city centre.

The planned locations included the redeveloped Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza as well as Malahide Road.

In submissions lodged with An Bord Pleanala, the Dublin Transportation Office said it would object to 70 of the 130 sites, because they pose a “traffic hazard” and are “generally unacceptable”.

Questions have also been raised as to why the council was allowed grant planning permission to a project in which it was involved.

“We hold that this development is essentially a public/private partnership and as such Dublin City Council (DCC) is to profit by this development and thus the matter should be referred to An Bord Pleanala as DCC should not be in a position to make a decision for its own profit,” a submission from An Taisce notes.

Other appellants described the signs as “enormous, obtrusive and downright ugly, not to mention a nuisance”.

Objectors included Debenhams and Arnott’s who said the signs would be outside the main entrances, and would lead to congestion arising from less footpath space.

Owners of the Ilac Centre, Irish Life Assurance, claimed the signs amounted to the “virtual appropriation of the public realm by a private interest”, adding there was “inequitable economic benefit to the applicant at the expense of the city”.

The planning file also notes that a planning officer recommended refusal for a sign on Capel Street, as it was “a key historic street” with two rows of protected structures.

However, the planner was overruled and permission was granted by the city council.

While the council will not receive any money from advertising, it is believed the company could gain up to €1m a year in fees. Some city councillors claimed they had not been properly consulted and so opposed the plans.

Paul Melia

Paul – are you tracking this website re: the Toronto Street Furniture Giveawa… I mean… Contract? All sorts of fun stuff there.

http://www.illegalsigns.ca

@newgrange wrote:

From today’s ‘Irish Independent’:

Signs are bad for gigantic advert billboards

PLANS to allow one of the world’s largest advertisers to erect 130 billboards in Dublin are now in doubt.

The contract planned for free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m – about the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m which would be erected on prominent sites in the city centre.

Owners of the Ilac Centre, Irish Life Assurance, claimed the signs amounted to the “virtual appropriation of the public realm by a private interest”,

Thank you for bringing this outrage to my attention. My solicitors have already been in contact with the Irish Independant about their virtual appropriation of my virtual name.

I have also appealled planning permission for the sign on the Western Side of Smithfield Market. Odd that this has not appeared on the website – I’ll follow up with them.

Controversial billboard deal with Dublin City Council
Written by Eoin Bassett , The Village Magazine
Tuesday, 05 June 2007

Dublin City Council has struck a controversial deal with JC Deceaux that grants the outdoor advertising company a 15-year lease on billboards on public property, mainly in the Dublin’s northside. Eoin Bassett reports.

The majority of billboards across the country are unauthorised developments yet nothing is being done to enforce planning regulations. The statute of limitations combined with this lack of enforcement has allowed unauthorised advertising to flourish according to planning critics.
The lowest income for a billboard is roughly* €200 a week, making for an annual income of* €10,000 a year. If the location is good, or the sign is illuminated, the income is significantly increased, while prismatic signs are worth up to six times as much.
In Dublin, temporary permission is usually given to an advertiser for three years and once a billboard is in place for more than seven years, it is past the statute of limitations. The Council rarely takes enforcement action or forces a reapplication when the three year period lapses, and according to An Taisce, this has allowed a massive amount of unauthorised advertising to remain in place around the city.
However, the number of unauthorised billboards is on the wane, and, while outdoor advertising has always been on private land until now, a deal between Dublin City Council and advertising giant JC Decaux could see that change.
JC Decaux recently applied for planning permission for 120 advertising structures to be erected on public property around the city, of which 80 per cent are to be located on the northside and about two thirds of those in the city centre.
In return for a 15-year lease, JC Decaux is to provide the Council with a public bicycle scheme with 500 bicycles, some public toilets and way-finding and heritage trail signs.
But the deal has raised hackles. The value of the deal to the Council has been called into question and there is confusion among councillors, who have given figures ranging from* €60 million to* €85 million. Dublin City Council have declined to comment on the value of the deal and its breakdown, while according to one advertising industry expert JC Decaux could make as much as* €2,000 a month for each one of the 70 seven-metre-square metropoles they are part of the overall proposal.
Critics like An Taisce have questioned the Council over their failure to take a more active interest in JC Decaux’s track record; a requirement under the 2000 Planning Act. The ad firm has had a number of section five findings against it by An Bord Pleanála since taking over the Dave Allen advertising firm in 2000. These are cases where the Bord has ruled that the developments in question where not exempt and therefore unauthorised.
However, the deal with Dublin City Council is linked to the removal of 48 poster signs, though the locations are unspecified and there is no mention of any unauthorised advertising maintained by JC Decaux in the capital.
One example of just such an unauthorised sign is that of an unauthorised billboard maintained by JC Decaux on the corner of North King Street and Henrietta Lane; yards from one of the proposed sites of the new freestanding billboards. According to An Taisce, the planning permission conditions attached to the building on which the sign is located require its removal. “The permission for the redevelopment of that site requires the removal of that sign, which is erected without permission in any case.
“Here you have Dublin City Council giving JC Decaux permission for three of these free standing monopole structures between the top of Parnell Street and Bolton Street, and around the corner they don’t bother to face up to the fact that JC Decaux already have an illegal sign,” said An Taisce’s Ian Lumley. *
An Taisce have lodged a complaint with the European Commission over the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the scheme. According to Council planners an EIA was not necessary. This is apparently because the applications were all separate.
Council planners told Labour councillor, Emer Costello that the project was an “environmental enhancement” scheme. She believes there was a lack of transparency in the way 70 applications were submitted on 22 December during the Christmas holidays when it was more likely that the applications would pass unnoticed. Another 50 applications were lodged around a month later.
One of the reasons given by city planners for refusing to provide details of the contract to councillors was on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and plans are indeed in place for similar schemes in other local authorities.
Councillor Tom Brabazon believes that if the deal goes through as it is presently envisaged by the local authority officials, and An Bord Pleanála who are currently reviewing appeals, gives it the go ahead, then it will have much wider implications for other local authorities.
Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Business Association is not just worried about aesthetics, saying “the advertising they are taking down is illegal anyway. It’s very important to protect the brand of the city. If a firm was to rent every billboard we would not be Dublin City anymore, but whatever that brand was.”

THE STRUCTURES
Two new types of advertising structure have been applied for; 70 metropoles and 50 smaller advertising display units. The metropoles are up to seven-metres squared and will stand on a single leg on public footpaths with moving images and back lighting designed to stand out, particularly at night. The DTO has made it known that it is totally opposed to the provision of on-street illuminated outdoor signage as it is considered to constitute a traffic hazard.
Many of the smaller advertising display units – around the size of bus-shelter adverts – are planned for residential zones, and historic, or conservation areas. This is in spite of the Dublin City Development Plan, which states that “as a general principle, outdoor advertising will only be permitted in commercial zones. It will not be permitted within residential zones, historic or conservation areas, or amenity areas”.

Wow – great to see Vinne Browne and co are up to speed with what’s happening. When did this thread start?

At least they are prepared to cover it. There has been barely anything about it in other papers as far as I am aware. My bets are on a deluge of letters to the various papers once these things are actually put in place.

@phil wrote:

At least they are prepared to cover it. There has been barely anything about it in other papers as far as I am aware. My bets are on a deluge of letters to the various papers once these things are actually put in place.

It’s been in all the newspapers – just a long time ago Phil

I remember those articles, but it seems to me that this is the only one that had any sort of critical examination of what is happening. You are right in saying that it was a bit late in the day though.

Finally this has been covered somewhere – Sunday Times from a week ago…

Turns out Brussels is getting 250 bikes without billboards on the basis that theyre paying 178K for their scheme; if this be so then the 500 bikes for Dublin is probably worth 356K… So let me see taking 356K away from the €85 Million that city officials claim the deal is worth leaves, hmm – €84.6 Million.

I know the proposed signage must be worth something, but between that and 4 public toilets amounting to a supposed worth of €84.6 million is surely in every sense of the word taking the proverbial piss…

All in all a good article, although its a pity that the journalist ommitted to mention the absence of a 183 vote by councilors

@The Sunday Times – July 1, 2007 wrote:

Dublin &#8216]

Ruadhan Mac Eoin

OILING the wheels of commerce to drive a green agenda sounds like a win-win situation, but critics of Dublin’s “bicycles for billboards” deal say the council has ended up a loser.

J C Decaux, one of the world’s leading outdoor advertising agencies, has given the capital significantly fewer bikes proportionally than it gave to Paris, Lyons and other European cities where it has billboard agreements.

Dublin has agreed to let J C Decaux erect 120 billboards on public footpaths around the city. In return the agency will provide 500 bicycles for low rent at 25 locations. It will also supply four kiosks with public lavatories, maps and signposts. The value to Dublin is calculated at €85m. The agency has also agreed to withdraw 100 of its existing hoardings from the city. New ones will be located on public property and some will carry civic information.

In Paris the company is providing 20,600 bikes this year in return for 1,628 billboards – more than 12.6 bikes for each billboard, three times the Dublin figure of little more four per hoarding. The Paris contract also involves paying an annual rental of €2,085 for each site for 10 years.

Several other European cities have similar deals with J C Decaux. Vienna was the first, in 2002. It was initially a disaster, with 2,000 bicycles stolen in the first 48 hours, but then 900 secure GPS-traceable bikes being provided. Each bike in Dublin will have a mini-chip to allow it to be tracked.

In Lyons, a city with a population similar to Dublin, 3,000 bicycles have been made available – six times more than here – while Barcelona also has 3,000. In Brussels, only 250 bicycles are available, but the J C Decaux advertising element is restricted to bike sheds. The city has paid €178,000 towards the scheme.

Dublin officials are refusing to release the contract on grounds of “commercial sensitivity”, so the value of any cash transaction is included in the 15-year deal is not clear.

Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor who supports the project, said more transparency would be preferable. He believes J C Decaux got the contract after “a fair tender process”, in which there had been six bids. “As the Paris scheme is a much bigger scale, it was logical that they would get better value”, Montague said.

The Paris terms were agreed after a court challenge by a competitor, Clear Channel, which claimed there were irregularities in the original tendering process.

Emer Costelloe, another Labour councillor, said the revelations about the Paris project confirmed her “worst fears” that Dublin was getting “an incredibly poor deal”.

She would be urging the incoming Lord Mayor to address this “as a priority”.

Dublin is permitting 70 “metropole” billboards, which are 3.5 metres high, automated and illuminated. A further 50 electronic billboards, similar in size to that of bus-shelter adverts, are to be installed in the city centre, primarily in the north inner city and along the Aungier Street axis.

The Dublin deal has attracted criticism over the lack of an environmental impact assessment and road safety issues. Forty appeals against planning permission have been lodged with An Bord Pleanala. They include objections filed by businesses such as Arnotts and An Taisce, the national trust, which say they were not consulted.

One complaint is that J C Decaux has engaged in project splitting by sending in 130 separate applications to the council. Critics say officials were already predisposed to granting planning permission.

Most of the billboards are to be erected on the north side and in the inner city, which critics say will lead “to further stigmatising already disadvantaged neighbourhoods”.

Stuart Fogarty, former President of The Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland, has lodged an appeal on the basis that “the agreed advertising sites will be both obtrusive and create negative aesthetics for the city…and are not helpful to either motorists or pedestrians”.

