New Advertising in Dublin
- This topic has 669 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
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: PermissionMain Location:
car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1Proposal 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.
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.
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. 0Time 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.From today’s paper
Ad space exchanged for 500 bikes
Olivia KellyDublin City Council has granted one of the world’s largest advertising companies permission to erect some 130 advertising panels across the city for 15 years, in exchange for 500 bicycles and four public toilets.
The bicycles are to be available for the public to rent, at a fee yet to be decided, by the end of the year, subject to approval of the planning permission for the advertising by An Bord Pleanála.
The contract with advertisers JC Decaux will see free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m (6.5sq ft) – approximately the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m (23sq ft) placed on prominent sites, including Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza.
JC Decaux had originally applied for approximately 150 panels, including several on O’Connell Street, but withdrew a number of applications including all those on O’Connell Street, following a large volume of objections.
However, it is likely that a number of permissions approved by the council will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála, particularly those in the high-footfall shopping areas of the city.
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.
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. The council also has a commitment from JC Decaux that it will remove its large advertising hoardings from the city.
While it was a “small victory” that the company had withdrawn its application for the O’Connell Street panels, Labour councillor Emer Costello said she was very disappointed that permission was granted for most of the panels.
“It is particularly disappointing for Smithfield, where the whole point was to have an open plaza. It will deface the civic space to have the beautiful vista littered with these polls.”
The deal struck with JC Decaux was not properly presented to the councillors before it was agreed, she said.
“This scheme wasn’t properly debated with the city councillors and I will be a lot more mistrustful of proposals like this in the future. We have sold ourselves short for 500 bikes and a couple of toilets and I don’t think it was worth it.”
However, fellow Labour councillor and long-time proponent of a city bike scheme, Andrew Montague, said the bicycles could make a substantial impact on city traffic.
“I’m delighted that the council granted planning permission, it’s the first step to getting this up and running.”
JC Decaux was operating a similar scheme in Lyon in France and it had proved extremely popular, he said.
“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.”
© 2007 The Irish Times
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….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
