Retention application for unauthorised development at Tailors Hall???
- This topic has 36 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
:rolleyes:
A notification of decision to grant pp for retention for unauthorised use in Tailors Hall has been issued by DCC (3642/09).
Is it possible that An Taisce has been holding weddings and dances in Tailors Hall without planning permission?
Might this impact on the setting or fabric of a protected structure? Might it have impacts on adjacent amenity? (I imagine AT would have predictable views on this if a nasty commercial owner was applying.)
The planning application asserts that they have pp for ‘community use’ (?) (but their planning application form does not record this permission).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Happily the matter has been appealed by a concerned citizen – so the Board will have an opportunity to adjudicate on the matter. (It appears that AT have also appealed – presumably against the €57k or so in development contributions?
A touch of Schadenfreude there?
Well, schadenfruede is enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others.
I am more exercised by what appears to be the double standards of others, especially as they style themselves as ‘Ireland’s National Heritage Organisation’.
Heaven forbid that arguments about crass commercial considerations (such as revenue which would be lost if an unauthorised use was refused permission – -in this case retention permission) should influence the purity of planning decisions (except, apparently, where it concerns US?).
Interesting, if unsurprising.
@publicrealm wrote:
:rolleyes:
A notification of decision to grant pp for retention for unauthorised use in Tailors Hall has been issued by DCC (3642/09).
Is it possible that An Taisce has been holding weddings and dances in Tailors Hall without planning permission?
Might this impact on the setting or fabric of a protected structure? Might it have impacts on adjacent amenity? (I imagine AT would have predictable views on this if a nasty commercial owner was applying.)
The planning application asserts that they have pp for ‘community use’ (?) (but their planning application form does not record this permission).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Happily the matter has been appealed by a concerned citizen – so the Board will have an opportunity to adjudicate on the matter. (It appears that AT have also appealed – presumably against the €57k or so in development contributions?
Tailors Hall was designed and built as a place of assembly. Holding weddings and dances in a purpose built place of assembly, from time to time, would seem to be pretty consistent with it’s original use.
Maintaining appropriate uses is central to proper upkeep of older buildings, especially Protected Structures.
Why is there even a planning issue about this?
. . . and how in the hell is Dublin City Council entitled to squeeze €57k out of the deal? . . . . when they did nothing to protect this building in the 70s except knock down everything around it.
@publicrealm wrote:
Re: Retention application for unauthorised development at Tailors Hall???
Oh what a hoot!!
Except that the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use. This was required due to changes in licensing laws in relation to holding of small dances/private events.
The Tailors’ Hall is as gunter alludes to actually purpose built for these type of small theatrical events and concerts, which have taken place in it for more than 300 years. The application is to permit continuation of this use into the future.
It’s a licensing issue rather than a development issue.
The individual who appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala is also apparently unaware of this …
Nice of the corpo to extort €50K out of a charitable organisation. They should go after other no-marks like the De Paul Trust who have singer songwriters around the odd night in their hostel or the indie kids running that new Exchange all ages rock venue/meeting place in Temple Bar:rolleyes:
@Devin wrote:
Oh what a hoot!!
Except that the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use. This was required due to changes in licensing laws in relation to holding of small dances/private events.
The Tailors’ Hall is as gunter alludes to actually purpose built for these type of small theatrical events and concerts, which have taken place in it for more than 300 years. The application is to permit continuation of this use into the future.
It’s a licensing issue rather than a development issue.
The individual who appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala is also apparently unaware of this …
it is indeed an established use. In fact my wife wanted to have our wedding reception there until I reminded her of her 3 friends redundant in the most part due to interminable ABP dithering over vexacious AFT appeals (allegedly)
Obviously the individual in question is a misguided idiot in Devin’s AFT mistyeyedness but
There are 2 other scenarios of course
Perhaps this poor ignorant soul is just carrying out the AFT maxim of read application, object, read grant, appeal. He has learnt at the hands of the masters – why shouldn’t they be hoist by their own petard
Alternatively he may live nearby and be thoroughly sick of noise pollution and disturbance. In which case he is using legitimate means to further his ends within the wonderfully democratic planning system
in any event I’m willing to suggest that this will be out of ABP with a positive outcome within the allocated time period – unlike anything else in the vacinity
To be clear about this – this only became a planning issue because of the making of applications to court for licences after recent changes in the law regarding alcohol/dancing at community licensed premises.
No new works or use are proposed.
Tailors Hall costs a lot to keep up, north of €100,000 has been spent on the hall in the recent past on fire safety systems and architectural conservation including restoration of historic windows, rainwater goods and stonework which has been partially funded by voluntary contributions raised by An Taisce and by them overseeing conservation grants projects.Events such as weddings contribute immensely to the coffers for maintainance, without the correct (updated) licenses these cannot take place.