The Sunday Times understands that J C Decaux is already at an advanced stage of negotiation with Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council to introduce a similar scheme.

Is it right to give over our public space to sectional interest for their own personal gain and in effect cause damage to our public space? Why should certain persons be allowed to benefit from it over and above everyone else?

What do these metropoles look like? Are they like the revolving sign outside Scotland Yard?

@PTB wrote:

What do these metropoles look like? Are they like the revolving sign outside Scotland Yard?

Naw – you’r getting it mixed up with the Metropoletan Polece Pole.

s’elementary really.

Having just returned from Brussels, the official home of WTF architecture, I’ve had the chance to see some of these JCDecaux lovelies in person, as well as the ‘free’ bikes scheme (they’re cheap, but they ain’t free). First off, I should state that I’m unsure if any of these designs bear resemblance to the proposed metropoles and hoardings for Dublin; however, it’s a decent look at how JCD has gone about implementing this scheme in one city and may be of some relevance to the debate.

Beginning with the not-so-bad and proceeding, with due sense of dread and foreboding, into the dismal, here we have one of the bicycle stations outside the Ave Louise metro stop:

Not bad. The walkway is wide enough to accomodate the bikes and bike shed, and the design is crisp and relatively unobtrusive. The location of the bicycle stations also makes sense: most are located near major metro stops and few appear to add excessive clutter to the pedestrian paths. The grey ‘Cyclocity’ post to the right is actually a kiosk. People taking or returning bicycles use these kiosks to enter in their pin numbers and unlock the bikes. The system may make sense once you’ve had a tutorial, but it’s quite confusing and frankly off-putting on first (even second) glance.

Meanwhile, outside of Notre-Dame du Sablon, we have actual proof that some of the signs are being used to display ‘civic information’ rather than 100% ad space. Shocked? I was. But it still pains me to see this beast block the view:

Also in (sort of) favor of the scheme, there is a general consistency to the design of the bike sheds and the bus and tram shelters, also scattered throughout the city. The color, shape, and size of the billboards are basically the same and don’t stand out as hideous reminders of capitalism, etc etc. A typical tram stop:

Some dubious attempts have been made to incorporate a kind of Art Nouveau theme into the signage. Here, we have a pretty distasteful example (blocked by some pedestrians– I suppose it was getting a bit, ahem, crowded on the walkway) of a free-standing, internally illuminated metropole. It flips ads every few seconds. I really, really hate these.

And worse, in the time-honored tradition of the free-standing old-fashioned big-fat-get-in-the-way sign, we are invited to behold this ogre which has planted itself outside of the delightfully run-down Sainte-Catherine. Part of a different scheme, perhaps, but the same culprit nevertheless:

Overall, re: the JCDecaux invasion of Brussels, it appeared that many of the the bus shelters and bike stands, as installations, work. I even saw a few people using the bikes. But that is not, in itself, reason enough to assume it’s a good addition to an already chaotic traffic environment :cough cough Dublin cough cough: But those free-standing, internally illuminated gargoyles, those do nothing but obstruct, offend, and distract. Those have got to be stopped.

Does anyone know if the illuminated signage as seen in posts #108 and #110 of this thread are closer to the models proposed for Dublin? I’d be curious.

Thanks manifesta. Very informative.

#110 came from the documentation submitted to DCC, so it’s exactly what is proposed. I’m re-posting hutton’s pic from that post for convenience:

It’s possibly a bit misleading in that there is actually sufficient clearance below the sign for pedestrians to pass (as long as you’re less than 6′ 6″, that is). So that’s okay then. :rolleyes:

The smaller signs in Dublin will be like the ‘art nouveau’ sign in your post.

Now I think I’m going to go and get a delicious glass of cool, refreshing Tropicana essentials blackcurrant and forest fruits juice. A sudden urge has inexplicably just come over me…

An overview below of the decisions issued by Dublin City on Decaux applications. There has been no instance of refusal of permission. The grants of permission were issued within a window spanning a couple of days.

@Sloan wrote:

An overview below of the decisions issued by Dublin City on Decaux applications. There has been no instance of refusal of permission. The grants of permission were issued within a window spanning a couple of days.

If you look at the detail of some of the applications (I’ve seen the documentation for some but not all) you’ll see that the case officer recommended refusal but was overruled by his superior (is ‘superior’ the right word? :rolleyes:), which might indicate that word came down from on high that this entire scheme was to be facilitated. But the fact that all decisions to grant issued within a couple of days of each other is simply because they were all submitted at the same time and were decided by the statutory decision deadline.

@ctesiphon wrote:

But the fact that all decisions to grant issued within a couple of days of each other is simply because they were all submitted at the same time and were decided by the statutory decision deadline.

This is what I concluded at first, however on closer inspection I found there was a period of 5 weeks between 2 substantial batches of applications lodged (shown below) –

….the statutory deadline decision
This can be bypassed by the planning authority issuing a request for additional information – and in the 3 cases of A.I. on Decaux applications no final decision has yet been issued.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Now I think I’m going to go and get a delicious glass of cool, refreshing Tropicana essentials blackcurrant and forest fruits juice. A sudden urge has inexplicably just come over me…

Did you get paid for saying that?

BTW Those are girls bikes in Brussels:( Wouldn’t be seen dead etc.

@PTB wrote:

Did you get paid for saying that?

Nope, but I presume somebody got paid to make me think it. 😉

Below is a chart of DCC decisions for North and South Dublin. There was a 55% increase in Grants of Permission issued to North Dublin comparitive to South Dublin. There were no instances of request for additional information for North Dublin applications.

Below is a chart of Appeals against Grants of Permission for North and South Dublin.
MySpace Polls – Take Our Poll
Due to a technical fault this poll does not appear correctly on some machines.
To cast a vote click here http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=68352

Thanks to those who have contibuted to this poll so far 😎

Bringing this back to the front page…

I have two appeals into ABP about these ‘structures’.
6767/06 and 6768/06 – financial considerations meant I could not object to more.
One is due a decision by 20th August, the other by the 27th.

In the event that my appeals are rejected – is that it? Is the process then exhausted?

In th event that ABP rejects your appeal, you could go to the High Court and seek a judicial review of ABP’s decision- if you believe they did not follow their own procedures correctly.

You’d need to get some financial backing first.

Gumph…I think an appeal to the High Court by me is unlikely.

I’d love to stick it to DCC and JC Decaux and all their dodgy undercover deals though even if it was just for one out of the 120 seperately applied for monstrosities.

I’m sure the local gentlemen of the tracksuits will vandalise them anyway, but I’d rather they never got installed at all – particularly on a Protected Structure.

Newcomen Bridge is a protected structure. Case No. 6768/06 wants to enhance it with one of the metropole ‘things’.
A thing of beauty you’ll agree:
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00119581.pdf
List of Protected structures: http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/RPS_tcm35-8619.pdf

I wonder if you took the classic tourist snap of the whole church above would you get the metropole in the shot

Those billboards around Stephen’s Green displaying wildlife photography… that’s not a softly softly, stealthy introduction of these things is it?

John

@newgrange wrote:

Newcomen Bridge is a protected structure. Case No. 6768/06 wants to enhance it with one of the metropole ‘things’.
A thing of beauty you’ll agree:
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00119581.pdf

Is the implication of that picture that it’s so depressing & grey & rainy & trafficey around there that it wouldn’t really matter if you put up a sign like that?

Yikes – that’s a grim picture!

I also notice that the positioning of the metropole means that the southbound bicycle lane (textured section on pavement) is completely obscured for any car exiting Guildford Place (as it is correctly spelt).

My appeal on the Newcomen Bridge one was due a decision today.
This has been put back now til December 11th.

A possibility that they are considering them all together? Anyone hear anything?

hmm that’s an interesting one. A single application such as this would normally be dealt with very quickly. I’d say you’re right though. They seem to be considering this as one single scheme effectively

Yes that sounds likely.

An unrelated scheme, but as it was mentioned, some of the wildlife thingamajigs in the Green at the moment.

And even more unrelated, but I just thought these rotund fellows made quite the stoical scene, contemplating their little feathered world.

…annnyway – back to signs.

Got letters today in relation to the two appeals I have in (Newcomen Bridge and Summerhill) saying the Board has decided to hold an oral hearing of them and to determine the appeals before December 12th.
I’m presuming this is along with all the other appeals related to this scheme and not just my two.

As far as I know, the Oral Hearing covers all the sites that were appealed.

Good news.

An Taisce queries number of billboard application hearings

Tim O’Brien

An Taisce has questioned a decision by An Bord Pleanála to hold an oral hearing into just 25 out of 120 applications for billboard sites throughout Dublin.

Under a deal between Dublin City Council and international advertising agency JC Decaux, the city is to be provided with free bicycles in return for permission to erect the billboards at key city locations.

Two types of billboards are proposed, 70 boards which are free standing and cover an area of up to seven square metres, and 50 smaller boards which are about the size of a bus-shelter poster.

The larger billboards may carry moving images and be illuminated at night. The advertising space value to Dublin City Council has been estimated at more then €8 million.

Some 500 bicycles are to be provided by JC Decaux for Dubliners to use and return, in a deal similar to that done with other European cities.

However, concern has been expressed that Dublin is getting a worse deal than other cities.

In Paris, for example, the company is to provide 20,600 bicycles in return for 1,628 billboards, a ratio of almost 13 bicycles to each billboard, three times the ration being offered to Dublin.

While the Dublin contract also envisages the provision of some street conveniences, the Paris one envisages an annual rent of more than €2,000 a unit for 10 years.

A spokesman for An Taisce claimed that in Lyon, France, a city with a population similar to Dublin, 3,000 bicycles had been made available – six times more than here.

However, Dublin City Council has refused to release the exact nature of the deal, citing “commercial sensitivity”.

Following the announcement by An Bord Pleanála that it intended to hold oral hearings into applications for just 25 sites, an spokesman for An Taisce called for each site to be afforded the same level of scrutiny.

“Some of these are in narrow city streets where their size alone may constitute a safety hazard, with posters blocking drivers’ views of traffic lights and sign posts. In other areas, there may be streets of architectural amenity which these things will destroy. It is unbelievable that the city could even consider this.”
© 2007 The Irish Times

This was covered on Morning Ireland this morning, from 08:40 onwards.
A report by a correspondant in Paris followed by an interview with Andrew Montague, with notably no critic to balance. No mention of the lack of EIS, differential between benefits to Paris as opposed to Dublin, or that the contract which was agreed prior to councillors knowledge still has not been released… All in all, a very biased piece IMO – but judge for yourself if you want at: http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/

Check out the results of the poll on the rte news site – overwhelmingly against it

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Check out the results of the poll on the rte news site – overwhelmingly against it

Hmmm Thats very interesting. In the mean time RTE 6.1 TV news is about to air another piece on “free” bikes in Paris.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Check out the results of the poll on the rte news site – overwhelmingly against it

Hi Paul – it’d be very interesting if you could help with a link]RTÉ News: Free bikes
A free bicycle initiative, which has proved to be a success in Paris, could soon be on its way to Ireland.[/QUOTE]

…and just to think, there’s all those nasty people ot there on archiseek that just seem to have a problem with stuff thats “free”…

BTW did anyone see the 6.1 piece? A little bit odd that the correspondant left it til the end to note in the same breath that while Paris gets 20,000 bikes for 1500 billboards (inaccurate + no mention of annual rental), Dublin gets 500 bikes for “about 100” billboards… give or take 30; but sure then what need accuracy when reported on the national broadcaster? 😮
Suffice to say that while it was pointed out that there are bike stations within 300 yards of each other in Paris, no mention as to how will the 500 would distributed in Dublin?

