O’ Connell Street, Dublin

Extraordinarily, nothing has changed under the review of the Special Planning Control Scheme. Aside from a tightening of the language, the SPCS now has LESS rather than more power than before. All references to postering on windows – the greatest scourge on the area – have been deleted. Criteria for the placement and size of internal signage has been deleted. The banning of external loudspeakers has been deleted. Limits on projecting signage and the type of information they can display has also been ditched. This is nothing short of baffling – it’s as if anything that was deemed too much effort to enforce has just been choicely dispensed with! The only improvement is the reduction of the maximum surface area of lettering on first floor windows from 40% to 25%. The list of non-exempt change of uses has also been extended to include mobile phone shop, catalogue shop, discount shop and launderette/dry cleaners.

Likewise, no account has been made of newer forms of advertising such as illuminated projectors, or types of floodlighting units, light displays and light colouring, which can so degrade a building during the day and after dark. Also no criteria for on-street advertising hoardings surrounding seating (which should be banned outright in the city), or indeed any guidelines for seating for that matter. No reference to smoking areas is made, or criteria for ash units and similar paraphernalia at the entrances to buildings. Also no reference to railing structures which are beginning to emerge at roofline level, or flagpoles and similar projections. What on earth was the point of this review at all?

If there is any consolation, all above deleted elements remain in the ACA policy, which does not require a review, so we still have them to cling on to. The new SPAC policy on removing advertising hoardings is hilarious, stating: “Following a review of the area, it is evident that some progress has been made in relation to the removal of poor quality advertising structures. The following advertising signs are now designated for removal:” Suggesting that a much-reduced ‘revised’ record of advertising structures is now being published, it goes on to list precisely the same array of structures as mentioned in the last plan. Indeed the sole advertisement that was removed over the lifetime of the last plan occurred under tragic circumstances, when a window cleaner fell to his death from above Ann Summers, pulling with him the 1950s Chas F. Ryan sign that was attached to the upper facade. There isn’t even the faintest whiff of a firm commitment to remove any of the designated signage under the lifetime of the new plan, including the disgraceful Baileys ensemble blighting the image of the entire city, even though the planning authority has sweeping powers under the 2000 Act to get rid of it, and its ilk, first thing in the morning.

Section 60: [condensed]

A planning authority may serve a notice on each person who is the owner or occupier of a structure situated within its functional area, if—
(a) the structure is a protected structure and, in the opinion of the planning authority, the character of the structure or of any of its elements ought to be restored, or
(b) the structure is in an architectural conservation area and, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary, in order to preserve the character of the area, that the structure be restored.

‘Works’ include “the removal, alteration or replacement of any specified part of the structure or element, and the removal or alteration of any advertisement structure.”

Now, the planning authority must pay for the cost of the works that are reasonably incurred by the owner, in dialogue with them, but this is tiny money relative to the improvement effected. It beggars belief that no effort has been made on this front to date. Even the carrot of standard grant aid alone, perhaps boosted a little to get rid of signage, may be sufficient to get the ball rolling on property. The time of ‘market force-led change’ is well and truly over – not that it was ever there in the first place – but pro-active measures must now be taken.

And all of this in the context of the newly completed Ulster Bank at 2-4 O’Connell Street Lower. One wouldn’t want in any way to detract from the marvellous reinstatement job done on the main 1920s shopfront, but really and truly, is the below type of dead frontage really permissable in an ACA, SPAC, on a Protected Structure, at the entrance to the capital’s main street? Effectively a permanently vacant unit. It gives an appalling first impression.

I mean really and truly, are these proposals even looked at? This new shopfront, however fancypants conservation-led, has the same effect on the street as the previous barracks-like ensemble. Indeed the original planning application stipulated that a shop display be maintained at all times, before a new application was granted that allowed for the ATM and screening. This opaque film was merely referenced in passing in the application and not even referenced in the planner’s report. And this all in spite of the fact that the bank originally stated that two ATMs would have to be mounted in the granite building next door, in spite of design concerns, as placing one in the window of the shopfront above would be impossible “due to security considerations”. Yet when structural issues prevented them from installing one in the shopfront next door, suddenly these ‘security considerations’ vanished into thin air, and the second ATM was installed as seen above. All that’s needed is a dingy net curtain to complement the nasty aluminium window (again why on earth this was granted permission…) and a flickering seedy neon sign inside. A shame. You’d think Ulster Bank would have more style.

Hmm, DCC’s response appears a lot more muted this time arouind after the slap on the wrist from ABP.

Wish they’d give them the same treatment over operators such as this. The new Spar on Upper O’Connell Street, open barely a few weeks, and look at the state of the joint, in spite of a raft of planning conditions outlawing all manner of signage, clutter and window obstruction. Nearly all you can see below is illegal.

Rather than SPCA powers being reduced, they need to be rigorously beefed up. It is critical that enforcement orders in SPCAs be made financially time-dependent, where fines for specified unauthorised works such as banners and posters start clocking up from the moment enforcement proceedings begin. This would clear out all SPCAs of their rubbish in the morning.

But alas at present, a property owner has up to eight weeks from the issuing of a notice to comply with it. This is entirely unsatisfactory in respect of banners and postering, where an entire building can become a public billboard for that length of time. An Post could drape the entire GPO in advertising and it would take eight weeks to get rid of it before court proceedings could be inititated. Indeed right across the road facing the GPO at present is a full-facade banner advertisment to Carrolls tat merchants at the height of the visitor season. Enforcement proceedings landed on their doorstep nearly three weeks sgo, yet it is still there, as is incidentially, a raft of illegal banners on every one of their stores in the city centre as erected a few weeks ago. This outrageous behaviour by this culturally bereft selfish shower is going both unchallenged, and where challenged, is giving the two fingers to the State and civil society.

Agreed Stephen re the shopfront. One of the better convenience store frontages in the city. But the postering is illegal. The Lotto unit illegal. The postcard rack illegal. The projecting signs illegal. The blanket obstruction of the window illegal. The lack of maintenance of a window display illegal. And one would have to wonder if they have a licence for the seating (though desirable).

Also these hideous canvas banner units surrounding seating are another manifestation of our ridiculous levels of over-regulation (ironic in the context that we don’t use our other extensive regulations where they are needed). Other European countries get by just fine with gracious, leisurely placed seating outside shops and cafés. But here we have to shield them with hideous fencing units, which both host advertising and get thoroughly shabby, thus degrading the street. They should be outlawed everywhere, unless architect-designed as part of a planning application. But again, not even a mention in the SPCA, never mind anywhere else.

O’Connell Street all abuzz this evening.

It is expected the tram and bus will be removed by midnight. The lifting equipment arrived earlier.

What a scene.

There was an eerie silence on the street for what was a very busy period. In spite of the grim circumstances, the pleasant pedestrian air to the closed off upper street could not have been any more noticeable. So rare to see so many people and no traffic at the same time. All of the usual hostility vanished like the flick of a switch.