Perhaps this poor ignorant soul is just carrying out the AFT maxim of read application, object, read grant, appeal. He has learnt at the hands of the masters – why shouldn’t they be hoist by their own petard
An Taisce actually object on approximately 3% of planning applications – recent history, particularly in Dublin has shown that ABP have upheld AT’s concerns and most recently ABP seem to be doing DCC’s planning function for them – ref Arnott’s/Carlton sites.
Alternatively he may live nearby and be thoroughly sick of noise pollution and disturbance. In which case he is using legitimate means to further his ends within the wonderfully democratic planning system
He doesn’t, and I’m not aware of any noise complaints. This is a basement venue after all.
The ‘concerned citizen’ is no stranger to An Taisce….(Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.)
in any event I’m willing to suggest that this will be out of ABP with a positive outcome within the allocated time period – unlike anything else in the vacinity
It is a simple administrative matter, not a complex development matter, why wouldn’t it be?
it is indeed an established use. In fact my wife wanted to have our wedding reception there until I reminded her of her 3 friends redundant in the most part due to interminable ABP dithering over vexacious AFT appeals (allegedly)
I’m sorry to hear about the 3 friends, but I’m not sure if you can really hold An Taisce responsible for overambitious overdevelopment and the associated property bubble collapse. If anything An Taisce has been warning how unsustainable the property boom was for years. Sure wasn’t the developer mantra, landgrab, make derelict, and apply for the biggest f-off tower you could regardless of plot ratio, setting, zoning or economic necessity.
Anyway, just to be cheeky that 55k needs to be raised somehow – donations gladly recieved I’m sure…(by way of ‘apology’ @publicrealm?;) )
wearnicehats, the first version of your scheme got a pretty poor reception when it was put up here on archissek in 2007.
Maybe an image of the revised scheme should be reposted in this thread to see if people think an appeal against it was “vexatious”.
@publicrealm wrote:
. . . . . especially as they style themselves as ‘Ireland’s National Heritage Organisation’.
leaving the baggage aside for the moment, most people [who are not actually in the An Taisce bubble] recognise that heritage and conservation in this country is like an asylum where none of the doors lock. At any moment something truely daft can come down the corridor.
I’ve used the phrase ‘conservation community’ before, but there isn’t really a conservation community here, just a loose collection of oddballs and misfits festering in isolation and indignantly firing off invective at the greedy developers and the bastards in planning who don’t get it . . . or is that just me?
If we could get our act together, act like a genuine community, people who share common purpose in guarding and protecting our heritage and environment [built and natural], we could sort this place out in no time, but how do you reach people like historians, who will spend ten years researching a book on a lost building rather than try and save the building, or archaeologists who painstakingly dig up vital information only to bury it again in unpublished reports, or the aforementioned An Taisce whose public utterances are nearly always – arrogant put-downs- and almost never – positive lessons.
This is not just an image problem, Conservation and heritage could be one of the engines that pulls this country out of it’s quagmire, if we all just met once in a while and worked out a strategy.
@Devin wrote:
wearnicehats, the first version of your scheme got a pretty poor reception when it was put up here on archissek in 2007.
Maybe an image of the revised scheme should be reposted in this thread to see if people think an appeal against it was “vexatious”.
happy to stand over anything – wouldn’t have the first clue where it is but you obviously know so repost away. not sure what you mean by images though
Smithfield resi states “most recently ABP seem to be doing DCC’s planning function for them – ref Arnott’s/Carlton sites”. of course they have – I’ve said it before – if you’re a planner on a hiding to nothing on a contentious scheme and you know someone in the mix – AFT for example – is a cast iron apellant then you can grant away with impunity – let someone else sort out your shit. that’s the system.
An Taisce whose public utterances are nearly always – arrogant put-downs- and almost never – positive lessons.
Gunter, I accept that they can be read this way, positive lessons are all very well but they usually come after the battle is lost, and they are quickly forgotten –
Who else is actually fighting the battle for heritage in this country?
Local Authorities? Largely more interested in development contributions.
The Heritage Council? Never get involved in planning, yet to see them make submissions on Development plans for example.
Dublin Civil Trust? – They do great work, (and with the greatest respect Graham) but don’t make planning appeals or get involved in enforcement etc (as far as I know unless this is under the radar. Georgian Society likewise.
DoE? Hardly, Gormley cannot marshall his troops to make sure national monuments are not slated for demolition!