*cough*, EIS? Transparency? etc 😡

Results of a poll on RTE News website as of today at 2:20 pm

What do you make of Dublin’s bikes for billboards deal?

The 120 new billboards will be a scar on the city…………46% (1909 votes)
The bicycles will start disappearing from day one………..21% (876 votes)
A great initiative for the environment and our health…..13% (565 votes)
More cycle lanes should come first……………………………14% (603 votes)
It won’t get me out of my car …………………………………….6% (236 votes)

Total Votes: 4189

@Sloan wrote:

Results of a poll on RTE News website as of today at 2:20 pm

What do you make of Dublin’s bikes for billboards deal?

The 120 new billboards will be a scar on the city…………46% (1909 votes)
The bicycles will start disappearing from day one………..21% (876 votes)
A great initiative for the environment and our health…..13% (565 votes)
More cycle lanes should come first……………………………14% (603 votes)
It won’t get me out of my car …………………………………….6% (236 votes)

Total Votes: 4189

Thanks Sloan…So only 1 in 8 out of a poll of over 4000 are in favour of this? Very interesting…

It would be great if you could please post a direct link to the poll if possible 🙂

Thanks – H

This is the poll from RTE’s Website at http://www.rte.ie/news/index.html
Also provided links ….”Watch” ……RTE Six One News Item shown yesterday . . . . . ……”Listen”……..Morning Ireland Show

The poll can also be viewed here http://www.polldaddy.com/poll.asp?p=93008

Results

From today’s Irish Times:

‘Distractions’ to blame for slower driver reaction times

David Labanyi

The amount of time it takes an average driver to respond to a hazard can be almost twice that assumed in the new Rules of the Road, according to an unpublished report.

A study on braking distances for the Road Safety Authority (RSA) found that despite improvements in the braking capacity of cars during the 12 years since the old rule book, driver reaction times have increased, largely due to more distractions.

An RSA spokesman said the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in England had been commissioned to study how long it takes a car traveling at a certain speed to come to a stop.

In 1995 the stopping distances associated with different speeds assumed a reaction time of 0.66 seconds.

However, when the TRL researchers examined whether this reaction time was still valid, they found it only applied to drivers who are highly alert and aware of the need to react.

For all other drivers, the reaction time should be assumed as being between 1 to 1.5 seconds.

To explain the significance of this difference the TRL report says a driver travelling at 30km/h is expected to be able to bring a car to a stop within 10.8 metres on a dry road, based on the 0.66 second reaction time.

However, if reaction time is increased to 1 second, the stopping distance increases to 13.3 metres, or by almost two car lengths. At 100km/h in wet conditions the difference in stopping distances increases from 122 metres to 132 metres.

Mr Farrell said drivers were increasingly distracted in their cars due to music, passengers, hands-free phones and roadside advertising. This was resulting in slower reaction times he said.

The TRL report also notes that meeting the stopping distances in the Rules of the Road – which are the same as those recommended in Britain – requires a severity of braking that most drivers would be uncomfortable with.

Mr Farrell agreed that, the stopping distances published in the Rules of the Road do assume emergency braking, although this is not specifically stated in the document.

Asked why the Rules of the Road used the shorter, emergency reaction time, Mr Farrell said the published braking distances “give motorists an idea of how long it will take them to actually stop under emergency conditions”.

A motorist’s reaction to a hazard has two elements: their perception of the hazard and how quickly they respond, or brake. These two factors are those which can suffer the greatest impairment due to alcohol, fatigue, drugs or poor weather conditions.
© 2007 The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motors/2007/0829/1187332774462.html

What utter bollocks – we’ve had car stereos, roadside ads and – the best one – passengers for decades now. Why not make the point about mobile phones without empellishing it with this drivel

There was a decision issued by ABPleanala in relation to a JC Decaux Appeal against DCC’s decision to refuse permission on 20th Nov 2006 for an application lodged on 4th October 2006. DCC Reg. Ref.: 5387/06
Bord Reg. Ref. 220867
Note: The APPEAL was by JC Decaux

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Installation of a 2.5 metre by four metre internally illuminated display unit mounted onto the gable wall of 74 Dorset Street Upper, Dublin.

DCC’s Reason for refusal
1) The proposed illuminated advertising display would by reason of its size, illumination and elevated position on a prominent flank elevation constitute a visually obtrusive feature at this location and would detract seriously from the visual amenities and character of the immediate streetscape and surrounding area. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to the provisions of the City Development Plan.

[Extract From Inspector’s Report]

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The grounds of the first party appeal include the following:
– The commercial zoning of the site means that advertisements are open for consideration
– The design was custom made to suit the building and regard was had for the need to replicate the vertical emphasis fenestration on Dorset Street as well as the Council’s desire to reduce the size of advertising structures
– The buildings are in a predominately commercial area
– No objections were lodged
– The structure would add colour and vitality and would not detract from the surrounding buildings
– References to no. 80 Dorset Street Upper and no. 75 Dorset Street Upper are noted
– The application needs to be considered on its own merits
– We would request a temporary three year permission to allow for an accurate assessment of the development.

ASSESSMENT
Following inspection of the site and surrounding area and consideration of the information on file as well as the prevailing Development Plan Policies, I consider that the main issues to be determined in the appeal are whether the development would be detrimental to the character of the area and whether the development would contravene the Development Plan Policies.

Visual Impact
In terms of the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area I propose first to comment on the general area in which the site is located. The planning report refers to the nature of Dorset Street as an area which is in need of rejuvenation and upgrading and in this context it was considered that the proposed advertisement panels, which interrupt the views and setting of the protected structure would be contrary to the vision of the Planning Authority for the area. In general I would agree with this assessment. Despite its fine stock of buildings, Dorset Street presents as a neglected and under-performing area. It is an important and heavily trafficked thoroughfare part of which, to the north of the junction with Eccles Street has been subject of considerable public expenditure to improve the public realm. To date no such work has commenced at the section of Dorset Street where the site is located. During the course of my inspection I noted three areas close to the site where advertising hoardings have been removed in recent years. I also refer the Board to the attached photographs which show that there are a number of large old fashioned format structures still in place. The appellant’s position is that the proposed advertisement structure is well designed and that it needs to be considered on its merits. I note however that the Development Plan Policy makes reference to the need to consider the number of existing advertisements in an area and I consider that this policy is reasonable. In terms of the impact on the wider context the proposed development would be highly visible and would add to the number of advertisement structures along Dorset Street. Because of its prominent location I consider that the proposed unit would detract from the building on which it would be located and from the protected structure immediately to the south of the site. In addition, when taken in conjunction with the advertisement panels at no. 80 Dorset Street Upper and the advertisement structures built in to the two bus shelters located in the immediate area, I consider that this would constitute an excessive amount of advertisement which would be seriously injurious to the amenities of the area. I therefore recommend that permission be refused on the grounds of adverse impact on the character of the area.

Development Plan Policy
The appellant notes that in areas that are zoned for commercial development advertisement structures are open for consideration. The development plan however also indicates that outdoor advertising will not be permitted within residential zones, historic or conservation areas or on protected structures or within the vicinity of protected structures in a way as to detract from the visual quality of their setting. I consider that in this case by reason of impacting on the upper floors of an adjoining building the proposed display unit would detract from the setting of the protected structure. In addition I consider that by reason of its illuminated nature, the proposed development could have an adverse impact on the amenities of residents of the upper floor of no. 75 and would therefore be contrary to the Development Plan Policy. In terms of the appellants suggestion that a temporary permission might be appropriate, I note that the appellant has failed to provide any photomontages to illustrate the impact of the development but I consider that a temporary permission for reason of permitting the Planning Authority to further consider the impact of the development would not be warranted in this case. The Development Plan refers to temporary permissions being appropriate in the case of building sites or sites awaiting redevelopment, neither of which applies in this case. The Development Plan further states that as a general rule permissions will in any event be limited to a maximum of three years.

I conclude that the development would damage the character of the individual building on which it would be located and would detract from the setting of the protected structure and the amenities and character of the area and give rise to a proliferation of advertisement structures in the immediate area. I therefore consider that the development contravenes the policy for outdoor advertising and advertising hoardings contained in the Development Plan.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse permission be upheld by the Board for the reason set out below.

1. The site is located in an area of mixed uses which includes residential uses, protected structures and a number of advertisement structures in the immediate vicinity. It is considered that the proposed development, having regard to its nature, scale and prominent location, would seriously injure the amenities of the area and would lead to a proliferation of advertisement structures in this area which be contrary to the provisions of the current Dublin City Development Plan. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The Board decided to refuse permission generally in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation
Signed 16th April 2007

Have the date and venue been set for the Oral Hearing yet?

@Sloan wrote:

Have the date and venue been set for the Oral Hearing yet?

I got letters about it today:

A joint oral hearing in respect of the twenty five appeal cases against the decision to grant permission to J.C. Decaux for outdoor advertising signs.

Date: Tuesday 18th September, 2007
Wednesday 19th September, 2007
Thursday 20th September, 2007
(If necessary Friday 21st September, 2007)

Time: 10.00am

Place: Conference Room, An Bord Pleanála, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin 1

I’m not sure I will be able to attend personally, as work may be an issue. I think I can nominate someone to appear on my behalf.

Thanks for posting the details newgrange

Got two packs of stuff pertaining to my appeals in the post today.
They seem to be copies of all submissions, appeals and responses to appeals in relation to each structure I objected to.

Anyone here in the know (and against the structures:rolleyes: ) who would like to attend the oral hearing on my behalf? I doubt I can get out of classes though I work just across the road from ABP’s offices. Unless it is only for an hour or so – if it starts at ten daily, does it go on all day?

The days are usually fairly full. Some days can run until after 6 too, though I don’t think it’s all that common. If you can get there on the first morning, or send a representative (not me, I’m afraid), you might be able to get a slot that would facilitate you attending in person, but timetables are prone to slippage.

What dates were you given for the OH? Still 18th to 21st? I heard this evening from another appelant that the start was put back by a couple of days- he’s going to be on holidays, so will miss the whole thing and, like you, is looking for a stand-in. Any truth, do you know?

I haven’t heard yet of a change of dates.

I don’t understand what half the junk they sent me was – all this stuff about ‘way finding systems’ and how contracts are awarded by DCC.

I was surprised by the news of date changes too. I suspect he may have his days mixed up.

The other documentation is just noise, really, unless you’re keen to know more about the background of the wider proposal. The wayfinding systems stuff and the contract background actually have nothing at all to do with the Oral Hearing, as they’re not related to the core issue of planning permission for signs in the public domain, however much DCC, JCDecaux or their consultants might want you to think otherwise.

Stick to the planning aspects of the case, and read the planning elements of the documentation you got- other observations and objections primarily, but also the report of the DCC case officer for each of your appeal sites. You might discover interesting things, such as the planner recommending refusal, then being over-ruled by a senior. I know this happened in a few cases at least.

Got notice today that they are now on Thursday 20th at 10am, Friday 21st at 9am and Monday 24th at 9am.

They are being heard in groups.

My two appear to be being heard together.
If I cannot get off work to attend (which it is unlikely I will be able to) do my appeals still get heard?
Can others present for other appeals comment on mine?
I did not request an oral hearing and am happy to let mine stand in writing, but will it weaken my case if I do not attend?

Does that mean the start has been moved back to the 20th? Or is there still general stuff on the 18th and 19th, do you know?

Also, have you been allocated a time slot?

As far as I know, once your letter(s) are on file the contents will stand, even if you aren’t there to present them in person. It might be a case, though, of getting someone to attend for you in order to read the submissions into the record of the O.H. Whether or not this affects your case, I’m not sure. I wouldn’t have thought so, though I’m open to correction on this point.

It doesn’t give any specific time other than the start times each day.
222953 and 223085 are my appeals.
I could make it for the afternoon of Friday, but I suspect that would be too late.

I’ve OCRed the agenda I got – details below:

AN BORD PLEANALA

OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS

1 Presentation by the Developer

2 Submission by the Planning Authority.

3 Third Party Submissions (See ‘Advisory Note’ below)

4 Questions

5 Observer Submissions.

6 Concluding Remarks.

Advisory Note.

The Board directed that a Joint Oral Hearing be held on the twenty-five appeal cases. The third party submissions will be heard simultaneously for each of the groups of appeals set out below first.

• 223095, 223096, 223112 and 223117

• 223025, 223027, 223032, 223038 and 223143

• 223103 and 223104

• 223147 and 223214

• 223 101 and 223127

• 222953 and 223085

The third party submissions will then heard on an individual basis, for each of the

appeal cases below.

223040, 223043, 223084, 223121, 223127, 223148, 22315 and 223268,

The Hearing will be held in the Conference Room at the Board’s offices on Thursday,

20th Friday, 21s’ and Monday 24th September, 2007 commencing at 10. 00 am on the first day and at 9.00 am on the following days.

I have received the same communication as Newgrange and also won’t be able to attend :confused:

newgrange & cheezypuf-

Have you heard that the OH has been moved again? Oct 9th to 11th, apparently. Perhaps you’ll be able to make it along then instead?

Yes, got notice today of the change in dates.
I might be able to make the Tuesday one and will certainly be able to make Thursday, but Wednesday will be out for me.

There is a meeting tomorrow (Thu) evening for interested parties, in advance of the hearing next week. If you pm me I can pass on details.

Something that may be of interest – particularly in regard to Jean Charles Decauxs previous convictions…

@The Economist wrote:

From The Economist
Sep 20th 2007

Vive la Vélorution!

JCDecaux and Clear Channel Outdoor battle over urban bike-schemes

OUTDOOR advertising has become fiercely competitive and highly
political. America’s Clear Channel Outdoor and France’s JCDecaux
fought for months in negotiations with the office of the mayor of
Paris, and in court, to snap up the contract for panneaux contre
vélos—setting up a bicycle-rental scheme in Paris in exchange for
exclusive rights to the French capital’s 1,628 billboards. Although
Clear Channel claims to have won “technically”, the French firm, whose
founder, Jean-Claude Decaux, has close ties to the political
establishment, emerged as the victor in practice this spring. JCDecaux
set up the bike-rental system in record time and launched it on July
15th.

Vélib’ (for vélo, or bicycle, and liberté, or freedom) has since taken
Paris by storm. More than 10,000 bikes have been installed at 750
docking stations, which is half of the scheme’s eventual capacity,
says Jean-François Decaux, the son of the founder and co-chief
executive of the family-controlled firm along with his brother,
Jean-Charles. The bicycles have been used by 4m people so far, who
have clocked up 100,000 rides a day. Last week Jean-François was in
Moscow for talks with the mayor, who is keen to introduce a similar
scheme there. The mayor of Chicago also expressed interest in
importing Vélib’ during a recent visit to Paris.

JCDecaux neither invented nor pioneered urban bike-operations. But
Vélib’ is on a different scale from any of its predecessors. Smaller
schemes launched over the past four decades mostly failed because the
bikes were vandalised or stolen. More recently both JCDecaux and Clear
Channel Outdoor have launched urban bike-rental schemes in which users
pay with their credit cards—which means they can be tracked down in
case of abuse. Such schemes are now working well in more than a dozen
cities including Vienna, Lyon, Brussels, Seville and Cordoba (run by
the French), and Barcelona, Oslo, Stockholm and Rennes (run by the
Americans).

Not all bike-rental operations are funded in the same way. The Paris
scheme is entirely financed by JCDecaux, which is counting on rental
fees and the sale of billboard advertising to cover its running costs
and recoup the €90m ($126m) investment required to set it up. (A
one-day pass for Vélib’ costs €1, a weekly pass costs €5 and an annual
subscription costs €29 with no additional charge as long as each ride
lasts less than 30 minutes. Users also agree to a €150 security
deposit.) The city of Barcelona, by contrast, pays Clear Channel
Outdoor to run its “Cyclocity” scheme and pockets the rental fees. It
is another success, with a 3,000-strong bike fleet that will increase
to 6,000 by March next year. It already has 90,000 registered users
who pay a €24 annual subscription.

JCDecaux and Clear Channel Outdoor will continue to compete for new
bike schemes as well as contracts for billboards, street furniture
(public loos, bus shelters and the like) and transport (advertising in
airports and train stations). The French recently won a bike contract
in Toulouse, and the American firm will launch a cycling scheme next
month in Washington, DC. Both are lobbying hard for the right to set
up a scheme in London.

In the past JCDecaux has repeatedly been accused of unfair play and
Jean-Claude has twice been convicted of criminal offences in
connection with contracts awarded by local governments. Both offences
took place before the firm floated on the Paris stock exchange in
2001. Since then it seems to have played by the rules.

And now, with Jean-Claude’s blessing, Jean-François and Jean-Charles
(as well as Jean-Sébastian, a younger son, and a few more Jean-hyphens
involved in the management of the company) could be on the verge of
the biggest coup in the firm’s 43-year history. On September 25th
shareholders are expected to approve the leveraged buy-out by two
private-equity companies of Clear Channel, the media company that owns
Clear Channel Outdoor, at a shareholder meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
If the private-equity buyers then put the outdoor-ad business up for
sale, the French are likely to jump on it.

A merger of Clear Channel Outdoor and JCDecaux would make lots of
sense, says Edouard Camblain, an analyst at Société Générale in Paris.
JCDecaux is weak in America, where Clear Channel has 22% of the
market. Clear Channel is also appealing thanks to its strength in
China, one of the world’s fastest-growing markets. And a merger would
bring considerable economies of scale.

Yet buying Clear Channel Outdoor would not be easy. The takeover would
probably be paid for with a combination of debt, new equity and
possibly the sale of the JCDecaux’s 10.5% stake in Bouygues Telecom.
This would dilute the stake held by the family, which holds 72% of the
capital, and some of the hyphenated Jeans would probably have to go.
Combining the market leaders might also cause problems with
competition watchdogs in Britain and in France, where the merged
firm’s market share in outdoor advertising would be almost
two-thirds—and it would be the only advertising company providing
trendy urban-bicycle schemes.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832847

Oral Hearings taking place tomorrow. Wednesday and Thursday

Meeting at An Taisce at 7pm tonight, Tailors Hall, Dublin 8 – opposite Mother Recaps. Primarily for appelants but if any other interested parties are free to attend please feel welcome.

From todays Times –

@The Irish Times wrote:

Advertising company responsible for 119 illegal hoardings
Olivia Kelly

The advertising company which is to provide a city bike scheme for Dublin in exchange for free advertising at 120 city locations is responsible for 119 illegal advertising hoardings across the State, An Taisce has told a Bord Pleanála hearing.

The planning board yesterday opened an appeals hearing against 24 of the 120 planning permissions granted by Dublin City Council to one of the world’s largest advertising companies, JC Decaux.

The council has granted permission to erect 70 panels of 7sq m (8.37sq yards) and 50 panels of 2.59sq m (similar in size to a bus shelter) at locations around the city for a period of 15 years. All panels will be free-standing, double-sided, can be illuminated at night and can carry moving images.

The council is to receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of the advertising spaces, but will get 450 bicycles, reduced from an original 500, which will be available for hire by the public at a fee yet to be decided.

Under the contract with the council, JC Decaux will also provide four public toilets, a number of signposts, freestanding maps and “heritage trail” posts.

The council has also secured a commitment from the company to remove 100 of its 18sq m advertising hoardings from the sides of buildings in the city.

However, An Taisce told the hearing that these older style hoardings were no longer lucrative and many were likely to be illegal and should be forcibly removed by the council.

An Taisce representative John Stewart said the heritage body had identified 119 locations across the State where JC Decaux was responsible for illegal advertising billboards. These were advertising panels that had either been erected without permission, or had been altered, extended or illuminated without permission.

In 28 cases so far, An Taisce has secured declarations from the relevant local authorities that the developments are unauthorised, eight of which relate to developments in Dublin. JC Decaux had also failed to comply with orders from An Bord Pleanála and various local authorities, Mr Stewart said.

“JC Decaux are in contempt of the board, in contempt of the local authorities and in competent of the people of Ireland as a whole.”

An Taisce heritage officer Ian Lumley said the contract between the council and JC Decaux should not go ahead because it conflicted with EU and Irish law. Under an EU directive the project should have been subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), he said.

It also conflicted with Irish property law, which stated that property owners had rights to a portion of the public road. He added that the applications were “premature” because the city council was preparing an outdoor advertising strategy. The contract should not be allowed to proceed until this strategy was adopted, he said.

Senior planner with the council Mary Conway said the applications did not fall within the EIA remit. JC Decaux has said that Mr Stewart’s assertions were untrue and defamatory. The hearing continues today.

© 2007 The Irish Times

And today’s:

@The Irish Times wrote:

Roadside advertising opposed
Olivia Kelly

New 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&#8217]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:

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…

@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.)

Got a letter today saying the new target date for a decision is 17th January, 2008.

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.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Thanks.

One result is in! I’ve just heard that the pole on North Strand near the blind shop has been refused.

I’m off to check the rest.

EDIT: No new details on the ABP site yet. (I heard about the North Strand one from one of the appellants.)

check this out…………

São Paulo: The City That Said No To Advertising

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2007/id20070618_505580.htm

@ctesiphon wrote:

One result is in! I’ve just heard that the pole on North Strand near the blind shop has been refused.

I’m off to check the rest.

EDIT: No new details on the ABP site yet. (I heard about the North Strand one from one of the appellants.)

Hmmm I’ve heard nothing about my appeals – perhaps that does not bode well for the one on Newcomen Bridge and the other on Summerhill.
Still, even one of these things stopped is a good result.

Another appellant I know rang the Board today after hearing the earlier news- he was told they should all be up by Monday. Apparently the man from ABP was a bit surprised that one had crept out already.

@newgrange wrote:

even one of these things stopped is a good result.

Well if one refusal is a good result, what would you call a total refusal of all cases?

Because I think that’s what has happened.

I still can’t quite believe it- somebody pinch me! 😀

@ctesiphon wrote:

Well if one refusal is a good result, what would you call a total refusal of all cases?