Bord Failte – “Conservation and heritage could be one of the engines that pulls this country out of it’s quagmire” do they see that tourist come to Ireland for precisely this reason and tourism is a competitive advantage for ireland. No – which is why they are more supportive of urban ferris wheels and tax breaks for mega hotels than conservation.An Taisce is flawed. It is flawed by lack of money, time and resources and is largely reliant on donations and volunteers. But Ireland would be significantly worse off without it. And unlike the golden circles of property development, state body boards, and the political merry-go-round. It is a reasonable €45 a year to join, get involved and help. 🙂 I would love to see the people you mention prick the An Taisce ‘bubble’ and become involved. I would also love to see a more structured community have a voice BEFORE planning is granted – at the moment An Taisce is the only national organisation filling that void.
let someone else sort out your shit. that’s the system.
Look where it has got us. Change is coming to [strike]America[/strike] Ireland… we live in hope.
@wearnicehats wrote:
happy to stand over anything – wouldn’t have the first clue where it is but you obviously know so repost away.
You’re perfectly entitled to come on the internet and gripe over someone .. that’s what it’s for. But I think where it gets a bit stretched is where you can do this about AT due to their appeal against your scheme – as you have in three threads – but disassociate yourself from the scheme in question at the same time.
……… btw I’d be pretty confident no one would think AT’s appeal against that scheme was “vexatious”, “read application, object, read grant, appeal” or any of those things ….
@Devin wrote:
You’re perfectly entitled to come on the internet and gripe over someone .. that’s what it’s for. But I think where it gets a bit stretched is where you can do this about AT due to their appeal against your scheme – as you have in three threads – but disassociate yourself from the scheme in question at the same time.
……… btw I’d be pretty confident no one would think AT’s appeal against that scheme was “vexatious”, “read application, object, read grant, appeal” or any of those things ….
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=7435
probably this thread you’re referring to?
You’ll find that when I refer to the redundancies it isn’t my company or scheme so it is not my place to post its identity
That’s the other beauty of the net of course …. a username and talk about what happened to you in the 3rd person.
@Devin wrote:
That’s the other beauty of the net of course …. a username and talk about what happened to you in the 3rd person.
you see Devin you never fail to bite. Your blood pressure will not be so high if you simply realise that a huge proportion of architects despair at the system and see AFT as being as faceless obdurant and unapproachable as the mindlessly erratic ABP it lies in bed with.
It is laughable that the planning process demands that you meet and liaise with the LA but, when the decision is taken from them, no further discussion is allowed. Actually, it’s not laughable it’s completely insane.
@wearnicehats wrote:
Your blood pressure will not be so high
Lol!!!
Look man my point is stop prentending all this stuff you’re suddenly posting (this & other thread) re AT & ABP is not because YOUR scheme on HT was appealed.
Same with the guy who posted this thread – a planning consultant for a completely OTT celtic tiger scheme on Fleet Street significantly changed following appeal by AT
get a life the lot of yis!!!!
This is last comment I’m making in this thread ….. better things to be doing 🙂
faceless obdurant and unapproachable
As described usually by those who would wish AT to be a part of the golden circle, partial and easy to pull the wool over the eyes-able (gullible, I suppose). Compare the definition of ‘obdurant’ with ‘judicial’. What qualities are you looking for in a watchdog? Trust me all the stragems have been tried in the past….
- Drop in for a cosy chat to discuss your latest scheme so that you can later say you ‘consulted with An Taisce’.
- Extract the tiniest positive statement from a damning planning observation and trumpet AT’s “redevelopment in this area is to be welcomed” leaving out the bit about the 25 material breaches of the development plan.
- Make a donation and hope that your monster scheme gets conveniently ignored (not gonna happen)
- Do flashy presentations doing the rounds of all sorts of development boards, councillors, community groups, press the flesh, smile and then express outrage when AT comment – “but we consulted extensively”
- Make headline grabbing statements “economic terrorists!” “Obstructing Job Creation!!”
The hard truth is this. In relation to planning An Taisce doesn’t represent anyone except the Development Plan. That is to say it insists that the legally binding contract that was made between the people and those who administer their local area is upheld by legal process. If that seems faceless, obdurant and unapproachable, well what can I say. Should AT wear nice hats at Oral Hearings to make it seem friendlier?
ABP it lies in bed with
careful now…
http://www.collierbroderick.ie/Articles/HRUpdate-0210-Irish-Blogger-Settles-Libel-Case-For-100k@Smithfield Resi wrote:
careful now…
http://www.collierbroderick.ie/Articles/HRUpdate-0210-Irish-Blogger-Settles-Libel-Case-For-100kThat’s a bit uncalled for isn’t it?
We’re all friends here, no need for (substantiated) threats.
This thread is getting saucy though; play on!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