Very fucking awkward for a City Manager and the Planning Dept that presided over such a disgraceful sham. 😡

What moral authority will there be now for the other units already approved, as it is fair to say if it hadn’t cost more than 30k to appeal the scheme, they would have all been appeaaled – and given the 100% refusal rate, it is fair to say that they would have all been thrown out.

Dont get carried away yet CTE – bear in mind the vast majority of these were not appealed, arising out of the punative cost that the project-splitting caused, and therefore there are still about 90 of these that are live… But the real question is what happens next?

really ctesiphon, all of them !!!!!! ?

@hutton wrote:

Dont get carried away yet CTE – bear in mind the vast majority of these were not appealed, arising out of the punative cost that the project-splitting caused, and therefore there are still about 90 of these that are live… But the real question is what happens next?

ah, i see. what happens next ? hopefully the entire scheme will be ahem, re-evaluated & filed under ‘don’t bring that thing up again’.

The Newcomen Bridge one was refused permission, the Summerhill one ‘a decision has been made but notification has not yet been sent out’.
: )

Its a wee bit more nuanced than first thought. Latest information is 2 passed, incl Henry St and Smithfield, 15 refused.

So 15 to 2 so far…

Yes- I was a bit premature.

5 have been granted, all in the Henry Street-Liffey Street area, and all contrary to the recommendations of the Inspector.

So that’s 17 refused, 5 passed.

FYI, my brother sent me a cameraphone photo the other day of what appears to be one of these signs being installed at Whitehall Cross.

RTE News are reporting that its 6 granted, 18 refused – all the larger ones it seems, its on the News at One (radio).

Well it is an impressive result: well done to all involved!

from the rte site …

@RTE News wrote:

Permission given for Dublin billboards
Monday, 11 February 2008 13:34
An Bord Pleanala has granted planning permission for the erection of six advertising hoardings in central Dublin.

The signs were proposed by the company JC Decaux in exchange for providing 450 bicycles for Dublin City Council.

The board went against its own inspector in granting permission but it refused 18 other applications.

AdvertisementJC Decaux is one of the world’s largest advertising companies. It originally wanted to erect 120 signs around Dublin but later reduced the number to 100.

Dublin City Council granted permission to the proposal in which it would receive hundreds of bikes and four toilets, but 24 signs were appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

The board is refusing planning for 18 of the illuminated hoardings some of which were 4.8m high and 3.4m wide.

However it passed 6 smaller hoardings, 2.5m high and 1.4m. Five of these are in the Henry Street and Liffey Street areas.

Arnotts and the Dublin City Traders’ Association strongly opposed the plan.

Jane Dennehy, inspector at the hearing, recommended rejection for all the signs because the council did not have a formally adopted outdoor advertising strategy.

The board says today’s decision will not set policy into the future.

From todays Independent

Free bike plan to go on despite billboards setback

By Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent
Tuesday February 12 2008

A CONTROVERSIAL “bicycles for billboards” deal is to go ahead despite 18 giant illuminated signs for Dublin being rejected yesterday because they might distract passing motorists and pedestrians.

An Bord Pleanala has approved just six smaller signs in the Henry Street area.

One of the world’s biggest advertising companies — JC Decaux — had planned 100 big electronic hoardings across the city in a deal with the city council that would see it provide 450 free public bicycles in return for planning permission.

Some 76 signs have already been approved without objection by Dublin City Council, which has done the deal with JC Decaux. However, out of a further 24 appealed to Bord Pleanala, only six smaller versions were approved by the board yesterday.

Rejected

The 18 “metropole” signs, 4.8m high and 3.4m wide and illuminated, were rejected.

Bord Pleanala agreed with objectors that they could pose dangers, as passing drivers could be distracted by reading the text. The decision to allow six smaller signs in the Henry Street, Mary Street, and Liffey Street area is bound to infuriate Arnotts and other city centre traders who had objected.

The board went against its own inspector in granting permission. JC Decaux had planned 70 signs and 50 advertising billboards across the city in return for providing 450 bicycles for rent from 25 locations.

A spokesperson for Dublin City Council said afterwards that the deal was still on track as it had been negotiated on the basis of the signs approved without any objections to An Bord Pleanala. Dubliners could expect to see the bicycles by the end of the year.

Objectors include Arnotts, the Dublin Transportation Office and An Taisce, who claim the signs will destroy the city streetscape and pose a traffic hazard.

– Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent

From todays Irish Times –

Planning permission for 18 Dublin billboards rejected
Olivia Kelly

An Bord Pleanála has refused permission for 18 advertising panels, which were to be erected as part of the Dublin city bike rental scheme, largely on the grounds that they would endanger public safety.

The signs were part of the deal between Dublin City Council and international advertising company JC Decaux to swap advertising space at locations around the city, estimated to be worth in the region of €1million annually, for 450 bicycles and four public toilets.

The council had granted permission for 96 advertising structures approximately half of which were similar in size to bus shelters at 2.59sq m, while the remainder were “Metropoles”larger panels of 7sq m standing on poles two metres off the ground.

An Taisce and a number of local residents, city councillors and business people appealed 24 of the council’s decisions to An Bord Pleanála.

The planning board held a public hearing on the 24 cases last October. The inspector who conducted the hearing recommended that all 24 applications be rejected, however, the board decided to allow six of the signs.

The six permitted structures are in areas of the city with some of the highest pedestrian footfall. All are on the northside with five of the structures in the Henry Street/Liffey Street area and one in Smithfield.

Despite strong objections from Arnotts and others, the board allowed these signs, all of which are bus-shelter size, on the grounds that they did not interfere with pedestrian or traffic safety and the impact on the character of the setting would be “insignificant”.

The board, however, refused all of the larger 7sq m structures that came before it.

Similar reasons for refusal were given in most of the 18 cases. The main reason given was that the signs would “distract the attention of motorists and other road users to an undue degree” and would “endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard”.

The board also found that the large signs were “overbearing and insensitive” to the character of the surrounding location.

The refusals support the Dublin Transportation Office position, put forward at the oral hearing, that the signs located on busy roads would constitute a traffic hazard.

However, the remaining signs not appealed to the board and the six allowed by the board, can now go ahead.

The council said the 18 refusals will not affect its deal with JC Decaux and the number of bicycles promised will not be reduced. It has yet to announce a date for the introduction of the bike scheme, or the proposed rental cost of a bicycle, but hopes it will be in place this year.

A working group has been set up in the council to determine the location of the 50 bicycle stations in the city.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@Irish Times wrote:

The signs were part of the deal between Dublin City Council and international advertising company JC Decaux to swap advertising space at locations around the city, estimated to be worth in the region of &#8364] for 450 bicycles and four public toilets.

LOL. Who’s estimate again? €1 Million over 15 years to the operator, while the Irish Times previously reported that deal is worth €85 million to the city…Hmmm so the charitable chaps in JC Decaux are making a €70 Million loss on the project. Lucky Dublin. The excellent standard of reporting on this matter by the IT continues :rolleyes:

the independent…

so a good result for the blocking the standing signs part from the main streets in the city center, but this deal includes building side billboards too?

The proposal was always for two sizes- large ones to distract drivers and smaller ones to block pedestrians. All of the ones refused by the Board were for the large ones; all the grants were for the smaller ones.

But don’t forget, over 70 were granted by the City Council and not appealed- this includes boards of both sizes. So we’re getting some of both.

The proposal was always for two sizes- large ones to distract drivers and smaller ones to block pedestrians.

Were they the stated aims?:)

Dublin’s bike scheme will leave little to go on
DON’T expect to spend a penny when Dublin’s “free bike scheme” is rolled out next year. JC Decaux, the company behind the proposal, has withdrawn its commitment to build four public toilets in the city centre as part of the deal with Dublin city council.
In a further dilution of the deal, the advertising agency will now remove only 50 existing billboards from the city’s streets, instead of the initially agreed 100. This part of the deal had been negotiated to prevent the city being over-run by advertising hoardings.
Jim Keogan of the city council’s planning department said the revised deal was necessary because JC Decaux was only granted planning permission to erect 72 advertising panels, instead of the 120 that had been originally proposed. “We’re very happy with the final agreement,” he said.
Although 500 bicycles were initially promised, the final deal will now see 450 bikes on the streets, located at 50 docking stations around the city. And while the plan was first billed as a “free bike scheme” last year, use of the bicycles is likely to be free for only 30 minutes. “We have yet to iron out how much they will cost but a charge is only likely to kick in after half-an-hour,” Keogan said.
An Bord Pleanala blocked 18 of JC Decaux’s proposed “Metropole” advertising panels last week, ruling that the signs were “overbearing” and could distract traffic. Although the scheme is still set to go ahead, its critics argue the deal has been “watered down”.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said: “We argued that the original deal was bad business for Dublin city but it’s now even worse. 100 prominent billboards were supposed to be removed but it was never specified which ones would be taken away. Now they’re only going to remove the50 least visible and erect 72 new adverts, increasing the overall visual clutter in the city.”
The city council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of the advertising spaces but 32 advertising “faces”, one side of an advertising panel, will be given over to civic information. In Paris, where a similar deal is in operation, the city is paid an annual rent of €2,085 per advertising panel.
The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the
bicycles following next Spring.
Each “Metropole” advertising structure could generate up to €8,000 a month if it was leased by the council, advertisers have claimed. Critics of the scheme say the larger, more obtrusive advertising hoardings are to be erected in working class areas and complain that while Dubliners will receive only 6.25 bicycles per advertising billboard, Parisians got 12.6.
JC Decaux has also been criticised for maintaining unauthorized advertising hoardings in the city. At an oral hearing into the scheme last year, An Taisce claimed the company was responsible for 119 unauthorised advertising adverts across the state. The planning watchdog argues that the scheme should also have been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor and chairman of the Dublin city cycling forum, said the cost of the bicycles wouldn’t be prohibitive for users.
“In Lyon, it’s free for the first 30 minutes, €1 for the next 30 minutes, rising steadily the longer you take out the bike. A daily fee is likely to be about €70,” he said.
In other cities where JC Decaux have set up bicycle schemes, users have to pre-register with a credit card to avail of the scheme, typically 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 one of the docking stations within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a bicycle, typically about €150, is deducted from their credit card. The security measures have all but eliminated bicycle theft in other cities where the scheme has been implemented and in Lyons, city traffic fell by 10% within a year of the scheme’s introduction.
But some traders are unconvinced by the scheme’s merits. Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Business Association said many of the planned advertising hoardings wouldn’t pass basic safety tests and that some were being erected on privately owned property.
In Paris, JC Decaux’s Velib scheme, taking its name from a mixture of vélo (bike) and liberté, has encountered problems since being launched on July 15. The company has been accused of failing to repair damaged bikes and not redistributing the currently available 10,000 bikes around the city’s 700 docking stations at the end of each day. The central stations are often clogged with bikes, while those in outlying areas and at the top of hills, such as Montmartre, are often empty.
JC Decaux has so far set up cycling schemes in Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna, and Lyon. Last week, Ken Livingstone announced a similar scheme for London but unlike the Dublin proposal, the €100m cost will be borne by taxpaers instead of business partners.
Sunday Times 17.02.08

Oh the arrogance! So why doesn’t the government start by legislating for the removal of all the existing billboards and then JC Decaux would stop offering us something they shouldn’t have had in the first place in return for something we don’t want.

@StephenC wrote:

The Council are way out of order on this one.

But at least they’ve learned that when you’re in a hole you stop digging, right? Wrong.

What gives, DCC? Removing the need to provide public conveniences? As this was part of the contract, I suppose it’s allowable, even if it’s sneaky and underhand. But reducing the number of billboards required to be removed? Doesn’t that go against a Condition attached to all the grants, requiring the removal of 100 billboards? Does this then render all the grants null and void? (Not to mention a point I made before, that a strictly legal interpretation of the Condition would require the removal of 100 billboards for each Metropole. And another point, namely that that Condition effectively linked all 120 applications as a single application, despite all protestations to the contrary by the applicant and DCC.)

I really didn’t think Conditions attached to the Grant of Planning Permission were negotiable in this way. Are they? I thought they could only be challenged by an appeal to the Board. So why not appeal? Because the Board refused all of the Metropoles and a good number of the Advertising Display Units – 75% of the total appeals, to be precise – as, I suspect, the applicant knew would happen; hence the cowboy approach since adopted.

This makes me sick. You should be ashamed of yourselves, DCC. Guardians of the city my ass.

@ctesiphon wrote:

What gives, DCC? Removing the need to provide public conveniences? .

Someones taking the piss, alright.

And guess what? Theyre already putting the billboards up! 😮

This is despite what Jim Keogan said in that piece, and despite that the matter is supposed to come back for DCC councillors to take a vote on it. Anyhow hutton has just noticed that the pedistal element of one of the units has already been put in place on the corner of Dean Street, near St Patricks Cathedral.

Whats that again DCC officials, transparency, democracy – yeah whatever. The senior planners that have been involved in this, and have become apologists for JC Decaux should be ashamed of themselves -and how dare they do this while being paid a salary by the exchequer. You know who you are, and guess what, so do we!

@Sloan wrote:

Dublin’s bike scheme will leave little to go on
DON’T expect to spend a penny when Dublin’s “free bike scheme” is rolled out next year. JC Decaux, the company behind the proposal, has withdrawn its commitment to build four public toilets in the city centre as part of the deal with Dublin city council.
In a further dilution of the deal, the advertising agency will now remove only 50 existing billboards from the city’s streets, instead of the initially agreed 100. This part of the deal had been negotiated to prevent the city being over-run by advertising hoardings.
Jim Keogan of the city council’s planning department said the revised deal was necessary because JC Decaux was only granted planning permission to erect 72 advertising panels, instead of the 120 that had been originally proposed. “We’re very happy with the final agreement,” he said.
Although 500 bicycles were initially promised, the final deal will now see 450 bikes on the streets, located at 50 docking stations around the city. And while the plan was first billed as a “free bike scheme” last year, use of the bicycles is likely to be free for only 30 minutes. “We have yet to iron out how much they will cost but a charge is only likely to kick in after half-an-hour,” Keogan said.
An Bord Pleanala blocked 18 of JC Decaux’s proposed “Metropole” advertising panels last week, ruling that the signs were “overbearing” and could distract traffic. Although the scheme is still set to go ahead, its critics argue the deal has been “watered down”.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said: “We argued that the original deal was bad business for Dublin city but it’s now even worse. 100 prominent billboards were supposed to be removed but it was never specified which ones would be taken away. Now they’re only going to remove the50 least visible and erect 72 new adverts, increasing the overall visual clutter in the city.”
The city council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of the advertising spaces but 32 advertising “faces”, one side of an advertising panel, will be given over to civic information. In Paris, where a similar deal is in operation, the city is paid an annual rent of €2,085 per advertising panel.
The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the
bicycles following next Spring.
Each “Metropole” advertising structure could generate up to €8,000 a month if it was leased by the council, advertisers have claimed. Critics of the scheme say the larger, more obtrusive advertising hoardings are to be erected in working class areas and complain that while Dubliners will receive only 6.25 bicycles per advertising billboard, Parisians got 12.6.
JC Decaux has also been criticised for maintaining unauthorized advertising hoardings in the city. At an oral hearing into the scheme last year, An Taisce claimed the company was responsible for 119 unauthorised advertising adverts across the state. The planning watchdog argues that the scheme should also have been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor and chairman of the Dublin city cycling forum, said the cost of the bicycles wouldn’t be prohibitive for users.
“In Lyon, it’s free for the first 30 minutes, €1 for the next 30 minutes, rising steadily the longer you take out the bike. A daily fee is likely to be about €70,” he said.
In other cities where JC Decaux have set up bicycle schemes, users have to pre-register with a credit card to avail of the scheme, typically 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 one of the docking stations within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a bicycle, typically about €150, is deducted from their credit card. The security measures have all but eliminated bicycle theft in other cities where the scheme has been implemented and in Lyons, city traffic fell by 10% within a year of the scheme’s introduction.
But some traders are unconvinced by the scheme’s merits. Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Business Association said many of the planned advertising hoardings wouldn’t pass basic safety tests and that some were being erected on privately owned property.
In Paris, JC Decaux’s Velib scheme, taking its name from a mixture of vélo (bike) and liberté, has encountered problems since being launched on July 15. The company has been accused of failing to repair damaged bikes and not redistributing the currently available 10,000 bikes around the city’s 700 docking stations at the end of each day. The central stations are often clogged with bikes, while those in outlying areas and at the top of hills, such as Montmartre, are often empty.
JC Decaux has so far set up cycling schemes in Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna, and Lyon. Last week, Ken Livingstone announced a similar scheme for London but unlike the Dublin proposal, the €100m cost will be borne by taxpaers instead of business partners.
Sunday Times 17.02.08

1. The condition on the PP is perfectly legally clear – it cannot now be amended to only 50 billboards going, except by means of new application. Mr Jim Keogan would do well to talk to Mr Terence O Keefe regarding this methinks.

2 @DCC Misleading Spin wrote:

The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the bicycles following next Spring.

I refer to my point yesterday, and yes these are definately already going in – see application no. below.

6825/06 On the public footpath on the northern side of Dean Street, near the Junction with Patrick Street, outside ‘Ovenden House’, Dublin 8

However the units appear totally different to that which was proposed, with a flimsy brown metal mesh treatment rather than the chrome solid appearance of that shown in the plans. So far its the pedistal element thats in and they actually look cheaper and nastier than that which was shown in the plans. Will JC Decaux face enforcement from the same officials that took charge in steering this ahead? *Not holding breath*

I hope to have a snap of this tomorrow for this thread –

What will be interesting though, is to see how well Dubliners – who were largely kept in the dark – react to these units now that theyre going up…Hmmm….

Ah C`mon (as Vauxhall/Opels little furry peeps might say) folks,does anybody really expect the “Kept in the Dark” Dubliners to have ANY reaction to what is in reality simply another example of a City Administration reverting to type when “bested” by some other administrative or legislative body.

Mr Keogan,or indeed any other DCC luminary will see no need to “talk-to” anybody else in this matter as the deal was already signed sealed and delivered long before this ABP business was even considered.

DCC have,for long time past,operated a completely seperate “We know best” policy in relation to crazy stunts such as this and more importantly have got away with it. 😮

Why should they change a winning strategy..?

When a Civic Administrative body such as DCC get into bed with a manipulative and savvy company such as JCD there can only be ONE outcome…….an outcome which greatly benefits JCD and doubtless,some elements within DCC whilst being of absolutely Z E R O benefit to the greater Dublin public.

I remain VERY impressed with the resilience shown so far by DCC throughout this little arrangement and I have little doubt but that should,in the future,JCD seek to recruit planning advisers or consultants they will have a VERY short list to choose from 😉

To paraphrase the Leigon of the Rearguard……”A Lot done-Lots more (Of yiz) TO do” 🙂

@Irish Times 20-02-08 wrote:

74-year-old cyclist dies in collision

A 74-year-old cyclist has died following a collision in north Dublin yesterday afternoon. The man received fatal injuries when he collided with a lorry at the junction between Cherrymount Road and Malahide Road in Clontarf. The man, who had not been named last night, was removed to Beaumont Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 3.45pm. Gardaí from Clontarf, who are investigating the crash, said no one else was injured in the incident.

This fatality occured in the middle of the day. RIP.

I note that the Malahide Road is scheduled to have 7 of the larger “Metropole” billboards erected on it.

Given the Boards rejection of all Metropole units that were put before them on grounds of roads safety, who will be held responsible if and when an accident occurs in the proximity of such a roadside distraction?

I wonder who among the elected councillors and DCC planning officials is familiar with the term “Corporate Manslaughter”…

I’m glad to say the pole I appealed was refused. Nice to think I made a difference, albeit a small one.

We were told repeatedly that the Bord Pleanála appeal process was a ‘quasi-judicial process’. As such, given that my appeal has been upheld, I presume they’ll be scrambling to return my extortionate €300 fee?

Compare and Contrast

A sample of what was proposed, note what would appear to be a solid chrome detailed pedistal:

And whats going in, 6825/06 On the public footpath on the northern side of Dean Street, near the Junction with Patrick Street, outside ‘Ovenden House’, Dublin 8 –

Establishing shot:

Close ups:

Do these look the same as that which was indicated in the applications? Not IMO anyway. At this rate I wont be suprised if the panels themselves also deviate from that originally indicated; maybe like the pedistals JC Decaux doesn’t have any of the Europanels in stock, and will have to opt for a “temporary” solution of much larger display panels – wouldn’t that be such a shame :rolleyes:

well if they get away with this shite you should just build whatever you want and say it’s temporary (“yes the extra two stories at the top are temporary structures” judge, “as per the JCDecaux case”)

So I was walking down the street today in Chicago, looking up at the tall buildings, and before I knew what had happened I bumped into something. When I stopped to check, guess what? It was a JC Decaux Advertising Display Unit! 🙂

Bloody Decaux. Bloody tall buildings. 😀

In view of the proposed Dublin Public Showers-with-Billboards plan, which the Irish Times may flag-wave on, and in view of some developments regarding this, a quick update seems worthwhile.

Readers/ posters will note that I have made specific criticisms of The Irish Times dereliction of reportage in relation to this scheme, and also I previously criticised to Cllr Andrew Montague (Lab), who has been one of the projects chief advocates in City Hall.

I wish to apologise. My criticisms were no where near as harsh as they should have been.

The Irish Times has traditionally styled itself as “the Paper of Record”; a bizarre, Orwellian, and farcical notion when one considers the following:

1) At present the Irish Times, as reported by Olivia Kelly, states and restates that the revenue “is estimated to be worth €1 million annually” (to JC Decaux). Yet this is the same paper, and indeed the same reporter, that previously stated the “contract that could be worth €90 million to the council.

Now I know Im no grade-A student at maths, but it would seem very basic to me that there is a shortfall of some €75 Million, when one deducts the €15 M (€1M x 15 year terms) from the €90 M that was first reported.

So either JC Decaux is a charity, giving 75 M to the city – or else the Irish Times has got (and continues to get) a most basic but essential figure wrong. Again and again. Has there been a correction or clarification in “The Paper of Record”? There has like fuck.

2) Cllr Andrew Montague (Lab) has been one of the prime instigators of the scheme, defending it on numerous occasions on RTE, liveline, and also in the Irish Times last year where he welcomed the granting of permission stating “I’m delighted that the council granted planning permission, it’s the first step to getting this up and running”.

In an almost Orwellian scenario, guess who the Irish Time’s Olivia Kelly got quotes off, when the IT recycled the story from a Sunday paper that theres no sign of the bikes – despite the billboards almost finished? What critic would make for a good quote – aha; Its Andrew Montague again!

It is a remarkable affair where the self-styled “Paper of Record” gets criticising quotes from somebody who is largely responsible for the scheme – without asking what his role had been in this regard, and without reminding readers of this fact. But then maybe one shouldn’t be suprised given the most basic mis-reporting of the facts and cash regarding this. Finally I note that although the Times recycled the story from elsewhere, Ms Kelly is still incapable of getting a most basic fact right that the WCs have been dropped from the scheme.

Rather than offering courses to others, maybe the Irish Times should send their own reporters back to media school. with a suggested first class in “Check your Facts”.

Paper of Record – My Arse.

@The Irish Times, March 19, 2008 wrote:

‘Bikes for rent’ group gets its ad panels but we will have to wait for cycles
OLIVIA KELLY

CITY BICYCLES, due to be provided by JC Decaux in exchange for outdoor advertising space in Dublin estimated to be worth &#8364] will not be available until next year, even though the advertising
panels will be erected by this summer.

JC Decaux has agreed to provide 450 bicycles for rent at 50 locations around the city, as well as four public toilets and a number of tourist signposts and freestanding maps, in exchange for 15-year permission for about 80 advertising panels.

The freestanding double-sided panels range in size from 2sq m – approximately the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m and will be placed on prominent sites, including Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza.

Dublin City Council originally intended that the bicycles would be provided free. However, it could not find anyone to run a free scheme.

In April 2006, the council announced that JC Decaux had been selected to run a bicycle rental scheme. The company was already running similar schemes in several European cities including Vienna and Lyon.

In April 2007 the council granted JC Decaux permission to erect in the region of 100 advertising panels across the city. In 24 cases appeals were made against the panels to An Bord Pleanála.

Last February the planning board upheld 18 of these appeals on the basis that these panels would cause a traffic hazard.

However, JC Decaux said the number of bicycles it would provide would not be reduced as it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed. This agreement was finalised in mid-2007.

A spokeswoman for the council said that JC Decaux had informed council officials that it intended to erect its panels by “this summer”. However, the bicycles will not be on the streets until next year.

“We don’t have an exact date from JC Decaux for the panels, but they have their planning permission and it’s up to them now when they use it,” she said.

Labour councillor Andrew Montague said he understood the scheme involved a significant amount of infrastructure, particularly the bicycle stations. However, he said JC Decaux should not have prime advertising space for free in the city in the meantime.

“If they are getting the advertising without the bicycles being available, they should pay for it, either by providing more bikes or making a cash payment to cover the intervening period.”

(c) 2008 The Irish Times

@The Irish Times, Saturday, April 15, 2006 wrote:

Plan to halve number of large ad hoardings
Olivia Kelly

Dublin 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 &#8364]

Under the contract, JC Decaux will have a licence to advertise in various locations around the city, principally using a free-standing “six-sheet” format, similar in size to bus shelter advertising.

Large 48-sheet billboards will not be used in future advertising under the contract, and the council is negotiating to reduce the number of JC Decaux’s current 18sq m hoardings by 50 per cent before the new advertising is erected.

The council hopes to eventually eliminate the 48-sheet format. While other advertising companies have large billboards on private properties which do not come under the council’s jurisdiction, the council hopes that the newer advertising formats will make billboard advertising obsolete and that An Bord Pleanála will look less favourably on granting planning permission for these hoardings.

“The redevelopment of different parts of the city means that, over a period of time, the 48-sheets will disappear. They’re not a suitable type of advertising for the city and they’re not even very effective,” council executive manager Ciaran McNamara said.

One of the principal benefits to the city of the new contract will be the provision of a bicycle rental scheme

While the terms of the contract are still under discussion, and it is unclear whether the rental deposit will be refundable, JC Decaux is to provide an initial minimum of 500 bikes and 25 city-wide bike stations under the scheme.

The company will supply install and operate the scheme on behalf of the council. Users will be able to collect a bicycle from one of the stations, cycle it around the city for a limited period before depositing it at any of the number of designated sites. The bicycles will have solid puncture-proof tyres and be “virtually vandal-proof”, the contractor said.

Automatic public toilets, for both able-bodied and disabled users, heritage trail plaques, public signposts and free-standing maps will also be provided by the contractor.

The council hopes the new advertising scheme, including all public facilities, will be in place within the next 12-18 months.

© 2006 The Irish Times

@the Irish Times wrote:

However, JC Decaux said the number of bicycles it would provide would not be reduced as it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed. This agreement was finalised in mid-2007.

A clarification, if you please: from the above quote, I would understand that the number of bikes to be provided has been reduced from the original number proposed (which, as has been noted before, is a figure yet to be released to the public). I know the detail isn’t in the public realm, so we can’t ever say for sure, but hear me out.

Hypothetical illustration (actual figures vary- numbers rounded for ease of comprehension [I’m looking at you, Joan]):

100 billboards = 1000 bikes (1:10 relationship)
95 granted (5 invalid/withdrawn; none were refused, remember)
25 cases appealed = (potential) further reduction of 25% in ads
Total reduction of 30% in bikes (70% of original application granted without appeal)
700 bikes will be provided (revised total)
15 appeals successful (=10 grants), but no commensurate increase in the number of bikes, i.e. why not back to 800?

Unless of course there’s no direct relationship between the number of ads and the number of bikes. But, as stated by JCDecaux, “it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed”. Sounds like a pretty b&w basis right there.

Why did DCC not either fix the number of bikes to be provided from the start, or at the very least make the proportional relationship explicit?

What’s that, DCC? Oh, right. It’s ‘commercially sensitive’ information. Aah, well, in that case…

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0417/ecocabs.html

more plans to get advertising into public spaces, once a group of antiwar protesters were walking across the the park to get to the dept of foreign affairs, holding a banner they were going to use the park wardons told them to get out for advertising in the park?

this so called ecocabs are just moving advertisments.

Part of the advertising strategy seems to be to cycle these yokes as badly as possible, thereby ensuring that you can’t miss them, or that you do so at your peril.

If Eamon Ryan is to continue supporting the concept, he should at the very least advocate training for the drivers (I can’t think of them as cyclists).

The DDDA sponsor these ecocabs – part of their promotion of CHQ.

Traveling along the N32 this morning I noticed two of these

Is there any truth in the rumour that JC Decaux have teamed up with Aircoach to produce a new version of the Metropole…….The prototype is located on Merrion Square adjacent to the American College….Check it out for location,location and…..Location ! 🙂

Pictures please Merrion Square must be off limits and progress for me would be to see Clare Street busses diverted down to Pearse St or from Leinster Street travel Great Cumberland Street

On the Ecocabs I would have very strong reservations on cyclists being allowed into Stephens Green; we all remember Robert Handy being mown down on a Baggot St pavement by a courier and as we know cyclists don’t require third party liability insurance which is fair enough for law abiding commuters but in the case of PSVs I would be reassured to hear that the operatives have received full health and safety training and that passengers have the benefit of adequate public liability insurance.

@ctesiphon wrote:

So I was walking down the street today in Chicago, looking up at the tall buildings, and before I knew what had happened I bumped into something. When I stopped to check, guess what? It was a JC Decaux Advertising Display Unit! 🙂

Bloody Decaux. Bloody tall buildings. 😀

It’s OK, ctesiphon, it seems the forward-thinking people of the city of Chicago have since installed these in strategic locations. Dublin might be next.

Comic relief . I think.

This little vistor is now on my doorstep for the next 15 years .

Objection – €20
Appeal fees – €300
Oral Hearing – 3 days off my holiday allowance

Finding this erected this evening………F***kin B******s

Sorry for the qulaity…hands shaking with rage…

http://antiadvertisingagency.com/projects/light-criticism

vid
http://www.antiadvertisingagency.com/wp-content/video/lightcriticism.mov

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

This little vistor is now on my doorstep for the next 15 years .

Objection – €20
Appeal fees – €300
Oral Hearing – 3 days off my holiday allowance

Finding this erected this evening………F***kin B******s

Sorry for the qulaity…hands shaking with rage…

why don’t you apply to have your own sign 300mm in front on each side and see what happens.
Or apply to have a plant on either side…

Or just find one of those learner drivers for hire;)

Some clearer images:

Sharp edges to split foreheads of careless pedestrians (ever walked into a pole) the blind and young children

Closer look – this really is 90deg – no bevel whatsoever…

Guidelines for Accessibility of the Built Environment
http://www.ncbi.ie/information-for/architects-engineers/guidelines-for-accessibility-of-the-built-environment
3. Routes must be kept clear of obstacles to avoid unnecessary hazards
5. Street furniture should have rounded edges.
5. Street furniture should have rounded edges.

Decaux apparantly consulted with NCBI and promised ‘a high stabdard of design’ – they clearly never said what the criteria for the design was.

😡

Wait until you see the one in rathmines, it is in the middle of the f**king pavement! it blocks about 3/4 of the available path. Doubtless, this will cause pedestrians to absently step into one of the busiest cycleways in the city. It’s all so unnecessary and makes my blood boil! If DCC wanted to support cycling in th city why not make it safer for cyclists to move around, this scheme is Sooooooooo counter productive.

The city also does not have a leg to stand on when countering illegal signage and the continued growth of temporary signs. I never realised I could be so enraged by street furniture!

Any chance you could snap a pic, CM00?

And anyone else- I’d be keen to see what these yokes look like in situ, particularly the larger roadside ones.

On which subject, I got this in my inbox this morning, taken yesterday evening by The Brother:

bah

is there a case for “enforcement by the people” here? Is it our civic duty to take a hatchet, petrol and one of these guys to these pieces of urban vandalism?

@CM00 wrote:

Wait until you see the one in rathmines, it is in the middle of the f**king pavement! it blocks about 3/4 of the available path. Doubtless, this will cause pedestrians to absently step into one of the busiest cycleways in the city. It’s all so unnecessary and makes my blood boil! If DCC wanted to support cycling in th city why not make it safer for cyclists to move around, this scheme is Sooooooooo counter productive.

The city also does not have a leg to stand on when countering illegal signage and the continued growth of temporary signs. I never realised I could be so enraged by street furniture!

blocks about 3/4 of the available path. – there is probably a planning permission condition that says that the footpath width may not be reduced below 1.8m – could anyone get out there with a tape measure??

How the hell did that pass a road safety audit??

They’re everywhere … strangely enough, the streets are so cluttered already that it’s difficult to say they actually make things worse. Where are the bikes though?

bikes won’t arrive til the Spring. In a seemingly sensible move, kinda, they are holding off launching them in the autumn or winter. The question of why not Spring 08 before the bloody ads came in, although a valid question, is presumably answerable with a barrage of guff from officialdom

bikes won’t arrive til the Spring. In a seemingly sensible move, kinda, they are holding off launching them in the autumn or winter. The question of why not Spring 08 before the bloody ads came in, although a valid question, is presumably answerable with a barrage of guff from officialdom

The true answer is that Decaux then get between €5 and €10 million in ad revenue before they have to provide the service.

They’re everywhere

Any other locations spotted appart from Smithfield, Parnell St and Rathmines?

Plus most of the advertisements in them are currently for a water conservation project by Dublin City Council. Please God they’re not paying for them.

I would be very curious as to the strength of conditions the board puts on metro north and interconnector projects…

I hope the airport parnell ocon the green are ad free 😎

would they ban forever? audio, projections , light displays, everything???
other wise it would be a bit hard to call it architecture???

Agreed, they’re not the worst designs in the world, but that was never really my problem with the smaller units.

In addition to my general opposition from the perspective of the pedestrian, there are two basic problems with them from the specific point of view of blind/partially-sighted pedestrians. As noted by Smithfield Redi up there, the corners should be rounded. In addition, as submitted by the DTO to An Bord Pleanála, the full extent of the sign should be detectable on the ground by white stick users. These fail that test.

I have just seen the one on the corner of Dorset St and Synott Place and it is completely shocking, lethal, it completely blocks the traffic light for the junction and the pedestrian crossing.

Lethal + tawdry shite. Shame on you DCC 😡

I hope this thread is of help to any future injured parties requiring compensation from JC Decaux and/ or Dublin City Council from any injuries incurred arising from these billboards.

Moreover, I understand there has not yet been a safety report back to councillors, as was required by March; can anybody shed any further light on this?

It is all simply outrageous.

Well,our City Manager stoutly declares his belief that we have a “World Class” traffic management system in Dublin.

The Rathmines and Dorset St hoardings flatly contradict this and appear to render it as the babblings of somebody possibly not quite “right in the head”.

However,it will probably be more productive to count how many senior City Council administrators decide to holiday in France this year….and next year….and the year after….. 😀 😀 😀

Moreover, I understand there has not yet been a safety report back to councillors, as was required by March; can anybody shed any further light on this?

It was requested in March. The original Emergency Motion was phrased as no work to be done until a full H&S study was done on the siting. It was toned down to a request for a H&S report.

I’m finding it hard to believe that some of these sitings have passed a road safety audit. The madness is the PP requires one AFTER they are erected; ‘let’s put them up to see if it is dangerous’.

d) The proposed structure shall be subject to a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit at the applicants expense. This will be done by an approved auditor through a public procurement procedure, which shall audit the entire permitted signage. Any failure shall be removed.

What was wrong with a Stage 2: “Completion of detailed design, prior to tender of construction contract. In the case of Design and Build contracts, a Stage 2 audit shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the contract.”

Instead of:

Stage 3: Completion of construction (prior to opening of the scheme to traffic wherever possible).

I’ll bet these Stage 3 Audits have not been done, any more than the requirement to remove 100 48-sheet billboards has been done.

I also got a look at the footing for the one on Parnell Street. Appalling standard of work “Ah sure, just lash a bit’o the ole asssh-felt in there” Looks dreadful. It’s also at about a 35deg angle (let’s catch the motorists eye just at the ped crossing….) Cleverly this is one of the applications where the orientation of the sign was NOT shown on the site plan. The linear lines of the footpath road etc are just f*cked by plonking this down at an random angle.

I am absolutely stunned by the siting of the Unit at Dorset St/Synott Place.
It not alone masks the kerbside traffic signal array but also manages to effectively increase the risk of serious accident to pedesterians concealed behind it too !

I have never before witnessed such a complete and total example of Corporate Negligence as is visible here.

At this stage I consider there is sufficient evidence to sustain such a charge against the City Manager and several of the Proffessional branch of DCC as it is quite obvious that none of these people carried out any form of due diligence in relation to this particular location.

World Class Traffic Management My Sweet Ass ! 😮

Now this is just taking the p1ss…. Dorset St/Synott Place

Planning Montage – note the scale is wrong on the structure (compare height with traffic lights)

As erected;

Establishing shot – Spot the child in a buggy anyone (how about at 50kph?)

Stepping out…

Erected in the wrong place.

You have to be kidding me……

5. The developer shall comply fully with the following requirements of the Roads & Traffic Planning Division; a) The proposed structure shall not impede any road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, vision along kerb edge lines or any other road infrastructure. This may require a slight adjustment in the proposed location as submitted.

Slight adjustment I would recommend here would be about 3 metres to the left….into a skip!

From the pedestrian crossing…taken whilst standing on the tactile ped crossing surface…..

Completely obscures cycle lane…

Motorists viewpoint

Spot the ped walking out?

This goes beyond the argument of advertising on our footpaths. This is criminal negligence on the part of DCC, JCDecaux and the contractor. Someone will die at this crossing unless this is removed NOW!

These structures have been slammed by the Dublin Transportation Office, described as a road safety hazard by An Bord Pleanala, a report on their safety has been requested by a city counciller to which no response has been given. If I were a lawyer representing a injury or death compensation claim at this point. I would also be citing the Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2007

Grossly negligent management causing death:
A high managerial agent may be guilty of grossly negligent management causing death if he knew or ought to have known of a substantial risk of death or personal harm and failed to take reasonable efforts to eliminate that risk. Penalties for grossly negligent management include:

A fine; and/or
Up to 12 year’s imprisonment; and or
A Disqualification Order whereby the managerial agent may be disqualified from acting in a management capacity by the court for a period not exceeding 15 years.

Breach of the order gives rise to a fine of €3,000,000 and/or 2 years imprisonment and/or further disqualification for 10 years.

There’s actually 2 of these outside the Bleedin Horse, the one shown above plus another outside the Bookies opposite.

That Dorset st one should fall victim to Toothy McSawsign as I showed earlier. It’s totally and utterly fucking dangerous. Great work smithfieldresi

the fucking traffic lights are blocked – how dumb does one have to be to allow this?

Thans to Smithfield Resi for those images and particularly for the Wording of the Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2000.

Thse images portray a situation far worse than anybody could have believed.
Perhaps the structures were erected in darkness by a French crew believing traffic flow to be in the opposite direction ?

I really do think that some form of writ should be slapped across the City Managers gob at opening of business tomorrow.
This thing encompasses all that can possibly be wrong with the Irish concept of good governance and responsibility.

In order to get to this actual stage the proposal will have been vetted by a cross section of EVERY professional department in DCC plus an Garda Siochana.
Are we being asked to believe that the sum total of every professional who inspected this amounted to a total inability to refer to reality as it pertains to public safety.

There is a very real need now for some form of impeachment mechanism whereby people such as the City Manager can be forced to account for their decisions.

The images of that buggy and pedestrian totally concealed behind this insanely placed structure tell the entire sorry tale.

One can see where people such as Noel O Gara get their confidence from when dubious planning and irregularity on the part of a Civic Authority result in such a potentially fatal mess.

It might be worth mailing those images to Gay Byrne or show them to Joe,as in the absence of true democracy in this pastiche of a Republic it`s probably the best chance we have of securing accountability ! 😡 😡 😡

This must be a piss take, exact same situation as you cross luas lines beside fourcourts beside old motor tax office, completely obscuring sight of pedestrians from traffic and vice versa. unbelievable!

This must be a piss take, exact same situation as you cross luas lines beside fourcourts beside old motor tax office, completely obscuring sight of pedestrians from traffic and vice versa. unbelievable!

Pictures please!! I’ll take a look but if someone could document this – also I will be picketing the Council Meeting tomorrow evening at City Hall (the old one!) from 6pm – anyone care to join me please! This madness HAS to be stopped.

my mobile number is temporarily in my profile under ‘about me’ – sent me a text or call

Liffey Street, west side, outside M&S, north face of sign.
Occupies roughly half of the footpath.

Liffey Street, east side, junction with Proby’s Lane, north face of sign.
Because of the setback at Proby Lane, blocks about 2/3 of the pedestrian ‘desire line’. At least the ads’ll get seen. :rolleyes:

Henry Street, north side, junction with Sampson’s Lane, west face of sign.

Henry Street, north side, junction with Moore Street, west face of sign.

and they;re all advertising water conservation. How about conserving our fucking public space you shower of ballbags!

Ah ctesiphon has saved me having to post the same images. Even on a pedestrian street where space is plentiful, the overwhelming sense of the whoring out the public domain hits you like a sack of spuds. It’s extraordinary just how offensive these units are in the flesh – you really have to observe them in real life to garner the true sense of outrage felt by their blocking of your path and taking advantage of public amenity for grubby commercial interests.

I agree with Stephen that the design of the units is smart and elegant, but as Smithfield Resi has noted the sharp edges are lethal should one have a tumble against one. Even on a busy street like Henry Street (the mayhem of Christmas anyone…), the potential for some bad knocks and scrapes is considerable. Indeed on that point, Henry Street is horrific as it to navigate in December – this are going to make it a nightmare.

Also what’s with the hokey generic skyline – it’s not even informed by its host city.

But a minor detail in a thoroughly dismal saga.

famous AIB pyramid??? graham???

Nice shot of the fine ‘ash-felt’ finish there. Well done Wallace. Fine job – cheap and cheerful. Pocket the cheque now.

I hope you’re right, Stephen.

@GrahamH wrote:

Ah ctesiphon has saved me having to post the same images.

Aah go on- mine were grabbed in a hurry at lunchtime, burdened with groceries, merely for info purposes. I’d be keen to see someone else’s take on them too.

I don’t mind the two Henry Street ones as much – at least they have a bit of breathing space, though the siting is crude – but the Liffey Street ones are horrors.

Any other pics from other corners of the city yet?

In fairness I think the finish is temporary…in the real sense, not the DCC roadworks dept sense

Would that be temporary in the same way that historic granite has been ‘islanded’ by a 50m strech of asphalt ‘footpath’ on Thomas Street for the last six months? (keep meaning to post pics)

In other news…

The City Council just passed a emergency motion (unanimously and agreed as without debate) that;

All work be halted on the JC Decaux scheme until a complete health and safety report has been issued (words to that effect)

eyes peeled people (date stamps on photos are welcome together with photos of people in hi-vis continuing to put them up)

Larger units

All the bases are in place

Where have these been spotted (I don’t drive much outside inner city these days)

Pic would be good – I’ve been considering google mapping them…anyone give a hand?

Damn missed that….

Grahamh`s picture of the bottom detail of these panels illustrates another potential for accident.
If one observes a blind person using a “white-stick” a pattern is discernible.
The person usually “sweeps” the area immediately in front of them in a varying arc.

Now as the numerous photo`s illustrate,DCC has superimposed most of the panels directly onto the footpath.
Therefore a Blind person can be placed in atruly awful situation as their “white-stick” will fail to impact upon any solid part of the frame due to the Cutouts.
This will leave the unfortunate Blind person disorientated and perhaps even injured as they walk directly into the frame itself.

This has to be the tackiest most ill-advised piece of slip-shod administration DCC have ever become involved in.
It`s not even the JCD/DCC contract that is grating,but rather the simplistic and downright dangerous manner in which these intrusive things have been erected.

God! That is criminal.

Guys, someone sort this out. This is insane. I could not even see the funny side of it if I wanted to. How much clutter are in those photos already?!

Strikes me as the kind of thing Morning Ireland could take an interest in (I think Cathal MacCoille cycles in from the Northside, and surely must care about road safety), and they appear to have more time to spend on features in this summer season. Need some hard-hitting interviewer like him or Aine Lawlor to grill (and crucify) JCD/DCC. Email sent – I think! (Used morningireland@rte.ie and it didn’t bounce back.)